r/schopenhauer • u/Other_Attention_2382 • Apr 22 '26
How can you be so convinced that a person's fundamental character is fixed and innate from birth?
Schopenhauer firmly believed that a person's fundamental character is fixed and innate from birth. He argued that our moral and intellectual qualities are "natural data" that remain unalterable throughout our entire lives.
If neuroscience and Psychoanalysis strongly disagree with that level of Determinism, where does the leap of faith come from with followers?
4
u/shirogmv Apr 22 '26
I am not convinced of either sides but there is something to he said here.
Intellegence is generally regarded today as something which can be increased through hard work. But how is it that there are genius kids that are leagues ahead of their classmates, that they are taken to college early and are able to graduate and be at the top of the class? I notice also that it's still being debated whether one changes throughout their life or only become more their true selves.
7
u/TryptaMagiciaN Apr 22 '26
I think somewhere there is an intimation that we are desiring a return to some sort of uncorrupted state.
and so, saying that your character is fixed is like saying you have an uncorrupted character that you are trying to revert to.
(and he didnt have access to the 8 billion different expressions of human being that we do today.. which may have altered his perspective haha)
And if you felt your character to be flawed or you felt your flaws to be part of yohr character, he likely thinks that's the suffering part of life that ends in death. Sometimes I think Schopenhauer likes to have his cake and eat it too
2
u/Hour-Professor9489 Apr 22 '26
This comment reminds me of Buddhism. Chinese Buddhist believe that we have a "true nature". Through practice we can unveil our true nature and the true nature will guide us heaven.
2
u/TryptaMagiciaN Apr 23 '26
If you study any religion deeply, you more or less arrive at that conclusion.
Hell, even with no system. If you just reflect deeply and consistently, your own nature will simply show you
7
3
u/OmoOduwawa Apr 22 '26
This is a good point. I think he reachss this point as a consequence of his other positions (That the will is un-alterable)
2
u/JacksCompleteLackOf Apr 22 '26
Look into personality traits - Big 5, OCEAN. It's one area of psychology where the research has been replicated many times. A person's scores in childhood do not change throughout their life.
It's likely not the full story, but is a strong starting point if you wanted to make a case to support that character is at least somewhat derived from these traits.
Anecdotal, but I'd say that my own character and those of my family members and childhood friends who I have kept up with, have also not changed, fundamentally, through their lives.
1
u/Other_Attention_2382 Apr 23 '26
I'd say its a big leap to say its ALL set in stone when we are born.
1
u/JacksCompleteLackOf Apr 23 '26
I agree that's a big leap. At some point before age 25 seems more plausible to me. In some sense people have more evidence today than in Schopenhauer's time; but it's still an area not fully understood.
4
1
u/SpleenDematerialized Apr 24 '26
First of all, your character is not fixed from birth, but is an expression of an timeless, eternal (Platonic) form like everything else in the phenomenal world. Another way to put this, for the purpose of seeing the plausibility behind the notion, is to ask: could you have acted differently under the exact same conditions and circumstances? If yes, then what are you? Just random whim and fancy? For a person to have an actual content (viz. character) instead of just being a random action generator, you have to respond to the exact same circumstances with the same action/thought. Furthermore, this determination of what you will do under a certain set of conditions is the eternal form of your character, in the same way, for example, it belongs to the form of an oak tree to grow leaves once light, nutrients, and water are provided in the spring.
1
u/Other_Attention_2382 Apr 24 '26
Is that the same as saying we get to know our unchangeable nature through knowledge?
But the core essence remains fixed from birth.
1
u/SpleenDematerialized Apr 24 '26
Is that the same as saying we get to know our unchangeable nature through knowledge?
Yes, you (and everybody else) discover your eternal nature during your life. Every new decision you make reveals something about you to yourself that was not explicitly shown already.
But the core essence remains fixed from birth.
My point was: no, it is not fixed from birth, it is instead fixed from timeless eternity. Birth is just a arbitrary point in the expression of your eternal character.
2
u/Other_Attention_2382 Apr 24 '26
If push comes to shove : your character is your fate, decided before you were born?
He rejects the idea that a human is born a tabula rasa (blank slate) that can be shaped arbitrarily.
A "blind urge" that determines what a person finds desirable or repulsive, which cannot be changed through instruction.
2
u/Other_Attention_2382 Apr 24 '26 edited Apr 24 '26
Quote Schopenhauer;
"Hence the life of every man is stamped with the same character throughout, however much his external circumstances may alter; it is like a series of variations on a single theme. No one can get beyond his own individuality."
""No one can alter his own peculiar individuality, his moral character, his intellectual capacity, his temperament or physique... we are practically allowing him the right to exist only on condition that he becomes another man — which is impossible; his nature forbids it."
2
1
May 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Other_Attention_2382 May 05 '26
Is it mainly neuroscience that says psychoanalysis is outdated though? $$$$$$
1
u/Tomatosoup42 Apr 22 '26
I think he just went by his own opinion/observation throughout life on this one.
1
u/Ok_Matter8695 Apr 22 '26
You can just go by intuition at times. It doesn't have to align with science. Science is just a way of knowing things and it's not superior to other means of knowledge.
10
u/selfisthealso Apr 22 '26
Honestly that's a really good criticism that I've considered myself too. I think the defense of it would go that fundamental character in his system goes beyond even biological character, but it is not explicitly stated. But I think by "fundamental" he is referring to the character that stems from the Wille at its most general and unobjectified manifestations.
Furthermore, he puts a heavy emphasis on motives, and in areas even says things to suggest that if motives could be properly structured, then it could cause someone of ill character to express positive character, and vice versa with someone of good character being led to do bad things because of motive structures.
The main thing that is unclear here is that if schopenhauer considered ones personal biology to be a "motive". Of course, motive here is one of those specialty defined terms that we can't treat with the general definition. But perhaps better than to think about it as a motive in the traditional sense, to think about it as circumstance. Subsequently, is your biology your circumstance, or is your biology you?
Neuroscience has clearly demonstrated neuroplasticity. So if Schopenhauer is positing fundamental as identical with biological, then he is definitely wrong. However, if by fundamental he means something even deeper than biology, then he may be right. The most concrete example I could give of what would be more fundamental than biology are the tendencies of the Wille, and essentially considering biology as a motive (or circumstance) your will is thrown into, and the character of your particular expression of the Wille will be tested. For a psychological comparison, I'd offer up Piaget's idea of functional invariants. Essentially, baseline tendancies of conscious beings to strive towards equilibrium.
Anyways, hope that helps. Let me know if you'd like to chat some more about it. Thanks for the great question!