Character

[anthony]

W. Shakespeare:

"O, 'tis excellent to have a giant's strength! But it is tyrannous to use it like a giant."

Character is an amalgam of many things, but one important one is to do with power, I believe.

'Power' implies power over something, usually other people. Many seek it, and manoeuvre to keep it.

It becomes so synonomous with who they are, that they surely must eventually lose all that they had - especially character.

The man of character has no need for power, just for power's sake. I think of him (or her) as having powerful attributes that seldom have to be displayed to others... apart from some, like grace, dignity, and courage. (Barbara B. springs to mind.)

True character is rarely intimidating...

How does 'character' tie up with Objectivist ethics?

Does O'ism encourage one's growth of character?

Can it, indeed, ever impede that growth?

I'd be interested in comments.

Tony

[Mike Hansen]

W. Shakespeare:

"O, 'tis excellent to have a giant's strength! But it is tyrannous to use it like a giant."

Character is an amalgam of many things, but one important one is to do with power, I believe.

'Power' implies power over something, usually other people. Many seek it, and manoeuvre to keep it.

It becomes so synonomous with who they are, that they surely must eventually lose all that they had - especially character.

The man of character has no need for power, just for power's sake. I think of him (or her) as having powerful attributes that seldom have to be displayed to others... apart from some, like grace, dignity, and courage. (Barbara B. springs to mind.)

True character is rarely intimidating...

How does 'character' tie up with Objectivist ethics?

Does O'ism encourage one's growth of character?

Can it, indeed, ever impede that growth?

I'd be interested in comments.

Tony

John Galt's Speech relates well:

"Pride is the recognition of the fact that you are your own highest value and, like all of man's values, it has to be earned -- that of any achievements open to you, the one that makes all others possible is the creation of your own character -- that your character, your actions, your desires, your emotions are the products of the premises held by your mind -- that as man must produce the physical values he needs to sustain his life, so he must acquire the values of character that make his life worth sustaining..."

Mike

[anthony]

Mike, thanks;

That's a superb passage from Galt's speech that I'd overlooked.

It all ties up neatly - pride, to self-esteem, to individualism, and ... character.

There is however many a slip 'twixt cup and lip, and that's the area that interests me.

I am only going on personal experience when I put forward my notions. One is that a knowledge and understanding of the principles of Objectivism is not necessarily a guarantee of 'good' character; another, that it may be essential to approach O'ism initially with an already well-developed 'character'; and also, that the sheer force of the philosophy can overwhelm (to a degree) one's personal, as yet immature, character.

Yes, they are all related, and have been already highlighted by some writers and authors.

From a strictly central Objectivist view, these are all within the field of "integration", I think - and I largely have no problem with this.

Though more should be made clear about character, I feel, and for that I take inspiration from thinkers outside Objectivism, too.

But back to Rand's words you quoted, it's not the first time I've had the thought that she pre-supposed, or assumed, a basic 'good character' upon which she grounded her own principles.

Tony

[Mike Hansen]

Tony,

A knowledge of Objectivist principles does not create a good character. Action is required. Agree 100%.

"...it may be essential to approach Objectivism with an already well-developed character..." Essential to what goal? I'm assuming the goal here is to understand Objectivism. Several people whom I've talked to do not understand or accept Objectivism because of its relation to faith, which is not a sign of their character but of their epistemology and psychology.

Your third notion, "...that the sheer force of the philosophy can overwhelm (to a degree) one's personal, as yet immature, character." is a bit specific, making a general response difficult to figure out. But I do agree that Objectivism can overwhelm people. I was overwhelmed with confidence when I read John Galt's Speech . Objectivism is powerful stuff that a lot of people have in the backs of their heads, but submerge as an evil or refuse to acknowledge as a good.

