EVERY MAN IS THE ARCHITECT OF HIS OWN CHARACTER
A short look at personal character, Arthur Schopenhauer, psychology coaching, into the weeds again.
EVERY MAN IS THE ARCHITECT OF HIS OWN CHARACTER
Erwin will post more in the coming months about the agents of good,
Very little time will be spent on the horribles, as it does no good,
Each of us with stable architecture meaning stable character tune in,
Realize that we need to stick together in all the months ahead,
Yes I will post on Blue Sky; won’t waste the effort on X or Threads.
Maybe concentrating on making good vibes will be beneficial,
And we’ve had our fill of the Trump and MAGA architecture,
Now I only want to help out those worth a nickel to save.
I understand my role in all of this, I’ll do my best to fulfill it,
So let’s talk about people who acknowledge science and understand.
That He (God) continually molds and forms you…transforms your mind*
How the Christian Bible describes making of personal character,
Each of the true followers of Christ may have had a healthy mind formed.
Aristotle taught that a person’s choices in life formed character,
Realize Plato said that character could be developed by self-reflection,
Certainly Carl Jung spoke of archetypes - of personality patterns,
How nowadays studies focus on perspective, honesty, creativity,..
Indeed also perseverance, social intelligence and judgement,
The strengths were honesty, perspective, curiosity and social intelligence,
Each of us might consider the four above when accessing our character,
Certainly it’s a much harder exercise should a ‘Trumpee’ might try,
This above might give us some true perspective, which is a strength.
Only with such strengths shared within the community can we prevail,
For our opponents honestly display much the opposite of these four.
How may we not only display such traits but actually fortify them,
I for one will concentrate on supplying support the best way I can,
So things might just work out due to their severe character flaws.
Oh that we meet the obstacles bulldozed into our American path,
Will our superior character throw in a monkey wrench,
Now, in all honesty, it will greatly hamper their authoritarian efforts.
Character - the mental and moral qualities distinctive to an individual,
How can we improve this attribute to its fullness going forward,
Although I’m far from perfect I intend to not cower to fascists,
Really I’m dependent upon the government I worked for,
And they will probably screw me in the coming years,
Considering all of it I’m determined to fight through any means,
Today while they gather their demons I have a reprieve,
Each one of us must use our strength of character as we can,
Realize that they are relying on our fear to make their billions.
“Let us not say, Every man is the architect of his own fortune; but let us say, Every man is the architect of his own character.”
— G. D. Boardman.
George Dana Boardman the Younger (1828 – April 28, 1903) was an American clergyman. In 1855, Boardman became pastor of the Baptist church Barnwell, South Carolina, but his views on the slavery question impelled him to exchange his charge in 1856 for a church further north.
*Romans (12:2)
A search for George Boardman yielded a book on Christian missionary work. Although a little off topic of personal character I thought it might be of interest to read. The zealotry of the Christian comes through in this publication. I’ve included several excerpts for a flavor. Boardman appeared like he might be more liberal in his ideas from his background on Wikipedia but this writing might indicate not.
LATE
MISSIONARY TO BURMAH.
CONTAINING MUCH INTELLIGENCE RELATIVE TO THE BURMAN MISSION.
BY ALONZO KING,
1836
Another writer of high talent, the author of " The Natural History of Enthusiasm," has urged an entire change in the organization of Foreign Missions. His plan, it will be observed, extends to the third division, the labors of Missionaries abroad, as well as to the topics embraced under the first head; but its consideration seems, on the whole, to fall more naturally under the present head. In a treatise, which he has entitled "A New Model of Christian Missions," he has insisted on the loss of power to the Church, from her neglect of the great principle of the division of labor, and from the want of system and union in the Missionary efforts of Christians. His proposal is, that the entire body of evangelical Christians in the British Islands, not excluding foreign Protestant Churches, should throw together their resources, moral, mental, and financial, into one and the same coffer, thus forming "an universal, or rather a harmonious association for the purpose of propagating Christianity abroad." These entire resources should then be decomposed and recast in the form of seven societies, formed on the basis of the dissimilarity of the several spheres of Missionary labor. The first acting against Romanism in those countries that still profess Popery; the second assailing Mahometanism; the third place to be occupied by the existing Society for promoting Christianity among the Jews; and our Society undertaking the propagation of the gospel among the polytheistic nations of Southern Asia, and the numerous islands in the Eastern Sea; the fifth attacking the irreligion of China, and the nations of Northern Asia; a sixth to be occupied with the African race, excluding the Mahometans of the Northern and Eastern coast, and including the negroes of the West Indies; while to the seventh would be left the aborigines of the two Americas, and the islanders of the great Pacific.
