…Temperament refers to the mode
of reaction and is constitutional and not changeable; character is essentially
formed by a person’s experiences, especially of those in early life, and
changeable, to some extent, by insights and new kinds of experiences. If a
person has a choleric (easily angered) temperament, for instance, his mode of
reaction is “quick and strong.” But what he is quick and strong about depends
on his kind of relatedness, his character. If he is a productive, just, loving
person he will react quickly and strongly when he loves, when he is enraged by
injustice, and when he is impressed by new idea. If he is a destructive or
sadistic character he will be quick and strong in his destructiveness or in his
cruelty.
The confusion between temperament
and character has had serious consequences for ethical theory. Preferences with
regard to differences in temperament are mere matters of subjective taste. But
differences in character are ethically of the most fundamental importance…
In the application of C.G. Jung’s
concepts of temperament, those of “introvert” and “extrovert,” we often find
the same confusion. Those who prefer the extrovert tend to describe the
introvert as inhibited and neurotic; those who prefer the introvert describe
the extrovert as superficial and lacking in perseverance and depth. The fallacy
is to compare a “good” person of one temperament with a “bad” person of another
temperament, and to ascribe the difference in value to the difference in
temperament….
Excerpt from Erich
Fromm (1947) Man for Himself: An Inquiry into the Psychology of Ethics
沒有留言:
張貼留言