If by 'principles' you meant Rand's general philosophical ideas, then she didn't base her principles upon a pre-existent 'good character.' She based her 'good character' on her pre-existent principles. Saying that she defined what made a character 'good' before defining her principles is like saying that she based her systems of epistemology and metaphysics upon her system of ethics, which has it backwards. If by 'principles' you meant ethics, then you've said that Rand based her ethics upon her ethics, which just doesn't work. What exactly did you mean in your last sentence?

Mike

[BaalChatzaf]

W. Shakespeare:

"O, 'tis excellent to have a giant's strength! But it is tyrannous to use it like a giant."

Character is an amalgam of many things, but one important one is to do with power, I believe.

'Power' implies power over something, usually other people. Many seek it, and manoeuvre to keep it.

It becomes so synonomous with who they are, that they surely must eventually lose all that they had - especially character.

The man of character has no need for power, just for power's sake. I think of him (or her) as having powerful attributes that seldom have to be displayed to others... apart from some, like grace, dignity, and courage. (Barbara B. springs to mind.)

True character is rarely intimidating...

How does 'character' tie up with Objectivist ethics?

Does O'ism encourage one's growth of character?

Can it, indeed, ever impede that growth?

I'd be interested in comments.

Tony

It would be interesting to tie the definition of character as given by Rand with the notion of virtue as given by Aristotle in the Nichomachean Ethics.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[anthony]

Tony,

A knowledge of Objectivist principles does not create a good character. Action is required. Agree 100%.

"...it may be essential to approach Objectivism with an already well-developed character..." Essential to what goal? I'm assuming the goal here is to understand Objectivism. Several people whom I've talked to do not understand or accept Objectivism because of its relation to faith, which is not a sign of their character but of their epistemology and psychology.

Your third notion, "...that the sheer force of the philosophy can overwhelm (to a degree) one's personal, as yet immature, character." is a bit specific, making a general response difficult to figure out. But I do agree that Objectivism can overwhelm people. I was overwhelmed with confidence when I read John Galt's Speech . Objectivism is powerful stuff that a lot of people have in the backs of their heads, but submerge as an evil or refuse to acknowledge as a good.

If by 'principles' you meant Rand's general philosophical ideas, then she didn't base her principles upon a pre-existent 'good character.' She based her 'good character' on her pre-existent principles. Saying that she defined what made a character 'good' before defining her principles is like saying that she based her systems of epistemology and metaphysics upon her system of ethics, which has it backwards. If by 'principles' you meant ethics, then you've said that Rand based her ethics upon her ethics, which just doesn't work. What exactly did you mean in your last sentence?

Mike

Nice one, and thanks, Mike.

You pin-pointed precisely what made me uncomfortable about my last notion - I see now, to base character on 'principles' certainly is "cart before horse"; to base it on 'ethics' is self-refuting. As you spotted, I almost used 'ethics' instead. Very vague. In the end I decided to leave it in to see if it stimulated some debate.

I'm branching into psychology here, but how do you think character is formed WITHOUT a rational philosophy as guidance?

IOW, how does a person find grace, strength, forbearance,benevolence, and of course, honesty and integrity - and all the rest - if they don't have the advantage of AR's philosophy?

Does 'adversity' have anything to do with it, as the old truism says?

Maybe this is also reversing cause and effect, since another notion I have is that one needs a strong 'Sense of Self' to be motivated to seek good character for its own sake. When one understands that one's thoughts and actions develop that character, one becomes very conscious of the criticality of WHICH thoughts and actions.

Anyhow, I offer as evidence that there does seem to be a distinct lack of 'sense of self' in many people - and a corresponding reduction of character.

"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence then, is not an act but a habit." (Aristotle)

Ba'al,

I have a much simplified knowledge of Aristotle's Ethics (and a patchy memory), so I'd appreciate you throwing light on his Virtue, as related to Character.

Just for starters, presuming their relation, did he view Virtue as "the product of the premises held by

your mind"?

Also, is Virtue, ie character, purely for one's own benefit, as per Rand?

Tony

[Mike Hansen]

I'm branching into psychology here, but how do you think character is formed WITHOUT a rational philosophy as guidance?

