Wo/man cannot evolve beyond his/her character

“Man cannot evolve beyond his character”—Becker

Becker makes the point that the humanization process is one wherein the individual exchanges the natural organismic propensity for a mysterious symbolic dictation. The child in its very essential formative age is faced with denying that which ‘comes naturally’ for what are symbolic dictates that are far beyond its ability for comprehension. The child’s formation of character is dictated by its need to be somebody in the symbolic world.

The child continual loses battles that s/he cannot comprehend. John Dewey learned long ago that “the child continually loses battles he does not understand…we earn our early self-esteem not actively but in large part passively, by having our action blocked and re-oriented to the parents pleasure.”

In the very essential formative years the child develops character traits that in many cases remain with that individual for the rest of their life.

What is character? Character is the network of habits that permeate all the intentional acts of an individual.

I am not using the word habit in the way we often do, as a technical ability existing apart from our wishes. These habits are an intimate and fundamental part of our selves. They are representations of our will. They rule our will, working in a coordinated way they dominate our way of acting. These habits are the results of repeated, intelligently controlled, actions.

Habits also control the formation of ideas as well as physical actions. We cannot perform a correct action or a correct idea without having already formed correct habits. “Reason pure of all influence from prior habit is a fiction.” “The medium of habit filters all material that reaches our perception and thought.” “Immediate, seemingly instinctive, feeling of the direction and end of various lines of behavior is in reality the feeling of habits working below direct consciousness.” “Habit means special sensitiveness or accessibility to certain classes of stimuli, standing predilections and aversions, rather than bare recurrence of specific acts. It means will.”

Britannica specifies that attitude is “a predisposition to classify objects and events and to react to them with some degree of evaluative consistency.”

If I consult my inner self I cannot focus upon an attitude but can infer such an attitude based on behavior. If I wish to become conscious of my intuition I can through observation of behavior describe the attitude, which, in turn, allows me to ascertain the nature of my intuition.

When a mother tells her son “you must change your attitude”. The son cannot change the attitude directly but the son must change his intuition from which the inferred attitude emanates. This does become a bit convoluted but in essence when we wish to change an attitude we are saying that our intuition must be modified. We can modify intuition only through habit directed by our will.

“Were it not for the continued operation of all habits in every act, no such thing as character would exist. There would be simply a bundle, an untied bundle at that, of isolated acts. Character is the interpenetrating of habits. If each habit in an insulated compartment and operated without affecting or being affected by others, character would not exist. That is conduct would lack unity being only juxtaposition of disconnected reactions to separated situations. But since environments overlap, since situations are continuous and those remote from one another contain like elements, a continuous modification of habits by one another is constantly going on.”

My understanding of character and the quotations concerning the nature of character are taken from “Habits and Will” by John Dewey

http://www.alexandercenter.com/jd/johndeweyhabits.html.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Something is missing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why not try to understand character by observing it in real life?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Does anyone actually dispute that?

I have to disagree with that. For one thing, people are continually changing in many aspects of life ...just that change alone will have an impact on their essential character. To say that person can't change, which is essentially what Becker is saying, is ludicruous ...people change all the time. People change when they move to a new city/area; people change when they get married; people change when they have children; people change when they go to war and kill other people; etc.

Baron Max

 

Baron

The word evolve is poorly choosen. The auther means that character determins our destiny, we cannot go beyond the character we construct. As the rest of the post makes clear we can change our character by changing our habits.

 

Hmm, then you go on to say:

So you see, the second sentence negates the first sentence!

We CAN go beyond our character by constructing a new character.

I'm confused.

Baron Max

 

Sounds like matrix to me. We get a road or a map at birth. Like we are designed to be who we are. A great affect have our family and friends of course.

 

Baron

What I want to say is that we can run but we can not get away from our character. We can change our character but it, our character, determines our destiny.

 

Well, what about when someone else's character changes out destiny? Like a random murderer? Or a phedophile killing our children? Or a freak accident on the way to work which paralyzes us from the neck down?

See? It's not so simple to say the OUR OWN character determines OUR destiny. In fact, there are very few things in life that's so simple!

Baron Max

 

Character is a result of habit and our habits are formed as a result of our will. The world around us greatly influences our perception and thus our understanding but this influence can be fought by our character.

 

And there is what is missing. What determines the Will?

 

A combination of your nature and how you were brought up. What about hermits and anchorites though, those who have no society or companions to shape their will?

 

Which man? Who's character? That statement is too general to make sense.

Is this a new philosophy? I've never heard of this one, but yes people learn to be proper humans, civilized beings, for the benefit of society.

Character is not "formed", it's born. You are born with a certain character, and sometimes it will be easy for you to adapt to the rules of society because of it, and sometimes it will be hard. Some people are born with the exact character needed to be bossed around, and do well in those positions, while other people are natural rebels, but it does not really say much about either person besides the fact that Person A is a conformist and Person B does not like authority. It's more difficult to do well in school when you don't like authority.

That has nothing to do with adulthood. That's childhood. An adult is more than just a adult version of their childhood self, an adult also has the ability to think for themselves, and ignore everything their parents taught them.

I disagree. Some of my traits I had from birth and some of my traits I learned to adapt to society. I was never a conformist, I was a rebel type, and I did not really like academics as a kid, I liked to play games, joke around, and not take life seriously. However environment did make me more serious and less of a joker. The truth is, childhood is not the end of adaptation, it goes on through life, and I still adapt today. I'm just as fluid if not more adaptable and fluid than I was when I was young.

I don't think it's so simple. Character is also based on personality type, talents, skills, how a person thinks has more to do with it than what they experience. How a person feels has more to do with it than how they are raised, as some people are raised perfectly and feel depressed all the time while some people are raised poorly and are happy.

Habits are easily changed.

You need to prove your case, not just use the Britannica to back up your statements.

Once again it's not that simple.

Intuition usually cannot be modified much, you either have it or you don't. People who don't can be taught to behave properly by people who do.

Character and habits are connected, but it's not the key to understanding a persons character, you cannot simply analyze their habits to know them. You have to know how they feel.

[/QUOTE]

I think character is related to personality, and personality is by birth, it can be adapted and change over time, by the environment, but certain aspects of are person are born and not formed. Emotional capabilities or emotional IQ, is born. Habits are formed. Personality is formed. However emotions and emotional IQ has a lot to do with habits and personality.

 

I think what it means is, the collective character of humanity determines the collective destiny of humanity. That much is true, and this does break down on the individual level, because humanity is only as strong as it's individuals.

I just think, that while humans can be taught some things, some things cannot be taught. I don't think you can teach emotions, or teach emotional intelligence. Some children are just born angry, and die angry. Some children are born and just don't cry much and don't have many emotional outbursts at all, and they'll generally be emotionally flat as adults too.

So the emotional element cannot be taught, you can teach people how to properly express it. If someone is mad you can teach them the proper way to be angry.

 

I think Christianity and religion sometimes has the opposite effect. You see, while a meek and docile character for all is good in some ways for the world, it all depends on how the book is interpreted. What would have happened if there were no religion? We'd likely have gone extinct years ago. However if we have religion, those who are aggressive can use religion to fuel aggression.

Religious people in general, at least the true believers, they'll do anything their religion says because if they are a true believer, thats how it is.

In general, humanity as a collective needs a character that allows humanity to survive. If this character is docile and meek, thats just fine, I'd say at this time we are too aggressive and destructive. However if there were a time where humans faced a threat by aliens, it would not be difficult to promote aggression, I think thats one thing humans are experts at, and I don't think aggressive acts require aggressive character. It's more based on emotions than character. The most emotional humans are likely to snap first.

 

Wow! What the fuck is "collective character of humanity"? And more importantly, who determines it?

"The collective character of humanity determines the collective destiny of humanity."???

Hitler, almost all by himself, determined a major destiny for a major part of the world in the 30s and 40s. There are many individuals throughout history who almost single-handedly changed the course of history and of mankind. There was no "collective" nothing involved! That statement just can't be allowed to stand without challenge ....and I hereby do that!

Again I have to disagree. And I think World War II is again a good example to show that your statement is NOT true. At the time of World War II, the German people were no longer warlike barbarians of earlier times ..they were contended farmers and merchants and fishermen. Hitler changed that character into a dominating force in Europe ...and there was nothing "collective" about it!

And to say that humanity is only as strong as it's individuals is ignoring how the peaceloving, easygoing Americans could be taught and trained to be part of the greatest, most powerful military force in the world. All of those soldiers were NOT strong and powerful as individuals ...in fact history has shown us that many of those victorious soldiers were meek and weak, yet they were willing to try to fight and to die for their country.

"Collective character"? "Collective destiny"? Whoa!! I think you've got a long, long ways to go to explain and/or prove anything like that!

Baron Max

 

Christianity discouraged man from progressing off a cliff, Christianity kept man docile and meek enough to survive. In this case Christianity was neccessary for the survival of the species and so I'm FOR religion. Humans have no self control and are animals who need guidance.

Thats a load of crap. First when you speak of Christianity you are speaking of a very specific breed of Christianity written and edited by King James. You are thinking of THAT form. However it's not the only form of Christianity that existed. You are assuming the religion did this, you are assuming that Christianity did this, it was neither. It was people, individuals, who abuse individuals, and without Christianity it would have been even worse. You don't seem to realize that without religion, people would rob and kill each other for fun, it would desend back to caveman stoneage style life, where brutes would rule the earth with might. I think religion is better, not just for the meek and docile, but for the strong, and for the independently minded, because without religion there would be no intellectualism at all, this means there would be no society, because we'd never have any basis to sit down and talk. There would be no government without ten commandments. Religion is what allows for moral and ethical evolution, and which provides our basis for Justice and Law. Despite what you might think, religion is the only way to teach right from wrong to the masses.

The Egyptians in specific, and the Greeks, had a religion too, and they had their versions of Kings too, so I don't know what you are trying to say.

You have a lot to learn. All societies have rules, laws, this includes buddhist society of the east, this includes western society and christianity, this includes African and Native American tribal societies. I think you are silly to think that morality and religion are seperate. If there were no religion, there will be no morality, and no laws, and the result would be that man would be in a never ending war of all against all.

If there were no Christianity, then people would adopt racism as religion, and organize around that. If there were no race people would organize around something else. You are against "ORGANIZED" religion, not religion itself.

You are promoting ancient man, cave man, if you want to live for a short brutish life, thats your choice. If there were no religion, people would be killing babies, cooking them, and then eating them when food ran out, and there would be no way to argue against it because there would be no rules, no right and wrong, no way to verbalize it.

Let's face it, humans are too ignorant, stupid, lazy, violent, and cruel to function without religion of some sort. Humans need religion just to exist, because without religion humans will slaughter each other out of existance. If you think thats a wholesome life, think again.

You can argue that Christianity is not perfect, but the commandments were an important advance for human morality, which became the basis for our governments laws, such as murder being illegal. In your world without religion, murder would never be made illegal, and rape would never be made illegal, and you'd have no way to regulate human behavior.

How exactly do you regulate behavior without religion?

 

Individuals determine collective behavior.

Hitler was the face of the collective emotions of humanity at that time period. Hitler himself did not create the feelings humans felt towards each other. Hitler did not invent the concept of race. Hitler simply applied concepts from a religion that was already invented and being practiced. Hitler basically combined religion and government in a sorta way that was never seen before. Racism and racial superiority being the religious element, along with eugenics etc. This was the collective destiny of mankind because mankind choose to adopt the concepts. Hitler did not invent hate, he simply channeled it.

Name one individual. Every individual has supporters. Usually the individual who wins the support of the masses, gains the power. Hitler had the support of the masses, and it was religious support, this is why he rose to power. Hitler did not, single handedly take over the world, his ideology did, and his ideology was based on religious concepts that were already in existance.

If you are a whitist, then your collective group, if racist, could rise to power and behave like Nazis, but it requires that you be a whitist. You have to basically believe in whitism, and this belief in whitism and of a white collective, is what allows for the whole white and black worldview and all that. But below the surface it's not even about black and white and never was. It's about collective emotions. When millions of people feel hatred, and anger, and other emotions of this sort, they tend to express it on those who cannot defend themselves from it. So let's just say, humanity as a collective, is self hating, self destructive, and cruel.

So you are saying that Hitler enslaved the German people? I don't see evidence of that. The German people had to feel a certain way. Hitler is just one man, you make it seem like Hitler alone hiijacked Germany against the wishes of the German people, you have to back that up. If you look carefully, all wars have similar emotions involved in them.

Usually hate being the prime organizing emotion of war.

You don't seem to understand what I said. When you bring up world war 2, that was a religious war, a holy war, and it had no basis in logic. It might have been logical at first, but the holocaust certainly was an emotional expression. What I'm saying is that war is sometimes an expression of humanities collective emotions and collective character. I'm not talking about a battle for resources. I'm talking about when we have wars out of hatred, or when there are holywars. These wars don't have to make any sense because they are wars of character and emotion. Do you think it has to make sense when a bunch of angry people decide to destroy everything?

You still are not understanding. Humanity has a collective character. In the end, humanity will either survive or go extinct based on that collective character. Right now humanity is self destructive and is racing towards extinction. This is because most individuals are self destructive.

Humanity is built up of individuals. Most individuals don't give a shit about themselves, or about you, or about their species. Most individuals are self destructive, and are experts at hurting themselves. Humans are experts at self destruction. The collective character of humanity, is a simple way to see the path humanity as an entity/species is on.

Humanity is constantly thinking of new ways to destroy humanity. Individuals are constantly thinking of new ways to destroy themselves, and each other. Most individuals are not even aware that they are part of the collective known as humanity, if you ask them about it they'll look at you cluelessly and say "Whats humanity? what collective?".

Humanity has a collective spirit. It's what brought us to the moon. It's what helped create all the progress you see, but that mind currently is focused mostly on destroying itself right now. So we will never make it off planet earth as a species. We will go extinct on the earth.

 

Why do you advocate slavish behavior TT?

 

I only advocate survival behavior. We don't live in a world where everyone can rule the world. It should be obvious that if everyone tries to rule, then everyone will destroy everyone over little things.

If you care at all about the species, then you know that it's in the best interest of the species to have limited freedom. Too much freedom will lead to self destruction, (which is what we have now). So it's not that I advocate slavery, I just admit that there must be limits to freedom in order to protect humanity from itself and guarentee continued existance. Limitation of freedom is order, if you don't want to be a slave, then you are an anarchist, and I'm no anarchist. I used to think like you when I was younger, but the more I learn about human nature, the more I know that humans MUST be managed and controlled.

Of course, if you really believe in the "live free or die" type of thinking, are you willing to die? Are you willing to have your species go extinct along with you? With unlimited freedom, eventually everyone will have the power of a handheld nuclear weapon, or worse, can you see down the line?

So solve the problem, how can we save humanity from itself, while maintaining unlimited freedom, because so far the best idea seems to be to remove certain freedoms.How do you manage the species yet still give individuals unlimited freedom?

Humanity is a beast that must be restrained to prevent it from eating and murdering itself. Currently humanity is restricted, this is equal to putting handcuffs and a collar on the beast that is humanity. When humanity picks the lock of the handcuffs, then we have the cage. What you advocate is removing the cage, removing the cuffs, and setting the beast free?! why?! Don't you know what happened the last time we did that? Don't you remember why we put the beast in handcuffs in the first place?