More on character
Hey savvy news reader! Thanks for choosing local.
You are now reading
1 of 3 free articles.
Editor,
Each person gives differing weights to issues such as empathy, compassion, and justice, and would judge a person’s character uniquely. Some would include that the person is stalwart and not to be swayed. Others, however, might define character as having the willingness to consider life’s complexities and adjust accordingly - being flexible.
Another dimension of “having character” is the issue of “knowledge” - first, how you get it – and secondly, (and importantly) how you use it. Regarding how you get it, humans are terrible information-gatherers. We develop our beliefs by operating among tremendous perceptual filters, blind spots, social pressures, and more. We create beliefs (things we think are true), and then make important decisions always based upon varying degrees of ignorance. Sad, but true.
Decision making is always a game of statistical chance. Sometimes the result only affects the individual. But when the result affects other human beings, that is when the issue of “having character” especially arises.
A useful definition of “knowledge” is that it represents a “better truth” than a former belief. That means that having knowledge is a dynamic process. It requires that a person give up on a former belief - Santa Claus comes to mind - and adopt one that fits reality better. Science is having a great run by following this dictum.
A worthy consideration of “having character” is that a person has that ability to “change his mind.” It is a demonstration of the human capacity to learn and adapt. Perhaps we should give more respect to those who are able and willing to change their minds. I give Racicot a plus on this.
It’s disappointing that so many politicians see this as a weakness. Actually, it is one of the mainstays of critical thinking and a means toward creating a better future.
Gene Johnson
Polson
