This is a really interesting concept. What you suggest in that the characters' personality might materialize into something eternal implies that the person found the perfect way to live. This begs the question is it possible for a human to eventually become perfect? I think it calls into question the divine aspect, can a human attain a god-like perspective given enough time?

An example is that in this day and age we have history from the past thousands of years. Humanity is at the forefront of advancements technologically and socially. Is society any better than it was a thousand years ago? Have we really developed at all, as we still commit terrible atrocities against one and other.

I think what I'm trying to get at is would we ever really get to a constant, and I don't think we would. I think that as humans we fluctuate too much and our consciousnesses don't have the capacity to become perfect.

Perfect is the state we would have to achieve to want to remain in a constant personality for all eternity.

Let's assume that person didn't learn how to live forever, let's say that somehow science or magic (really not important) made humans eternal and this process would be irreversible.
So you think one would have all of the possible types of character during an eternity, from a great wise philosopher to a rapist, from a man who would sacrifice everything for liberal values to a pure dictator?

I’d say it’s quite possible that they could fluctuate to the same degrees you’ve laid out. An eternity is an unfathomably long time and the switch between personalities could happen over the course of thousands of years so it could happen. I don’t think there is a set of morals strong enough to guide someone through all of eternity and they are bound to have slip ups, potentially terrible ones. There is also the chance for periods of huge success, wonderful breakthroughs or ideas.

So the identity of one itself is just a form of adapting yourself to the context.

Not exactly, I would say identity is how you perceive yourself and how others perceive you. If this is a legitimate definition for identity then it would change with how society changes.

You would view yourself as different compared with society.

Others would view you differently as judged against themselves.

Alright. Let's not call it identity, but "things that define you". I believe that there are some characteristics that become very rooted in one's life and I am not sure if time will only make them deeper or destroy them.

Alright, what would some examples of those things be?

Ok. Let's take a banal example: one's love for his mother. There are two possibilities here: to love or to hate. Is it a certainty that at one moment in time, he will hate his mother? I don't mean being mad at her, but simply hate her for a century. Is it 100% that there will be a love/hate relationship for an eternity?

Identity is a sublime thing that transcends one's actions. Ultimately, we're stuck with one, unless we just slowly die emotionally. Otherwise, even in a thousand years, surely I'll still recognize that I'm me as opposed to everyone else. I'll still have a certain appearance, a certain attitude that, good or bad, will distinguish me from everything else.

Yes and that would make up who you are, but wouldn’t that change for you individually over time?

I feel like the person could go through a period of hatred for his mother, even one of a hundred years. This could be caused by some realisation or understanding of something that his mother did. It could be that they have a falling out

Yes it could change, but the same person would have to deal with it. There's only one continuous "me." I don't have multiple mes.

こと

I admit that it is tempting to believe that long periods of time automatically bring radical changes. However, things tend to become complicated when we think that a deeply rooted faith does not come from the desire to adapt, but because one may really believe in the values ​​of that belief that transcends time. Sometimes reality simply cannot confirm or disprove those beliefs.

Let's take the example of religious faith. Suppose that time really changes you radically. In this case, in several thousands of years the same person goes through all stages from the religious focused until the atheist convinced several times. But when he looks back and observes that in fact his beliefs at one point simply become the number one enemy at another time despite of all arguments and feelings, does he not realize that what he believes in today will certainly change 180 degrees? And then, logically speaking, would not man lose his strong beliefs? After all, what would be their logic? Wouldn't that mean that one reaches a point where they realize that strong beliefs don't make sense and that the only thing that makes sense is just adaptability? Then, if we look at the whole, nothing really defines man in terms of personality, but everything is in context. Introspection will make one realize that their only constant value is biology and that the only thing that relates them to what they were thousands of years before is the birth.

The problem with this result is that precisely the finite life contradicts this vision. Yes, it is true that many character traits are related to adaptability and that they can and will change, but it is just as true that history confirms many cases of beliefs and values ​​that have not changed in spite of the changes of the world.

..time is an abyss ... profound as a thousand nights ... centuries come and go ... to be unable to grow old is terrible ... death is not the worst ... can you imagine enduring centuries, experiencing each day the same futilities ... — armonie

This is a double-edged sword: you underestimate the power of nostalgia and the power of time to push even harder the defining things into someone/something. Diversity is essential if you want to get rid of boredom, but losing something old could represent an unacceptable trauma.

