Dwelling with “character strengths” is common in developmental psychology, educational psychology, and Positive Psychology: vitality, curiosity, love of learning, persistence, open-mindedness, care for others, appreciation, creativity, integrity, fairness, prudence, gratitude, and more.

But character is different from selfidentity. Character may be witnessed (represented); selfidentity is living (partially representable to oneself), partially confessed to others. Though a character aspect too is that which is lived before being representable, an indicated aspect isn’t lived by the other who identifies a phenom-enon as showing a character aspect. Authentically living what’s represented as an aspect of character figures into self representations differently than genuinely figuring into representation by others or admiration; or representation to others.

By the way, it’s delightful to wonder about relations of psychological character to dramatic and literary notions of character (and figuring). But that’s for later—and is especially narratological (and tropical).

(Yet, mere mention of the wonder tropes a resonance that’s always with him.

“You laugh, yet....”)

Are selfidentical “strengths” basically lived importances?

Yes. The notion of “strengths” is observational (or model-theoretic) about life-oriental importances. I live love of learning, for example, as an importance—a heartful, authentic, selfidentical importance—which can be evaluated as a strength relative to some goal-oriented conception: having resilience in a difficult world, being efficacious, gaining success, etc. Selfidentical importances can be evaluated as “character strengths,” but are lived as, say, dimensions of oneSelf—once again: vitality, curiosity, love of learning, persistence, open-mindedness, care for others, appreciation, creativity, integrity, fairness, prudence, gratitude, and more.

< previous -|- Next: a manifold sense of “identity”