Monday, September 15, 2014
After leaving today's class (9/15), I was a bit confused on what defines our characters. I really liked what Stephanie said about how the smaller things (like picking up a piece of paper by a garbage can or holding a door open for someone for example) were just reflections of our character, rather than defining elements of it. However, I also believe that most of our character stems from the environment we are in, how are brought up, where we are from, i.e. These aren't contradicting ideas, are they? And how would this affect Aristotle's statement that one can acquire virtue of character by acting in a certain way?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Our character is made up of the habits that we do day in and day out. These habits are instilled in us through our childhood and how we are brought up etc. Therefore both things you are saying define our character. The small tasks that Stephanie talks about represent the larger habits that truly make up our larger character. Aristotle claims that being brave is habitually doing things that we define as brave. The more you do it, the more we associate that person with that virtue. Therefore, the more you do things we define as having good character such as holding the door etc., the more you'll be considered to have good character.
ReplyDeleteI would agree with PJ and Colin. Through our environment, we pick up habits whether good or bad. I believe that we mostly pick up our habits during childhood. Our main source of these habits come from our parents. I believe through watching our parents we pick up habits. Parents also like to instill certain values and habits into their children, so through discipline, yelling, or so on, children will pick up certain habits in order to avoid punishment.
DeleteI agree with what all three of you are saying about the differences between these minor actions as opposed to larger habits. We learn from observing and experiencing, two things that we begin to do at a very young age. And rightfully so we being to act in a way that exemplifies what we observed and what we experienced in our surroundings as we developed. But Aristotle also says "Virtue is about pleasures and pains,” which makes sense. We act in ways that provide us pleasure are stay clear of those things that bring us pain. Even though the minor actions (ie holding open a door) do not bring us significant pleasure and cannot be used to determine our character, this still promotes acting in a way that gives us some pleasure about our self. I think that these minor actions we discussed are done for instant gratification and pleasure. Habits that we hold with us are the type of things that will lead us to states of happiness and eventually a happy life. While I do agree that we acquire our actions and habits from a young age, I think that it is pleasures and pains that drive us to either continue acting in these habitual ways or promote change in our lives.
ReplyDeleteI also believe that a good part of our character is formed by the guidance and habituation we receive from our parents as children. However, I think that the intention behind an action depends just as strongly as the action itself. We can be taught that good people are respectful towards others, but the feelings behind that ideal express more about our true character than the conditioning we undergo. For example, with the door-holding scenario, someone could hold the door with the intention of making that other person’s day a little brighter. However, a person with a different intention could hold the door open with resentment for the other person for taking a while to get to the door, but still performs the action because he knows other people will think highly of him for being polite. In one situation, the door is held open because the person is a truly good person. On the other hand, the door is held open because he wants others to think he is a good person. However, I believe these intentions can be changed through repeated behavior, just as all behavior can be bended through repetition.
ReplyDeleteI have always had this conception that people are born with a blank slate. Only through their environment (especially home life and school in the early years) do people begin to form their "character" or that which others see them to stand for. I believe this question about where our character comes from also ties in directly with Midgley's teachings as much as it does Aristotle's. I struggle to judge someone harshly for their possible immoral or unsatisfactory acts if I know their upbringing (i.e a broken home, lack of quality education etc.). It seems as if their negative past was the real cause to their acts I would deem as wrong. However like Midgley, I also therefore can not praise someone for their virtuous or brave acts that I would consider good "character" if they grew up in a perfect environment that demands this type of life. Did the person choose to be a person of character on their own accord or did their environment just lead them to their essence? I make it sound that humans are almost like robots that can be programmed, with their character completely determined by anything other than themselves. As much as I don't think we are so far off from that claim, I like to think that at some point, our free-will overrides this idea and we finally make decisions solely for ourselves.
ReplyDeleteTo circle back to what Colin, PJ and Kristin have been discussing, I slightly disagree with the fact that habits form character. Perhaps I am misreading your responses, though it seems to me that there are much larger things at work to determine a person's character, and here I agree with Denis. I think that it would be beneficial if we all had a universal definition of what character actually is, generally. For me, it is the accumulation of action, value sets, morality and priorities behind a person, and I do not think that habits could possibly be responsible for taking up so much of our person. Habits, such as opening the door for someone, are generally mindless. One could argue that they are even a response to what we see, a case of mirror neurons at work: we see someone hold the door for someone in front of us, we in turn hold the door. Because I hold the door for someone am I a good person, of good character? Because I don't does that make me bad? Liz discusses the complexity behind people's motives for doing so, but the complexity is not in the motives behind simple habits, but rather in things that require integrity. To do what is right, and what is true to oneself, when no one else is watching is truly the most accurate test of character. In that way, can we truly judge someone else's character? Is character subjective--if we don't think that something someone did adheres to our values does that make them a bad person? These questions apply to Midgley's readings in the same way: is a culture bad because it doesn't have the same morality as ours? Can we judge a culture by our own standards simply because we feel we have the right, as human beings?
ReplyDelete--Amanda Eliades