IOW, how does a person find grace, strength, forbearance,benevolence, and of course, honesty and integrity - and all the rest - if they don't have the advantage of AR's philosophy?

Does 'adversity' have anything to do with it, as the old truism says?

Maybe this is also reversing cause and effect, since another notion I have is that one needs a strong 'Sense of Self' to be motivated to seek good character for its own sake. When one understands that one's thoughts and actions develop that character, one becomes very conscious of the criticality of WHICH thoughts and actions.

Tony,

There are two possibilities here: you either think about your values, or not:

If you think about your values, and you think rationally and only maintain rational values, then you are an Objectivist and a rational philosophy has been your guide. If you think about your values, but maintain irrational ones, the cognitive dissonance would kill you.

If you don't consciously think about your values, then your character is defined purely by psychology (no conscious effect means it's all subconscious). In the person who doesn't think about values, abstract psychological labels form his/her character. But I don't like the word 'character' in this case. People who don't consciously think about their values are more like automatic filters... like animals. Character, though, is a very human thing.

One thing I suggest for you to do, before anything else, is to define your terms. What is strength? What is benevolence? What is grace?

Also, a more general question which must be answered beforehand is: CAN a person find grace, strength, forbearance, etc. without a rational philosophy? Or, can these traits of character be obtained without logic, but end up being invalid as a result? (Would you call somebody strong if they couldn't back up their conclusions?)

I know I didn't answer all of your questions here, but I'm a little bit strained on time... I'll get back to it tomorrow .

Mike

Edited June 26, 2010 by Mike Hansen

[anthony]

..."the creation of your own character - that your character, your actions, your desires, your emotions, are the products of the premises held by your mind." (John Galt)

Mike,

I am the last one to deny that Ayn Rand's "top-down" methodology to gaining character is the most effective and entrenched - and rationally moral. She viewed 'character'

as not a primary goal, it appears, but an important by-product.

Having stated that, can you agree that it is not the only way?

The "bottom-up" approach, that is most common amongst people,- those of mixed premises mainly - is definitely not based upon solid principles (floating, in fact), but it is more immediate in practice and effect.

To deal with life, and specifically, other people, perhaps a temporary 'system' is better that no system at all.(?)

(That's probably how mankind arrived at the Golden Rule, for example.)

Anyhow, I am not defending this approach, except to hypothesise that 'top-down', and 'bottom-up', are not necessarily mutually exclusive: one might be supportive of the other.

Tony

[Brant Gaede]

Don't forget who you are in this character-building business. Don't forget to add in integrity--and courage.

Pre-heat he oven to 350 and bake for a lifetime.

--Brant

cooking

[anthony]

Don't forget who you are in this character-building business. Don't forget to add in integrity--and courage.

Pre-heat he oven to 350 and bake for a lifetime.

--Brant

cooking

Hmmm...don't know if I agree. You apparently like the crusty version. I reckon 390, and half a lifetime, should do it.

Still crispy, maybe a bit soggy inside - but you've still got time to savor it.

Tony

[Mike Hansen]

..."the creation of your own character - that your character, your actions, your desires, your emotions, are the products of the premises held by your mind." (John Galt)

Mike,

I am the last one to deny that Ayn Rand's "top-down" methodology to gaining character is the most effective and entrenched - and rationally moral. She viewed 'character'

as not a primary goal, it appears, but an important by-product.

Having stated that, can you agree that it is not the only way?

The "bottom-up" approach, that is most common amongst people,- those of mixed premises mainly - is definitely not based upon solid principles (floating, in fact), but it is more immediate in practice and effect.

To deal with life, and specifically, other people, perhaps a temporary 'system' is better that no system at all.(?)

(That's probably how mankind arrived at the Golden Rule, for example.)

Anyhow, I am not defending this approach, except to hypothesise that 'top-down', and 'bottom-up', are not necessarily mutually exclusive: one might be supportive of the other.

