Personality

==Temperament and philosophy==
[[File:Wm james.jpg|thumb|William James (1842–1910)]]
[[William James]] (1842–1910) argued that '''temperament''' explains a great deal of the controversies in the history of philosophy by arguing that it is a very influential premise in the arguments of philosophers. Despite seeking only impersonal reasons for their conclusions, James argued, the temperament of philosophers influenced their philosophy. Temperament thus conceived is tantamount to a bias. Such bias, James explained, was a consequence of the trust philosophers place in their own temperament. James thought the significance of his observation lay on the premise that in philosophy an objective measure of success is whether philosophy is peculiar to its philosopher or not, and whether a philosopher is dissatisfied with any other way of seeing things or not.<ref name="Pragmatism and Other Essays">{{Cite book |last=James |first=William |title=Pragmatism and Other Essays |date=1970 |publisher=Washington Square Press |location=New York}}</ref>

=== Mental make-up ===
James argued that temperament may be the basis of several divisions in academia, but focused on philosophy in his 1907 lectures on ''[[Pragmatism]]''. In fact, James' lecture of 1907 fashioned a sort of trait theory of the empiricist and rationalist camps of philosophy. As in most modern trait theories, the traits of each camp are described by James as distinct and opposite, and maybe possessed in different proportions on a continuum, and thus characterize the personality of philosophers of each camp. The "mental make-up" (i.e. personality) of rationalist philosophers is described as "tender-minded" and "going by "principles", and that of empiricist philosophers is described as "tough-minded" and "going by "facts." James distinguishes each not only in terms of the philosophical claims they made in 1907, but by arguing that such claims are made primarily on the basis of temperament. Furthermore, such categorization was only incidental to James' purpose of explaining his pragmatist philosophy and is not exhaustive.<ref name="Pragmatism and Other Essays" />

===Empiricists and rationalists===
[[File:Locke-John-LOC.jpg|thumb|John Locke (1632–1704)]]
According to James, the ''temperament'' of [[rationalism|rationalist]] philosophers differed fundamentally from the ''temperament'' of [[empiricism|empiricist]] philosophers of his day. The tendency of rationalist philosophers toward ''refinement'' and ''superficiality'' never satisfied an empiricist temper of mind. Rationalism leads to the creation of ''closed systems'', and such optimism is considered shallow by the fact-loving mind, for whom perfection is far off.<ref>{{Cite book |last=James |first=William |title=Pragmatism and other essays |date=1970 |publisher=Washington Square Press |location=New York |page=16}}</ref> Rationalism is regarded as ''pretension'', and a temperament most inclined to ''abstraction''.<ref>{{Cite book |last=James |first=William |title=Pragmatism and other essays |date=1970 |publisher=Washington Square Press |location=New York |page=32}}</ref>

[[empiricism|Empiricists]], on the other hand, stick with the external senses rather than logic. British empiricist [[John Locke]]'s  (1632–1704) explanation of personal identity provides an example of what James referred to. Locke explains the identity of a person, i.e. personality, on the basis of a precise definition of identity, by which the meaning of identity differs according to what it is being applied to. The identity of a person is quite distinct from the identity of a man, woman, or substance according to Locke. Locke concludes that consciousness is personality because it "always accompanies thinking, it is that which makes everyone to be what he calls self,"<ref>{{Cite book |last=Locke |first=John |title=An Essay Concerning Human Understanding |date=1974 |publisher=Random House |location=Toronto}}{{pn|date=December 2019}}</ref> and remains constant in different places at different times.
[[File:Benedictus (Baruch) Spinoza (anoniem schilderij, Gemeentemuseum Den Haag), Bestanddeelnr 935-0843.jpg|thumb|Benedictus Spinoza (1632–1677)]]
Rationalists conceived of the identity of persons differently than empiricists such as Locke who distinguished identity of substance, person, and life. According to Locke, [[Rene Descartes]]  (1596–1650) agreed only insofar as he did not argue that one immaterial spirit is the basis of the person "for fear of making brutes thinking things too."<ref>{{Cite book |last=James |first=William |title=Pragmatism and other essays |date=1970 |publisher=Washington Square Press |location=New York |page=69}}</ref> According to James, Locke tolerated arguments that a soul was behind the consciousness of any person. However, Locke's successor [[David Hume]] (1711–1776), and empirical psychologists after him denied the soul except for being a term to describe the cohesion of inner lives.<ref name="Pragmatism and Other Essays" /> However, some research suggests Hume excluded personal identity from his opus [[David Hume|''An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding'']] because he thought his argument was sufficient but not compelling.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Hume |first=David |title=An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding |date=1955 |publisher=Liberal Arts Press Inc |location=US}}{{pn|date=December 2019}}</ref> [[Descartes]] himself distinguished active and passive faculties of mind, each contributing to thinking and consciousness in different ways. The passive faculty, Descartes argued, simply receives, whereas the active faculty produces and forms ideas, but does not presuppose thought, and thus cannot be within the thinking thing. The active faculty mustn't be within self because ideas are produced without any awareness of them, and are sometimes produced against one's will.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Descartes |first=Rene |title=Meditations on the First Philosophy |date=1974 |publisher=Anchor Books |location=New York}}{{pn|date=December 2019}}</ref>

Rationalist philosopher [[Spinoza|Benedictus Spinoza]] (1632–1677) argued that ideas are the first element constituting the human mind, but existed only for actually existing things.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Spinoza |first=Benedictus |title=The Ethics |date=1974 |publisher=Anchor Books |edition=The Rationalists |location=New York}}</ref> In other words, ideas of non-existent things are without meaning for Spinoza, because an idea of a non-existent thing cannot exist. Further, Spinoza's rationalism argued that the mind does not know itself, except insofar as it perceives the "ideas of the modifications of body", in describing its external perceptions, or perceptions from without. On the contrary, from within, Spinoza argued, perceptions connect various ideas clearly and distinctly.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Spinoza |first=Benedictus |title=The Ethics |date=1974 |publisher=Random House |edition=The Rationalists |location=New York |page=241}}</ref> The mind is not the free cause of its actions for Spinoza.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Spinoza |first=Benedictus |title=The Ethics |date=1974 |publisher=Random House |edition=The Rationalists |location=New York |page=253}}</ref> Spinoza equates the will with the understanding and explains the common distinction of these things as being two different things as an error which results from the individual's misunderstanding of the nature of thinking.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Spinoza |first=Benedictus |title=The Ethics |date=1974 |publisher=Random House |edition=The Rationalists |location=New York |page=256}}</ref>