In the following Boardman was defending the missionary against the obstacles which they faced. I thought it might be interesting to read. Again I apologize for the slight diversion.
"Men must have a livelihood before they can speak or act: they must have protection to cover them from the tyranny of power, and law to save them from the riots of the people: they must be well paid if you would have them work well, for if a man have no comforts his life is miserable. What! such mendicants as these convert the world! say the well-conditioned classes; vagrant, vagabond fellows, they are fitter for the stocks or the common jail. Such illiterate clowns, such babblers as these, instruct mankind! say the learned classes; away with them to their nets and fishing craft. And, say the political classes, it is dangerous to the state; they cover plots under their silly pretences, and must be dealt with by the strong hand of power. Me thinks I hear, in every contemptible (contemptuous?) and arrogant speech which is vented against the modern Missionaries by worthy and self-sufficient men, the echo, after two thousand years, of those speeches which were wont to be poured upon the twelve Apostles and seventy disciples, when they began to emerge out of the foundation of society, into the neighborhood and level of its higher ranks."
The following is from a diary entry. Boardman talks a little about character so I just had to include it. He was a missionary at this time. He is questioning his faith in himself.
"Feb. 21, 1828. An important defect in my Christian character, consists in not aiming at sufficiently high attainments in holiness. I sometimes think if my circumstances were different, I should lead a more holy life. But I think, again, that the man who does not live as well as he can under present circumstances, would not, in all probability, live so in any change of circumstances what-ever. Formerly, I thought if I ever attained to the situation in which I am now placed, I would live more holily, and more entirely devoted to God. But the change of circumstances has taken place, and I am still sluggish as ever, and am thinking of some other change as more favorable to piety. O my neglected Saviour, how long shall I be thus tardy in my heavenly course? Quicken my pace, inflame my love, and elevate my affections.”
The abstract of research personal character traits in the field of life coaches is mentioned in the acrostic poem. This is an example of recent work in the field. I thought it might be worthwhile to include as there are many important findings here. I think one can gain an idea of who the individual character of each of us might line up with the study’s results.
April 8, 2024
Journal of Positive Psychology Coaching
Ryan M. Niemiec
@ryanVIA
Danielle Casioppo
From X
RENEW OFFICE YOGA SERIES
Sessions led by Danielle Casioppo, MS, NBC-HWC, Education Specialist and Certified Yoga Instructor with Being Well at Yale.