Tony

Tony,

I agree 100% that a 'character' may be formed by other means, but as I said before, I don't like the term 'character' in those cases. Ayn Rand stated the idea that man can only survive by using his rational mind. I apply this to character and say that a human character may only be created by a rational mind. People who don't form their characters by logic are not forming characters, only automatic filters, which makes them animals.

A temporary system is definitely better than no system at all. Without any character, man cannot value himself. Without such value, man cannot survive.

Okay, let's do some clarification. When you refer to Rand's ideas as top-down, it makes me think that top-down refers to the creation of a character as a product of the mind's premises, which is what Rand says. What, then, is bottom-up? If it is the opposite of top-down, then it is the creation of the mind's premises as a product of one's character... please clarify what top-down and bottom-up refer to.

Mike

[Mike Hansen]

Don't forget who you are in this character-building business. Don't forget to add in integrity--and courage.

Pre-heat he oven to 350 and bake for a lifetime.

--Brant

cooking

Brant,

I've been using a barbecue all this time...

Mike

[Brant Gaede]

..."the creation of your own character - that your character, your actions, your desires, your emotions, are the products of the premises held by your mind." (John Galt)

Mike,

I am the last one to deny that Ayn Rand's "top-down" methodology to gaining character is the most effective and entrenched - and rationally moral. She viewed 'character'

as not a primary goal, it appears, but an important by-product.

Having stated that, can you agree that it is not the only way?

The "bottom-up" approach, that is most common amongst people,- those of mixed premises mainly - is definitely not based upon solid principles (floating, in fact), but it is more immediate in practice and effect.

To deal with life, and specifically, other people, perhaps a temporary 'system' is better that no system at all.(?)

(That's probably how mankind arrived at the Golden Rule, for example.)

Anyhow, I am not defending this approach, except to hypothesise that 'top-down', and 'bottom-up', are not necessarily mutually exclusive: one might be supportive of the other.

Tony

Tony,

I agree 100% that a 'character' may be formed by other means, but as I said before, I don't like the term 'character' in those cases. Ayn Rand stated the idea that man can only survive by using his rational mind. I apply this to character and say that a human character may only be created by a rational mind. People who don't form their characters by logic are not forming characters, only automatic filters, which makes them animals.

A temporary system is definitely better than no system at all. Without any character, man cannot value himself. Without such value, man cannot survive.

Okay, let's do some clarification. When you refer to Rand's ideas as top-down, it makes me think that top-down refers to the creation of a character as a product of the mind's premises, which is what Rand says. What, then, is bottom-up? If it is the opposite of top-down, then it is the creation of the mind's premises as a product of one's character... please clarify what top-down and bottom-up refer to.

Mike

It is not true "that man can only survive by using his rational mind." This is simply a Randian overstatement. All people are animals, btw, work off that.

--Brant

[anthony]

Mike,

Bottom up? I suppose - seeking 'good' character for its own sake; practical, trial and error, rather than rational, based; motivated by the desire to feel worthy to oneself, but also shaped by adversity; self-initiated, for self-reward.

Differentiated from AR's 'from principle down to specific' rational method.

I admit all a bit broad, but how else does one explain those thousands of men in the past and present who showed the most admirable character from - at best - partly rational premises? Most often, religious and collectivist premises?

To try another angle: imagine that you had come across and studied the full works of Nathaniel Branden, but had never (improbably) heard anything about Ayn Rand.

Would Branden's teaching about self-knowledge and self-esteem be sufficient basis for a good, conscious, life, and specifically a well developed character? For me, I'd say so.

IMO, Branden's approach is largely bottom-up, from the deep human need for self-respect,(implemented good character), to its accomplishment. Although of course his premises are rational and objectivist.

The two approaches to 'character', Rand's and Branden's, philosopher and psychologist, intersect in a mutually- reinforcing way, I believe.

Tony

[Mike Hansen]

Mike,

Bottom up? I suppose - seeking 'good' character for its own sake; practical, trial and error, rather than rational, based; motivated by the desire to feel worthy to oneself, but also shaped by adversity; self-initiated, for self-reward.

