[Note to reader: this post was written hastily, so there is no intended figure today. Sorry!]
I recently had a brief dispute--brief meaning 4.7 seconds--about the classic theory of the four temperaments. Just in case I need to reference this theory in the future in persona Ignorami, I want to lay out my thoughts.
The best treatment I know of the subject is Art and Laraine Bennet's The Temperament God Gave You. Until I read that book I thought I understood how to discern the temperaments but in fact had only a fuzzy grasp of things. For example, my own dominant temperament, the melancholic, can mimic the anger or aggressiveness of the choleric at times; my subdominant phlegmatic side can play together with the melancholic to look almost like a sanguine.
Someone once suggested to me that the irascible and concupiscible powers explain the four temperaments. A strong irascible power makes one choleric, while a weak irascible power makes one phlegmatic; a strong concupiscible power makes one melancholic, while a weak concupiscible power makes one sanguine. Here is where the dispute arose a couple of days ago, so let me clarify.
Picture the irascible and concupiscible powers mapped on a grid, with the vertical line representing the irascible and the horizontal line representing the concupiscible. To be choleric you have to be towards the top of the vertical line, while to be phlegmatic you have to be near the bottom of the vertical line. To be melancholic you have to be at the far right side of the horizontal line, while to be sanguine you have to be at the far left side of the horizontal line. To find your overall personality mix, you find your point on the horizontal, your point on the vertical, and then do the standard graph maneuver of locating the point next to both of these on the grid. The result will have both slope, indicating which side is dominant, and length, indicating the overal strength of temperament.
Note that the temperaments are plotted on a continuum. You could be right at the center of the line and therefore neither choleric nor phlegmatic strictly speaking. In that case, you might have some features of one and some of the other, but the overall result would not be particularly strong in either direction. The same goes for the melancholic/sanguine continuum. You could not be strongly choleric and strongly phlegmatic, or strongly melancholic and strongly sanguine.
However, you could be strongly melancholic and phlegmatic, melancholic and choleric, sanguine and phlegmatic, or sanguine and choleric--one strong mix for each quadrant of the graph. In this case you can have both temperaments strictly speaking, although in practice one will tend to be dominant over the other, if only slightly.
Lastly, we have to recall that temperament is not destiny. The saints are often very difficult to place on the temperament continuum because they have overcome the vices of their temperament and acquired the virtues of the other temperaments. One cannot be natively disposed both a strong choleric and a strong phlegmatic reaction, but by living well one can acquire the reactions of a choleric in one circumstance and of a phlegmatic in another circumstance, depending on what is appropriate. Acquired virtue makes hash of my temperament grid.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Clarify something for me: Is the Cartesian system you describe YOUR argument or your 4.7 second opponent?
I can't see how it could be. You're saying that the Bennett book is 'the best treatment you know of the subject', but they make the argument that Christ would have had perfected qualities of all four temperaments.
This is clearly in contradiction to the statement that "You could not be strongly choleric and strongly phlegmatic, or strongly melancholic and strongly sanguine.". I think this is a false statement, by the way.
I like the Cartesian system in theory, and I especially like thinking of one's major temperament trait as a vector: a tendency of direction. But in practice I think it breaks down completely.
How would you address this apparent contradiction?
Duck--quickly, I'm about to leave for Ohio for a week--my whole post was my thought; it was neither the thought of my friend/opponent nor of the Bennets (although I think they agree that one cannot be both strongly choleric and strongly phlegmatic, they just don't propose the particular theory about why).
Of course Christ has the perfected qualities of all the temperaments, because he is the greatest of saints. I did point out that the saints make hash of the grid because in that case we are not just dealing with natural disposition. In Christ's case, we are dealing not only with whatever habits he may have formed but with the influence of hypostatic union to the Word of God.
A contradiction would involve saying A and not A at the same time and in the same respect. What I said is that one can have the perfections of all four temperaments through acquired virtue (A) but one cannot have the perfections of all four just by inborn disposition (not A). Those are neither at the same time nor in the same respect, so there's no contradiction.