Abstract
Character strengths, whether conscious to the coach or client, are essential to good coaching and the expression of good coaching itself. Character strengths reside within the empowerment of well-being, the connectivity in relationships, and the resilience from adversity. Despite these observations, the research on character strengths in coaching is minimal. To work toward correcting this and offering foundation and aspiration for the coaching field, we take two approaches. The first approach looked at the existing science and practice of character strengths. We suggest several scientific studies and offer practical applications from each to the coaching experience; we then recommend a myriad of character strengths practices that coaches can apply, which include the core principles of a strengths-based practitioner and strategies for assessment and intervention. The second approach involved conducting a large-scale global study. We asked 27,420 individuals (1,274 were credentialed coaches, and 7,436 had previous experiences as clients in coaching) 23 questions about their perceptions of character strengths in past coaching encounters and potential future ones. We found further support that character strengths are integral to coaching, by the perception of coaches, the perception of clients, and potential prospective clients. A pattern of six character strengths repeatedly emerged as most important for coaches to express in general or for specific purposes, such as helping with goal aspirations and problem-solving: perspective, honesty, creativity, social intelligence, perseverance, and judgment. We suggest these as initial character strengths for coaches to attend to in themselves and their client interactions. Elements of the coaching process were examined, including elements that directly involve character strengths and elements in which character strengths were not mentioned, such as providing accountability, being optimistic, being a nonjudging empathic listener, and offering new ways to look at challenges. Of the various areas queried, those rated highest in importance for coaching were the use of character strengths to deepen self-knowledge/self-understanding and the use of character strengths as pathways to reach an aspiration/goal. Coaches were asked about the character strengths most important to their coaching and most important for managing coaching sessions, developing coaching relationships, helping clients become more mindful, increasing client well-being, facilitating goal setting, and managing problems. The most widely championed strengths across coaches (regardless of coaching experience) and across coaching processes were perspective, curiosity, honesty, and social intelligence; these four strengths closely represent the essence of coaching. We discuss these findings and conclude with limitations and future directions for the integration of character strengths in coaching.
As is customary I tried to include the author of the quote for my acrostic poem into the writing. I feel I’ve given people some idea of the man above. I searched in Gutenberg. Org for information on personal character and came across the writings of the German philosopher Authur Schopenhauer. He has a great number of books on this site. I found a section out of one book which I found of interest where he discusses personality, character, intelligence, boredom, etc.. I found it rather interesting and nearing the overall theme of this discussion. I’ve put in bold print the most interesting text from the excerpts. As I’m directing the reader to consider his or her character, I think that the following has many good points. From the 1800’s it’s dated but seems still relevant. In one section he cites a French source claiming that Negroes were inherently less intelligent. This I did not bolden but left in place as perhaps an indication of Schopenhauer’s ideas. I apologize if it is offensive.
Title: The Essays of Arthur Schopenhauer: the Wisdom of Life
Author: Arthur Schopenhauer
Translator: T. Bailey Saunders
Published 1851
But if a man finds himself in possession of great mental faculties, such as alone should venture on the solution of the hardest of all problems—those which concern nature as a whole and humanity in its widest range, he will do well to extend his view equally in all directions, without ever straying too far amid the intricacies of various by-paths, or invading regions little known; in other words, without occupying himself with special branches of knowledge, to say nothing of their petty details. There is no necessity for him to seek out subjects difficult of access, in order to escape a crowd of rivals; the common objects of life will give him material for new theories at once serious and true; and the service he renders will be appreciated by all those—and they form a great part of mankind—who know the facts of which he treats. What a vast distinction there is between students of physics, chemistry, anatomy, mineralogy, zoology, philology, history, and the men who deal with the great facts of human life, the poet and the philosopher!
CHAPTER II. — PERSONALITY, OR WHAT A MAN IS.
We have already seen, in general, that what a man is contributes much more to his happiness than what he has, or how he is regarded by others. What a man is, and so what he has in his own person, is always the chief thing to consider; for his individuality accompanies him always and everywhere, and gives its color to all his experiences. In every kind of enjoyment, for instance, the pleasure depends principally upon the man himself. Every one admits this in regard to physical, and how much truer it is of intellectual, pleasure. When we use that English expression, "to enjoy one's self," we are employing a very striking and appropriate phrase; for observe—one says, not "he enjoys Paris," but "he enjoys himself in Paris." To a man possessed of an ill-conditioned individuality, all pleasure is like delicate wine in a mouth made bitter with gall. Therefore, in the blessings as well as in the ills of life, less depends upon what befalls us than upon the way in which it is met, that is, upon the kind and degree of our general susceptibility. What a man is and has in himself,—in a word personality, with all it entails, is the only immediate and direct factor in his happiness and welfare. All else is mediate and indirect, and its influence can be neutralized and frustrated; but the influence of personality never. This is why the envy which personal qualities excite is the most implacable of all,—as it is also the most carefully dissembled.
