Charisma follow up
Recently I recieved my first comment on a post (thank you Bill Brown it is nice to know that someone is interested) and some great questions where raised about my views on charisma. Because the questions raised such good points I felt it would be nice to explore the topic a little more in an attempt to overcome the objections and perhaps raise more questions.
The first objection was the idea of “effort” not being accounted for. In this case the point of the article is that charisma overcomes the need for effort. It is also important to note that effort is extremely valuable and for most people with out charisma, it is the only way to find success. But again, the post was to explore the idea that charisma can trump most hurtles with little effort.
The second objection is much more complex. I think Bills point about attributes in the Aristotlian sense when applied to a “human” are extremely accurate depending on how you define a human. In this post I was not discussing a human as a make up of chemicals and minerals but instead was referring to the concept of the metaphysical “person”. It is my believe that all “humans” have various attribute ranges. These ranges allow one person to become an expert at one thing while another person can never pass a novice level. How these ranges are utilized is greatly impacted by external forces such as socialization or experience. The result of these utilizations creates the “person.” In short we all have the same attributes but different levels. Where we end up in the range is determined largely by external forces and the level we achieve creates the “person.”
Again I want to thank Bill for raising such a strong question and taking the time to comment. I look forward to hearing if this makes any sense to anyone ;)