I don't think. Always open for revision here.
Is Christ's personality a perfection of practiced habit, or congenital? I'd be surprised to hear that Christ needed to develop his virtues. But I am a far cry from a Christological expert. Does Aquinas speak on this? If his perfection was present from birth, then your (not A) is false.
The contradiction I thought was there was not in the manner of acquisition, but in possibility of holding two apparently opposite traits at the same time.
I hope your trip to Ohio is pleasant, and that your upcoming move goes smoothly!
Not happy about my using the word congenital. Makes it sound like His virtue was a disease. Please substitute inborn, hereditary, connatural, etc. Mea culpa.
Okay--I've heard a lot about the four temperaments, and every time the subject comes up, it annoys me. I know, I know: it's been taught for ages, and it's a "useful tool for knowing thyself," etc., etc. And yet, I still can't bring myself to like the idea of putting someone into a category and saying, "You're sanguine" or "You're choleric-melancholic" or some such thing. The problem with this is that, unless the person in question is very predictable, to say that their personality is such-and-such really does little in terms of determining what their actions will be.
Which brings me to several points. First, if you (this is a general "you") like the four temperaments, fine--but use them on yourself and not on others. If it's a tool for you and helps you to discover your predominant faults--then by all means, use it and use it wisely. Second, if virtue really "makes hash" of the Cartesian system that we're discussing--then it only further proves my point of the uselessness (I'm using this word carelessly) of the four temperaments when regards others. Because even without the state of grace, everyone can obtain natural virtues that overcome their faults. And, I think, everyone does do this to some extent.
As regards Christ, I think "Ignoramus" was saying NOT that Christ had two opposite traits, but rather that he had possessed the virtues of both these traits and could apply them appropriately to any situation at will. This, I think, is indeed possible and a goal to which we should all strive.
Of course, understand that the above rambling was made with hardly any philosophical/theological background. I'm open for heavy correction on my hypotheses...I had more to say, but I've forgotten...
To answer some of these objections, if I may:
The four temperaments are often summarized badly, and can be used by the unwise to put people into "little boxes", if you will. However, when it comes down to it, in practice they are a very useful tool for distancing yourself from petty annoyances and differences, permitting you to sort out whether your differences with someone else are just differences in method/taste/natural inclinations, or in principles. I know people who have not made, or ignored, this intellectual distinction, and they end up achieving little in their conversations with others, since they are forever inclined to make mountains out of molehills and ruin the credibility of their principles in the process.
My husband and I, in our opinion wisely described as a choleric/melancholic and a choleric/sanguine, have found the distinctions between the temperaments invaluable in understanding why our methods and impulses differ so much, assisting us to take one another's actions as less of a personal affront and more of a natural difference. The personality descriptions also help us to understand what the other is more likely to want or need from the other, emotionally and socially. For example, he knows my sanity needs a social network and an occasional change of scenery, while I know that, for him, an enjoyable evening would not include going anywhere at all, but simply having a good home-cooked meal and quiet evening at home with me. Recognizing these differences enables us to achieve a balance in our home and it assists us with knowing what sorts of personal sacrifices the other would most appreciate. Making distinctions of this sort enables you to relate what others would prefer and recognize the good in that, whether or not it's what you would have chosen at first.
Oh, and for Ignoramus and the Duck:
I believe the 4.7 second opponent wrote these posts after the discussion, and no doubt his uncannily clear recollection of Aristotle's nitty-gritty is what inspired his brief but firm objection in conversation:
http://theroadtoerudition.
blogspot.com
/2008/05/opposition.html
and
http://theroadtoerudition.
blogspot.com
/2008/05/opposition-is-so-divisive
.html
Not sure if that helps, at least providing a bit more that 4.7 seconds of feedback? As for me, it makes my head swim a tad, much to 4.7 second opponent's annoyance, as he greatly wanted to discuss the details with me. My memory of freshman philosophy isn't all that great. :-/ I should probably review that.
Post a Comment