Differentiated from AR's 'from principle down to specific' rational method.

I admit all a bit broad, but how else does one explain those thousands of men in the past and present who showed the most admirable character from - at best - partly rational premises? Most often, religious and collectivist premises?

To try another angle: imagine that you had come across and studied the full works of Nathaniel Branden, but had never (improbably) heard anything about Ayn Rand.

Would Branden's teaching about self-knowledge and self-esteem be sufficient basis for a good, conscious, life, and specifically a well developed character? For me, I'd say so.

IMO, Branden's approach is largely bottom-up, from the deep human need for self-respect,(implemented good character), to its accomplishment. Although of course his premises are rational and objectivist.

The two approaches to 'character', Rand's and Branden's, philosopher and psychologist, intersect in a mutually- reinforcing way, I believe.

Tony

Tony,

If a person is honest or has good integrity, and they haven't based these virtues on reason, then it's most likely faith. There were plenty of devout mormons at my high school who were honest about everything. I would ask them why, and they would say, "because it's the right thing to do." I would ask them why it's the right thing to do, and they would say that "it just is." They couldn't explain or rationally support their honesty, but they acted that way anyways (but accidental 'virtue' is not virtue).

I've never read Nathaniel Branden's ideas, so I'm not going to reply to that specifically. But, anybody can have a good character if they approach life in a rational way. If Branden approaches things rationally, then he's probably right. If Ayn Rand has an affair with somebody, then it's probably a good bet that he's a rational guy ;) .

Mike

[anthony]

Mike,

Bottom up? I suppose - seeking 'good' character for its own sake; practical, trial and error, rather than rational, based; motivated by the desire to feel worthy to oneself, but also shaped by adversity; self-initiated, for self-reward.

Differentiated from AR's 'from principle down to specific' rational method.

I admit all a bit broad, but how else does one explain those thousands of men in the past and present who showed the most admirable character from - at best - partly rational premises? Most often, religious and collectivist premises?

To try another angle: imagine that you had come across and studied the full works of Nathaniel Branden, but had never (improbably) heard anything about Ayn Rand.

Would Branden's teaching about self-knowledge and self-esteem be sufficient basis for a good, conscious, life, and specifically a well developed character? For me, I'd say so.

IMO, Branden's approach is largely bottom-up, from the deep human need for self-respect,(implemented good character), to its accomplishment. Although of course his premises are rational and objectivist.

The two approaches to 'character', Rand's and Branden's, philosopher and psychologist, intersect in a mutually- reinforcing way, I believe.

Tony

Tony,

If a person is honest or has good integrity, and they haven't based these virtues on reason, then it's most likely faith. There were plenty of devout mormons at my high school who were honest about everything. I would ask them why, and they would say, "because it's the right thing to do." I would ask them why it's the right thing to do, and they would say that "it just is." They couldn't explain or rationally support their honesty, but they acted that way anyways (but accidental 'virtue' is not virtue).

I've never read Nathaniel Branden's ideas, so I'm not going to reply to that specifically. But, anybody can have a good character if they approach life in a rational way. If Branden approaches things rationally, then he's probably right. If Ayn Rand has an affair with somebody, then it's probably a good bet that he's a rational guy ;) .

Mike

Mike,

Sure, that arbitrary "right thing to do", on faith, and by faith, advocacy for 'good character' has always been around.

But I think it's not the only non-rational motivation: the third major motive you have not mentioned is practicality.

Good character traits 'work' in practice.

By trial and error, the effectiveness, or 'efficacy' of good attributes has been demonstrated to get the best results. e.g. Honesty IS the best policy - if only because it is simpler than deceit. Similarly, with integrity and courage.

So not accidental, quite, but also not principle-based.

Btw, I can't recommend Branden's books highly enough . Here is his definition of integrity : he calls it "the congruence between what you know, what you profess, and what you do."

