There is nothing new under the sun. Take, for example, this listing of character types composed some 2500 years ago. The DSM and any number of psycho-babblers cannot even begin to conceive of the competition that lies within these wise words:
8/3/2015, by Donald Conte (reprinted without permission, but I don’t think he’ll mind) (see http://thisisnotyourpracticelife.com/). By the way, this is probably the best blog on the internet and I highly recommend that you read it every day. I do!
The generalized character types we recognize today are no different from those of ancient times as evidenced by a work partially passed through more than two millennia to us. The Characters was written by Theophrastus (371-‐287 B.C.E.) who headed the Lyceum after Aristotle died. Originally called Tyrtamos, he acquired his nom de plume from Aristotle because it meant “divine speaker.”
So, what did this human-god pass on to us?
The Characters is composed of short descriptions of personality types, reportedly both “good” and “bad,” but unfortunately, only his list of the “bad” survived. In a politically correct 21st century, calling a type of character “bad” is, of course, judgmental, and, therefore, taboo. Nevertheless, a quick look at Theophrastus’ classification can serve as a point of departure for our own self-examination. These bad characters include:
The ironical person who says the opposite of what he or she really thinks to achieve goals
The flatterer (no explanation necessary here, dear erudite reader)
The chatterer who just goes on incessantly about anything (think Cliff Claven from the TV program Cheers)
The boor who lacks the refinements of a culture (burp!)
The ingratiating person who is always eager (or even, in some instances, anxious) to please others
The outcast who is a man or woman of no principles
The talker who appears to know everything about everything and who thinks those he (she) encounters are wrong if their ideas differ from his (hers)
The inventor of news who is not unlike today’s gossip columnists, pundits with an agenda, and tabloid writers
The shameless person who does not care if his or her character is one of ill repute as long as he or she has something to gain
The skinflint (no further explanation necessary, “Here, Miss. Give my friend the check”)
The abominable person who is obnoxious to others, doing something to offend just because he or she gets joy from offending
The unseasonable person who chooses the wrong time for anything, such as asking someone in a hurry for an opinion
The presumptuous person who promises what he or she cannot deliver
The feckless person who is defined by a lack of wit and action
The hostile person who is just plain evil for no apparent reason (Think Billy Budd’s nemesis, Claggart, in Melville’s tale or of Shakespeare’s Iago in Othello, of whom Thomas Carlisle spoke as a manifestation of motiveless malignity)
The superstitious person who believes objects, animals, and actions (such as breaking a mirror) can control his or her fortune
The chip-on-the-shoulder person who is always bothered by some grievance with others
The distrustful person (what more to say?)
The offensive person who cares little for manners and customs of appearance (I think this guy or gal pals around with the boor)
The tiresome person who interrupts the course of another’s daily activity
The (petty) ambitious person who puts on a show in everything he or she does to exalt himself or herself
The mean person who values expense over honor
The boasting person (I leave this to your description)
The arrogant person who despises everyone but himself (misanthrope)
The cowardly person (Is it true that cowardly actions come back to haunt cowards in some way?)
The authoritarian (an oligarchic temperament motivated by power and profit)
The late-learning person who takes on tasks too difficult for his or her age
The slanderer (calumniator, detractor, defamer)
The criminal who is essentially a psychopath
The avaricious person who craves gain at the expense of others
Humanity fashioned these characters from the stuff of potential personalities. At various times in our lives we might be guilty of creating some of these characters or imitating some of their characteristics. Or, in the words of Verve in “Bitter Sweet Symphony”:
“But I’m here in my mold… And I’m a million different people from one day to the next”
Of course, the characters you have fashioned or encountered in others could be like those of Theophrastus’ lost descriptions: the “good characters.” Maybe you are one or more of the following that I assume the ancient thinker might have expressed as adjectives:
Straightforward
Honestly deferential
Engaging
Sophisticated
Independent
Principled without foisting principles on others
Humble
Respectful
Reputable
Generous
Pleasing
Considerate
Accommodating
Competent
Kind
Rational
Forgiving
Trustful
Assiduously sophisticated
Deferential
Unobtrusive
Upright
Modest
Humanitarian
Brave
Tolerant
Extolling
Law-abiding
Benevolent
The how of each of these characters is so easily identifiable that the second last of them, law-‐abiding, was even used as an ironic title for a motion picture (Law Abiding Citizen). Why any of us should be any of them, that is, any of either the “good” or the “bad” characters, is a bit of a mystery. We all have life experiences, role models we observed, and other reasons for taking on any of these character types, but none of those reasons make the “bad” character types any more pleasant to be around. Still, as Theophrastus’ predecessor Socrates noted, “the unexamined life isn’t worth living,” so it’s probably important to figure out which character or mix of characters you are.
