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 ;)
I still don’t understand how you can say that “charisma overcomes the need for effort.” (Side note: you also haven’t really defined success here. What is meant by success is vital to understanding your point that charisma alone can sometimes lead to it.)
You could be the most beautiful woman or the most charming man in the world and that means squat in achieving success. Success here means the achievement of some desired values. Unless you’re talking about the bogus Law of Attraction, there are no values attainable without action or effort.
Have a good job? You have to actually get the job and then you have to be competent enough to retain it. Write a bestselling book? Charisma might get you the first meeting, but it’s not going to get you the contract without some effort to back things up. Even the achievement of a value requires subsequent action to retain it.
In answering my attributes objection, you’ve raised another. Where does volition fall into this? Free will is certainly an attribute of people but it inexorably leads to the idea that the realization of one’s attributes requires an act of will. Success then becomes, at root, a consequence of that original thought plus all the subsequent thoughts and actions that lead to the achievement of the success and the continued prosecution of it.
I know that your original entry was just some casual musings on charisma, so perhaps this analysis, though appreciated, is unnecessary. I can’t help it: I have a minor in philosophy and I see it everywhere.
Bill, again you have raised some interesting ideas. But I can see from the post that we are coming from very different perspective. You are looking at it as philosophy where I look at it as psychology/sociology (my major).
The argument of free will is a perfect case in point. I feel that I could argue free will doesn’t exist. That every action is taken due to some desire to survive. This is an area I know I am virtually alone in as I have had the debate with many others, many times. But it is what it is
Again thank you for the great comments and perhaps sometime we can continue the debate.