In another thread you bring up induction and deduction, and it's an interesting thought for me that Nathaniel Branden's bottom up approach - as I've called it - to self-esteem appears to lean more towards inductive reasoning. But isn't that largely the psychologist's approach?.

Christopher, or someone, can you advise?

Tony

[Mike Hansen]

Mike,

Sure, that arbitrary "right thing to do", on faith, and by faith, advocacy for 'good character' has always been around.

But I think it's not the only non-rational motivation: the third major motive you have not mentioned is practicality.

Good character traits 'work' in practice.

By trial and error, the effectiveness, or 'efficacy' of good attributes has been demonstrated to get the best results. e.g. Honesty IS the best policy - if only because it is simpler than deceit. Similarly, with integrity and courage.

So not accidental, quite, but also not principle-based.

Btw, I can't recommend Branden's books highly enough . Here is his definition of integrity : he calls it "the congruence between what you know, what you profess, and what you do."

In another thread you bring up induction and deduction, and it's an interesting thought for me that Nathaniel Branden's bottom up approach - as I've called it - to self-esteem appears to lean more towards inductive reasoning. But isn't that largely the psychologist's approach?.

Christopher, or someone, can you advise?

Tony

Tony,

Hold on one second. Practicality is rational, and you defend it as such. It can't be included with faith as non-rational.

I really like Branden's definition of integrity. That alone is a good advertisement.

From what I can tell about Branden's ideas, and induction/deduction, he seems to be on the induction side. He doesn't derive morality from more general principles (deduction), preferring instead to test certain ideas for moral validity (induction). But take my words here with a grain of salt, for (1) I could be wrong about Branden, and (2) I could be wrong about induction/deduction.

Mike

[anthony]

Mike,

Sure, that arbitrary "right thing to do", on faith, and by faith, advocacy for 'good character' has always been around.

But I think it's not the only non-rational motivation: the third major motive you have not mentioned is practicality.

Good character traits 'work' in practice.

By trial and error, the effectiveness, or 'efficacy' of good attributes has been demonstrated to get the best results. e.g. Honesty IS the best policy - if only because it is simpler than deceit. Similarly, with integrity and courage.

So not accidental, quite, but also not principle-based.

Btw, I can't recommend Branden's books highly enough . Here is his definition of integrity : he calls it "the congruence between what you know, what you profess, and what you do."

In another thread you bring up induction and deduction, and it's an interesting thought for me that Nathaniel Branden's bottom up approach - as I've called it - to self-esteem appears to lean more towards inductive reasoning. But isn't that largely the psychologist's approach?.

Christopher, or someone, can you advise?

Tony

Tony,

Hold on one second. Practicality is rational, and you defend it as such. It can't be included with faith as non-rational.

I really like Branden's definition of integrity. That alone is a good advertisement.

From what I can tell about Branden's ideas, and induction/deduction, he seems to be on the induction side. He doesn't derive morality from more general principles (deduction), preferring instead to test certain ideas for moral validity (induction). But take my words here with a grain of salt, for (1) I could be wrong about Branden, and (2) I could be wrong about induction/deduction.

Mike

Mike,

No. I think what I was describing with >"good character traits work in practice...[but they are] not principle-based"< is no more, or no less, than pragmatism.

Ayn Rand deals succinctly with the immorality of judging something only by its outcome, and you can find the reference to Pragmatism in 'The Ayn Rand Lexicon' (- which is an invaluable tool, if you haven't discovered it yet). Sorry, I can't provide the link.

About Branden, I believe that what puts him way above anyone else in that field, is that he is as brilliant a deductive philosopher/psychologist as he is inductive. As evidenced by his huge contributions to early Objectivism.

Tony

[Mike Hansen]

Tony,

I understand now. I screwed up there in not realizing that you meant practicality without principle. My bad. And you are right, that is another non-rational motivation.

I've read through the lexicon before, but thanks for the reminder. The stuff there on pragmatism is great. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/pragmatism.html

Mike