Further, the constitution of our consciousness is the ever present and lasting element in all we do or suffer; our individuality is persistently at work, more or less, at every moment of our life: all other influences are temporal, incidental, fleeting, and subject to every kind of chance and change. This is why Aristotle says: It is not wealth but character that lasts.{1}
{Greek: —hae gar phusis bebion ou ta chraemata}
{Footnote 1: Eth. Eud., vii. 2. 37:}
And just for the same reason we can more easily bear a misfortune which comes to us entirely from without, than one which we have drawn upon ourselves; for fortune may always change, but not character. Therefore, subjective blessings,—a noble nature, a capable head, a joyful temperament, bright spirits, a well-constituted, perfectly sound physique, in a word, mens sana in corpore sano, are the first and most important elements in happiness; so that we should be more intent on promoting and preserving such qualities than on the possession of external wealth and external honor.
And of all these, the one which makes us the most directly happy is a genial flow of good spirits; for this excellent quality is its own immediate reward. The man who is cheerful and merry has always a good reason for being so,—the fact, namely, that he is so. There is nothing which, like this quality, can so completely replace the loss of every other blessing. If you know anyone who is young, handsome, rich and esteemed, and you want to know, further, if he is happy, ask, Is he cheerful and genial?—and if he is, what does it matter whether he is young or old, straight or humpbacked, poor or rich?—he is happy. In my early days I once opened an old book and found these words: If you laugh a great deal, you are happy; if you cry a great deal, you are unhappy;—a very simple remark, no doubt; but just because it is so simple I have never been able to forget it, even though it is in the last degree a truism. So if cheerfulness knocks at our door, we should throw it wide open, for it never comes inopportunely; instead of that, we often make scruples about letting it in. We want to be quite sure that we have every reason to be contented; then we are afraid that cheerfulness of spirits may interfere with serious reflections or weighty cares. Cheerfulness is a direct and immediate gain,—the very coin, as it were, of happiness, and not, like all else, merely a cheque upon the bank; for it alone makes us immediately happy in the present moment, and that is the highest blessing for beings like us, whose existence is but an infinitesimal moment between two eternities. To secure and promote this feeling of cheerfulness should be the supreme aim of all our endeavors after happiness.
The most general survey shows us that the two foes of human happiness are pain and boredom. We may go further, and say that in the degree in which we are fortunate enough to get away from the one, we approach the other. Life presents, in fact, a more or less violent oscillation between the two. The reason of this is that each of these two poles stands in a double antagonism to the other, external or objective, and inner or subjective. Needy surroundings and poverty produce pain; while, if a man is more than well off, he is bored. Accordingly, while the lower classes are engaged in a ceaseless struggle with need, in other words, with pain, the upper carry on a constant and often desperate battle with boredom.{1} The inner or subjective antagonism arises from the fact that, in the individual, susceptibility to pain varies inversely with susceptibility to boredom, because susceptibility is directly proportionate to mental power. Let me explain. A dull mind is, as a rule, associated with dull sensibilities, nerves which no stimulus can affect, a temperament, in short, which does not feel pain or anxiety very much, however great or terrible it may be. Now, intellectual dullness is at the bottom of that vacuity of soul which is stamped on so many faces, a state of mind which betrays itself by a constant and lively attention to all the trivial circumstances in the external world. This is the true source of boredom—a continual panting after excitement, in order to have a pretext for giving the mind and spirits something to occupy them. The kind of things people choose for this purpose shows that they are not very particular, as witness the miserable pastimes they have recourse to, and their ideas of social pleasure and conversation: or again, the number of people who gossip on the doorstep or gape out of the window. It is mainly because of this inner vacuity of soul that people go in quest of society, diversion, amusement, luxury of every sort, which lead many to extravagance and misery. Nothing is so good a protection against such misery as inward wealth, the wealth of the mind, because the greater it grows, the less room it leaves for boredom. The inexhaustible activity of thought! Finding ever new material to work upon in the multifarious phenomena of self and nature, and able and ready to form new combinations of them,—there you have something that invigorates the mind, and apart from moments of relaxation, sets it far above the reach of boredom.
{Footnote 1: And the extremes meet; for the lowest state of civilization, a nomad or wandering life, finds its counterpart in the highest, where everyone is at times a tourist. The earlier stage was a case of necessity; the latter is a remedy for boredom.}
But, on the other hand, this high degree of intelligence is rooted in a high degree of susceptibility, greater strength of will, greater passionateness; and from the union of these qualities comes an increased capacity for emotion, an enhanced sensibility to all mental and even bodily pain, greater impatience of obstacles, greater resentment of interruption;—all of which tendencies are augmented by the power of the imagination, the vivid character of the whole range of thought, including what is disagreeable. This applies, in various degrees, to every step in the long scale of mental power, from the veriest dunce to the greatest genius that ever lived. Therefore the nearer anyone is, either from a subjective or from an objective point of view, to one of those sources of suffering in human life, the farther he is from the other. And so a man's natural bent will lead him to make his objective world conform to his subjective as much as possible; that is to say, he will take the greatest measures against that form of suffering to which he is most liable. The wise man will, above all, strive after freedom from pain and annoyance, quiet and leisure, consequently a tranquil, modest life, with as few encounters as may be; and so, after a little experience of his so-called fellowmen, he will elect to live in retirement, or even, if he is a man of great intellect, in solitude. For the more a man has in himself, the less he will want from other people,—the less, indeed, other people can be to him. This is why a high degree of intellect tends to make a man unsocial. True, if quality of intellect could be made up for by quantity, it might be worth while to live even in the great world; but unfortunately, a hundred fools together will not make one wise man.
But the individual who stands at the other end of the scale is no sooner free from the pangs of need than he endeavors to get pastime and society at any cost, taking up with the first person he meets, and avoiding nothing so much as himself. For in solitude, where every one is thrown upon his own resources, what a man has in himself comes to light; the fool in fine raiment groans under the burden of his miserable personality, a burden which he can never throw off, whilst the man of talent peoples the waste places with his animating thoughts. Seneca declares that folly is its own burden,—omnis stultitia laborat fastidio sui,—a very true saying, with which may be compared the words of Jesus, the son of Sirach, The life of a fool is worse than death{1}. And, as a rule, it will be found that a man is sociable just in the degree in which he is intellectually poor and generally vulgar. For one's choice in this world does not go much beyond solitude on one side and vulgarity on the other. It is said that the most sociable of all people are the negroes; and they are at the bottom of the scale in intellect. I remember reading once in a French paper{2} that the blacks in North America, whether free or enslaved, are fond of shutting themselves up in large numbers in the smallest space, because they cannot have too much of one another's snub-nosed company.
{Footnote 1: Ecclesiasticus, xxii. 11.}
{Footnote 2: Le Commerce, Oct. 19th, 1837.}
The brain may be regarded as a kind of parasite of the organism, a pensioner, as it were, who dwells with the body: and leisure, that is, the time one has for the free enjoyment of one's consciousness or individuality, is the fruit or produce of the rest of existence, which is in general only labor and effort. But what does most people's leisure yield?—boredom and dullness; except, of course, when it is occupied with sensual pleasure or folly. How little such leisure is worth may be seen in the way in which it is spent: and, as Ariosto observes, how miserable are the idle hours of ignorant men!—ozio lungo d'uomini ignoranti. Ordinary people think merely how they shall spend their time; a man of any talent tries to use it. The reason why people of limited intellect are apt to be bored is that their intellect is absolutely nothing more than the means by which the motive power of the will is put into force: and whenever there is nothing particular to set the will in motion, it rests, and their intellect takes a holiday, because, equally with the will, it requires something external to bring it into play. The result is an awful stagnation of whatever power a man has—in a word, boredom. To counteract this miserable feeling, men run to trivialities which please for the moment they are taken up, hoping thus to engage the will in order to rouse it to action, and so set the intellect in motion; for it is the latter which has to give effect to these motives of the will. Compared with real and natural motives, these are but as paper money to coin; for their