Reply
Sat 18 Apr, 2009 05:49 am
this is a question I have been asked to write an answer to in my class. it relates to Sartre's existentialist notion that we, as free agents, can choose what sort of character we have, and I have come up with a brief answer and would enjoy some feedback.
Actors can choose what character they play in films, but they are still a particular person in “real” life.
When Sartre says we can choose our character, its not like we can flip between different characters or personalities, and if someone does do that we tend to think that they have some personality disorder.
Its incorrect to think that you can choose who you are at will, and it would seem that the best opportunities to choose your character is when your social environment changes. A person’s character is in part dependent upon your social circles; a person’s character has a social aspect which is an essential part of a whole character.
For example, when you are a part of an established social group, and one of the persons in that group suddenly start behaving differently to what you have come to know as the norm, the social group can become disrupted by this change, and for that reason, it’s not always right to say that we can choose our character as if there were no kind of social restraints that in part govern a person’s character.
However, when our social groups change, then that opens a path to potentially radically change your character.
@existential potential,
According to G.I.Gurdjieff "ordinary man" has no control over his "characters". They come and go according to "the law of accident". In order to gain such control he must "wake up" and develop his "essence" (spiritual being) from which position he can see the artificiality of his personae (origin: Greek masks held in front of actor's face).
@existential potential,
Quote:can we choose our character?
Is it possible
not to choose our character. I could argue that in the final analysis, we are
only what we choose, and that all the other inputs are simply elements which we apply to our choice.
@existential potential,
Quote:Its incorrect to think that you can choose who you are at will, and it would seem that the best opportunities to choose your character is when your social environment changes.
At the same time, a "social environment" doesn't change except through the actions of its individual participants. That is what a social environment is, after all: the sum of its agents' actions and transactions. It goes without saying that an individual's character is partly shaped by their environment, but that environment is itself a product of individual characters. Your example works
only if we acknowledge the ability of individuals to choose their character. You come pretty close to saying so yourself when you write:
Quote:For example, when you are a part of an established social group, and one of the persons in that group suddenly start behaving differently[/u] to what you have come to know as the norm
@fresco,
so "ordinary man" has no control over his "characters" because they fall victim as it were to whatever impression they unwittingly give to others, whereas people who are aware of this have potentially more control over what "character" they become.
@existential potential,
Not quite...they fall victim to random triggers as in dreams. For Gurdjieff, "ordinary man" is in a state of "sleep". We only have have the illusion of "control" and that is the case for the majority.
@existential potential,
We are influenced too much by everything around us to actually be able to choose our own character. Everything that happened before us is a factor, and it may just be my determinism, but I don't think you really can't change anything yourself.
I have to agree with vanessaknip -- and, by extension, with you, e.p. We could change our character only if we could substantially alter our environment. (The key word here is "substantially". Moving from DesMoines to Peoria is not a change in environment.) Our characters are molded early on by childhood experiences; to alter the effects of those experiences would take an effort far more heroic than any average human being is capable of.
And I realize that I've said two diffrent things here. But both are true.
@Merry Andrew,
Out of curiosity, what kind of move
would qualify as "substantial"? Would New York City to San Francisco count? San Francisco to Montgomery? Montgomery to Moscow? I know people who have made those moves and all of them believe themselves to have been changed by it.
@Merry Andrew,
what would qualify someone being a changed person?
I don't think its just a change in environment that counts towards a change in character. time is also a big factor, regardless of your environment. a person does not necessarily need to substanially alter their environment to change, they just need time. and by change, I do not mean altering the results of our childhood experiences, but less fundamental things.
@Shapeless,
None of those changes of venue would count as substantial, Shapeless. Certainly not NYC to SF or even Montgomery (Ala?) to Moscow (Ida?). The problem is, no matter where you go -- there
you are!
@existential potential,
I agree with all that, existential. Change of environment, by itself, is meaningless. (See my post to Shapeless, above.)
@Merry Andrew,
Quote:no matter where you go -- there you are!
Of course. But the "you" in New York can be quite different from the "you" in San Francisco. I have a friend who made that very move. In New York, he did not have the courage to enter a same-sex relationship. In San Francisco, he did. That's a substantial change in character any way you slice it. No doubt it is possible to salvage the theory of unchanging selves by claiming that my friend had it in him the whole time, which I do believe. But in one place he did not have the courage to act on it, and in another place he did. It seems to me that the theory of unchanging selves works fine on paper but does little to explain what happens in practice.
p.s. I meant the Moscow in Russia.
@Shapeless,
The situation you describe, that of your friend who moved out West from New York, doesn't necessarily represent a change of character. It's an apparent change in behavior, not character. You said yourself that "in New York he did not have the courage to enter a same-sex relationship." Acquiring new courage by a geographic change is not a change of character. If you had said that once he left NY, he lost all interest in same-sex relationships and no longer desired one, that might possibly have represented a change of character. But he had the desire in NY, just lacked the courage.
@Merry Andrew,
I suppose we could quibble about whether not having courage and then having courage represents a change, or whether one's behavior is the same as one's character. That's basically my point: the notion that our characters never change is more a claim about semantics than about practice. Since no one would deny that not having the courage to come out and then having that courage represents a change, all we're really debating is whether it's this kind of change or that kind of change.
@existential potential,
Choosing a characteristic property that defines the apparent individual nature of ourselves is quite possible. We can choose who we rather want to be on certain occasions in our lives. A character is judged on the basis of his actions and I solely believe that if we can choose our actions to execute a desired result, we can indirectly direct our character to the eye of another individual.
@vanessaknip,
I thought I would start this tread again...I'm not so sure, I think "character" is something that is changeable, it seems to me that part of what makes up our "character" is our sense of self or "ego", in which case, by understanding the role of the ego, or our image of "ones self", by understanding that we may be able to change ourselves in the deepest sense possible, though becoming aware of our own thought.
@existential potential,
We don't "choose" our character; we live it.
@existential potential,
existential potential wrote:
this is a question I have been asked to write an answer to in my class. it relates to Sartre's existentialist notion that we, as free agents, can choose what sort of character we have, and I have come up with a brief answer and would enjoy some feedback.
Actors can choose what character they play in films, but they are still a particular person in “real” life.
When Sartre says we can choose our character, its not like we can flip between different characters or personalities, and if someone does do that we tend to think that they have some personality disorder.
Its incorrect to think that you can choose who you are at will, and it would seem that the best opportunities to choose your character is when your social environment changes. A person’s character is in part dependent upon your social circles; a person’s character has a social aspect which is an essential part of a whole character.
For example, when you are a part of an established social group, and one of the persons in that group suddenly start behaving differently to what you have come to know as the norm, the social group can become disrupted by this change, and for that reason, it’s not always right to say that we can choose our character as if there were no kind of social restraints that in part govern a person’s character.
However, when our social groups change, then that opens a path to potentially radically change your character.
I don't know how you mean, "character". But people can (and have) turned over a new leaf. A dishonest person may (perhaps after an experience of great depth) choose to become honest. A philanderer may choose to become a faithful husband.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace