Character is a very important linguistic concept. Functionally, character is used in language to assess a person in some way, especially to make decisions or judgements. For example, if someone is said to be lacking in character, then by understanding what character is, one will know it is unsafe to trust that person with something important. Yet the word “character” has several definitions and is sometimes used in a general way in the vernacular. In this analysis, I will look at the individual components that are used to define the word character and why the above statement is true.
The study and analysis of character is an ancient tradition. Indeed, even as far back as 300 to 400 BC, philosophers like Aristotle were writing entire volumes on the subject. Aristotle, a renowned Greek philosopher who lived in that period, wrote a book on the subject that is still being read today. This book, entitled Nicomachean Ethics, provided a literary foundation for this subject and others that people would, and have used, for the millennia that followed.
There are many definitions of the word “character,” so it is important for us to identify explicitly what we mean by this word so that there is no confusion. I shall focus on only two of them here. First, character is defined as “attributes or features that make up or distinguish an individual.” It is important to note this definition, because this is expressly not the definition that the use of “character” in this analysis will refer to. That definition primarily refers to “character” in a way synonymous to descriptive characteristics in general.
This second definition of character is “moral excellence and firmness.” The use of character here refers to something distinct, not general. It is this definition of character that we must keep in mind in the continuing analysis. Looking specifically at this definition, however, we can see how this definition is comprised of two main components: “moral excellence” being one of them, and “firmness” being the other. Both of these components of the definition are key to understanding what character is, thus we shall look at each in turn.
The first component to character, “moral excellence,” is not a singular word on its own. Rather, it is a phrase, a pair of words that constitute their own unique definition to be understood in conjunction. In this case, that phrase refers to a state of morality. Morality thus is a fundamental component of what character is as well. Indeed, it is the moral component that most people readily associate with the idea of character. Yet what is morality?
At its root, morality is a system of two contrasting elements: either good and evil, or virtues and vices. In simplistic terms, this is a contrast between positive and negative elements. What is good and what are virtues are the positive, with what is evil and what are vices as the negative. These two elements, though both possible roots of morality, are distinct in that “good” and “evil” are general qualities applicable to a broad host, and “virtues” and “vices” specifically refer to habits and actions, or the lack there of.
The second part of the phrase, “moral excellence,” is much easier to understand. “Excellence” is simply the quality of being of the highest level. After all, to excel means to exceed beyond other things – in this case, the levels of how moral a person is. Because we have established morality as a system of goods and evils, or virtues and vices, moral excellence thus refers to that state of being that follows the goods or virtues most perfectly.
The second component to character, “firmness,” is similarly easier to understand. The definition of firmness has two aspects: a positive aspect, and a negative aspect. The positive aspect says what “firmness” is: it is securely and solidly fixed in place. The negative aspect says what “firmness” is not: it is not subject to change or revision. Thus the second component to character can be summarized in one sentence: it is stable and unchanging.
Character is thus made up of those two components: “moral excellence” and “firmness.” They are tied together in this definition and cannot be taken apart. That they are tied together incidentally has other implications on both. Because “firmness” is tied to “moral excellence,” the definition of the former also applies to the later. This means that a person with character will not change their state of morality depending on the circumstances, and is similarly stable in their state of morality.
More importantly though, these two components must also exist in balance with one another. If a person has “firmness” but is lacking “moral excellence,” he or she is merely stubborn and closed-minded. This kind of person does not have character because they do not reach the appropriate level of goodness or follow the appropriate virtues. What he or she holds firmly is not necessarily what are the goods and virtues, and so lacks character in this regard.
On the other hand, it is a contradiction to say that a person can have “moral excellence” but lack in “firmness.” As previously stated, for a person to be morally excellent, they must follow the good or virtues most perfectly. This requires action on his or her part. It is not enough to simply know and accept the goods or virtues. Yet if a person is lacking in firmness, he or she will be unable to reach that level of morality in the first place. This is because lacking in stability allows a person to waver in their morality, and a person that constantly wavers between good and evil, or virtue and vices, can hardly be said to follow the goods or virtues most perfectly.
Yet in these two components used to define character, even if the two exist in balance, there is still a very large discrepancy: character is not universally equitable. That is, the actions or traits of a person said to possess character in one place may not equal the actions or traits of a person said to possess character in another place. This is because within the definition for character there is still room for variation in that first component: morality. This was already hinted on earlier when morality was defined as a system of goods and evils, or virtues and vices.
Goods and evils or virtues and vices are two separate groupings. While there may be some overlap, it is more important to realize that there is a distinction between these two groupings. This leads to the important question of “why is there a distinction in the first place?” This distinction develops largely because of the way that morality itself develops in each culture, along cultural lines.
In this regard, morality tends to be affected by two aspects of culture: first, the religious or spiritual aspect of the culture, and the mundane or philosophical aspect of the culture. Religions have an exceptionally profound impact on the conception of morality in a culture. Many religions, such as those in the Abrahamic tradition, have explicit concepts of what is good and what is evil – concepts which may not overlap with other traditions, or worse, outright oppose those of other traditions. In a culture that follows such a tradition, morality is defined from these concepts.
As far as the mundane or philosophical aspect of a culture goes, it can be summed up in a single phrase: cultural norms. A cultural norm is a concept, usually unconsciously decided upon by the culture in question, that is the standard to which they hold themselves. These, more than religious concepts, tend to be rather place specific and more representative of the culture that created them. Because of these two aspects – the religious or spiritual and the mundane or philosophical aspects of culture – character ends up being directly dependant upon how the home culture defines morality in the first place.
This then is what is really meant by character: that the people possessing character display and maintain a high, if not the highest, level of morality. In the opening paragraph, it was stated that understanding the meaning of character would allow one to see why it is unsafe to trust someone who lacks character with something important. For someone to have character means that they will do what is good or virtuous, and will not deter from this. In short, they are dependable - but someone who lacks character does not share this same dependability. They may do what is wrong, fall to vice, or change their mind all together. They, in short, are not dependable. Character is an assessment of a person’s moral dependability.
No comments:
Post a Comment