value is only arbitrary—card games and the like, which have been invented for this very purpose. And if there is nothing else to be done, a man will twirl his thumbs or beat the devil's tattoo;* or a cigar may be a welcome substitute for exercising his brains. Hence, in all countries the chief occupation of society is card-playing,{1} and it is the gauge of its value, and an outward sign that it is bankrupt in thought. Because people have no thoughts to deal in, they deal cards, and try and win one another's money. Idiots! But I do not wish to be unjust; so let me remark that it may certainly be said in defence of card-playing that it is a preparation for the world and for business life, because one learns thereby how to make a clever use of fortuitous but unalterable circumstances (cards, in this case), and to get as much out of them as one can: and to do this a man must learn a little dissimulation, and how to put a good face upon a bad business. But, on the other hand, it is exactly for this reason that card-playing is so demoralizing, since the whole object of it is to employ every kind of trick and machination in order to win what belongs to another. And a habit of this sort, learnt at the card-table, strikes root and pushes its way into practical life; and in the affairs of every day a man gradually comes to regard meum and tuum** in much the same light as cards, and to consider that he may use to the utmost whatever advantages he possesses, so long as he does not come within the arm of the law. Examples of what I mean are of daily occurrence in mercantile life. Since, then, leisure is the flower, or rather the fruit, of existence, as it puts a man into possession of himself, those are happy indeed who possess something real in themselves. But what do you get from most people's leisure?—only a good-for-nothing fellow, who is terribly bored and a burden to himself. Let us, therefore, rejoice, dear brethren, for we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.
*When you’re accused of beating the Devil’s tattoo, you’re being told that you are drumming on a hard surface with your fingers. More often than not, it’s thought of a sign of impatience or ill-humour to be beating the Devil’s tattoo, be but it need not be. The saying, though seldom used these days, is still heard from time to time.
**mine and thine : mine and yours : distinction of private property.
What about Hitler’s opinion on Schopenhauer?
As for Schopenhauer, Hitler boasted “I carried Schopenhauer’s works with me throughout the First World War. From him I learned a great deal,” apparently that he “glorified will over reason.”
Arthur Schopenhauer (22 February 1788 – 21 September 1860) was a German philosopher. He is known for his 1818 work The World as Will and Representation (expanded in 1844), which characterizes the phenomenal world as the manifestation of a blind and irrational noumenal will. Building on the transcendental idealism of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), Schopenhauer developed an atheistic and a metaphysical and ethical system that rejected the contemporaneous ideas of German idealism.
Schopenhauer was among the first thinkers in Western philosophy to share and affirm significant tenets of Indian philosophy, such as asceticism, denial of the self, and the notion of the world-as-appearance. His work has been described as an exemplary manifestation of philosophical pessimism. Though his work failed to garner substantial attention during his lifetime, he had a posthumous impact across various disciplines, including philosophy, literature, and science. His writing on aesthetics, morality, and psychology have influenced many thinkers and artists.
Thomas Bailey Saunders (1860-1928)
British barrister; translator of Schopenhauer and Harnack. Seems to have also used ‘T. Bailey Saunders’ as a pen name.
I found that I learned a bit about human character through this exercise. Hopefully if you read through it the same occurred in you. One can only change oneself in this life. And I’ll end with a pseudo-sonnet. Thanks for reading my work.
Solidify Our Character In Our Quest
People of good character might actually only want to be better,
That is what I’ve decided through my own work,
It’s important to cultivate our character as apparent evil lurks,
We’re the ones who will follow our constitution by the letter,
While they will use the document for their Irish setter,
We keep our wits about us while they tend to go berserk,
Being responsible - while the MAGA’s responsibilities are shirked,
To those who stand up in these times - I applaud - I’m your debtor.
Seems that most of us only tried to play by the rules set forth,
They can only act to change the rules of the game,
They are blind opportunists who have never felt shame,
We’ll have to wait for a while for the FDR liberalism’s rebirth,
But we can all agree that it can perhaps come once out of the rat’s nest,
In the meantime we solidify our character in our quest.
Have a good day.
213th posting, December 8, 2024