The character–personality distinction: An historical, conceptual, and functional investigation

Abstract

Many interdisciplinary discussions seem to operate on a tacit assumption that the notions of character and personality can be used interchangeably. In order to argue that such an assumption is at least partly erroneous, the character-personality distinction drawn in various contexts is systematically scrutinized both in an historical and conceptual way. Then, in turn, two particular issues are addressed. The character-personality distinction is shown to be reliant on the dichotomy between value and fact, respectively, and to have a considerable functional dimension with some of the functions fulfilled by the notion of character (but not by that one of personality). The outcomes achieved, finally, are referred to the subtle differences between the fact-value distinction and the Humean is-ought dichotomy.

Going Over normality-Health distinction: A New Overview

“…The Normality has been in fact often conceived as construction that founds him on the adherence or less to the statistic norm: a mere abstract line, that sets a limit above what is normal is found; an example can be the diagnostic and statistic manual of the mental disorders. A criticism can be advanced to this concept, since it seems a certain dichotomic attitude is applied: our concepts of normality and abnormality, together with the labels and categories, are rooted on social constructions, elaborate on abstract concepts during some specific years from members of the society [32,33], and this can show "an ideological component" [5] for example to recognize that aspects of personality that were "the site where the seeds future of individual and social problems were sown and germinated" [6] and, accordingly, established as an object of intervention [1]. It's necessary to point out that people can introduce considerable statistic deviations from the statistic norm without being abnormal and/or pathological or unhealthy [34].…”

“…Rather, it refers to theoretical and methodological issues inevitably involved in connecting two or more field. The latter are often substantially different and may involve conceptual and theoretical apparatuses which, if not altogether incommensurable, are hard to translate into each other [1]. The terminologies used in the professional health care and in health science is partly unclear [2], and also distinguish normal from disturbed conditions, appears an extremely confused operation in mental health [3].…”

“…On the base of these recent and interesting observations has been opened some reflections regarding the interlacement and the comparison on the concepts of Normality and Health, also making reference to the historical evolution of the theories, and to that movement for the mental Health to whose base revealed him that that results "an ideological component" [5] that we can define normative. It is for example concretized in the project to recognize and to eradicate that aspects of personality that were the site where the seeds future of individual and social problems were sown and germinated [6] and, accordingly, established as an object of intervention [1]. We consider that the personality, in its characteristics, can introduce considerable deviations from the statistic norm, without for this to have to believe that these deviations are not "healthy" [1].…”

“…It is for example concretized in the project to recognize and to eradicate that aspects of personality that were the site where the seeds future of individual and social problems were sown and germinated [6] and, accordingly, established as an object of intervention [1]. We consider that the personality, in its characteristics, can introduce considerable deviations from the statistic norm, without for this to have to believe that these deviations are not "healthy" [1]. As a matter of fact in different studies have been criticized the interchangeability and little clarity of the notions of normality and health, since the two notions are not identical.…”

On the concepts of character and personality: Correctly interpreting the statistical evidence putatively relevant to the disposition–situation debate

“…Recently, Banicki (2017) discussed historical and conceptual facets of the long-standing distinction between “character” and “personality,” addressing the topic from an interdisciplinary standpoint involving psychology and philosophy. He observed that the emphasis from the side of philosophy has been on the concept of enduring character , and, from the side of psychology, on the concept of stable traits of personality.…”