If one were to live an eternity and keep the body and genetic structure approximately the same, personality and character would take an infinity of forms / all forms of character and personality possible countless times, or at a certain point materialize into something eternal?
PS: this person will have infinite memory and free will. — Eugen

I think the potential is there for personality and character to eventually develop into something more stable. Either that, or the person would find some way to ‘opt out’ of their eternal life, choosing to ignore, isolate or exclude certain possibilities available to them, and then focus only on ‘enduring’ the limitations of their narrowly perceived life.

If one were to live an eternity and keep the body and genetic structure approximately the same, personality and character would take an infinity of forms / all forms of character and personality possible countless times, or at a certain point materialize into something eternal?
PS: this person will have infinite memory and free will. — Eugen

What bothers me is the determinants of personality. I'm somewhat confident that knowledge and experience have a bearing on personality. How does one explain changes in people that come with education, reflection on pertinent issues, and experience? If personality is influenced in any way by the factors mentioned above, which by no means is an exhaustive list, then it seems that knowing truths shape who we are and since truths are constants, it implies that once they're known, our personalities should also remain unchanging. In other words, if knowledge decides our personalities then possessing it should mean a fixed, unchanging personality.

Yes, I am of the same opinion, just to add something else: opinions and beliefs can be based on obvious truths (eg 1 + 1 = 2) or perspectives (eg democracy vs communism; atheism vs faith).
In the first case, the discussion does not deserve the effort, but in the case of the perspective, things deserve more attention, because they do not have an obvious truth as a fundament.

Yes, I am of the same opinion, just to add something else: opinions and beliefs can be based on obvious truths (eg 1 + 1 = 2) or perspectives (eg democracy vs communism; atheism vs faith).
In the first case, the discussion does not deserve the effort, but in the case of the perspective, things deserve more attention, because they do not have an obvious truth as a fundament. — Eugen

I can't think of how perspectives could be classified as truths and perhaps that's exactly your point but that doesn't mean there are no truths and that truths don't have a role in molding personality.

If perspectives matter at all it's when there are no truths and all is a matter of opinion and it would be foolish indeed to base our personality on mere opinion.

That said, I don't have an issue with people adopting a particular personality based on a perspective. Some points of view can produce an overall agreeable personality e.g. viewing everything from a god angle can make you a good friend or family. However, such a person is at the mercy of other points of view - his character lasting only till the next person with a different take he meets. This fits with your theory quite well doesn't it? Nevertheless, as I mentioned above, if what makes you you is a matter of people's opinions (perspectives) then I' forced to say that you're in error.

1. What makes us different from others are exactly the opinions based on perspectives, not the universal truths. I actually find it hard to think of many universal truths that could define us.

2. Opinions based on perspectives could be actually true. E.g. if God exists, than the Pope was right, but that doesn't change the fact that he didn't really know the truth, he just believed, he had an opinion.
Other times, there is simply no truth and it's all about the perspective. E.g. Is the death penalty good?

What I'm trying to say is that our personal truths define our set of values and ultimately our way of living.

We have established that these truths have an emotional and rational part (one or both of them), so they could be changed by:

A. Facts - over time, reality simply proves us we were wrong.

B. People - stronger arguments or a fine ability to manipulate our feelings.

C. Time - long periods of time simply alter our point of view.

In many cases, our opinions are shattered because their strength is proved to be an illusion. We rush into believing that we know the truth, but suddenly facts or other arguments kill all of these instantly.

But what about when:

A. Facts simply cannot prove or disprove our beliefs. E.g. A believer defines God as something that's in all of us and at the same time out of this Universe. Reality simply cannot provide any facts to disprove it.

B. Sometimes the arsenal of "arguments" reaches its limits and capacities. If there are cases when reality cannot disprove one thing, then rational arguments have even smaller chances to succeed. E.g. To stick with religion, I think that all of the possible anti-religious arguments have been said already, and some people have already heard them all, but they simply resisted.
Regarding the manipulation of feelings, I think this has an absolutely huge potential, but only before arguments or reality come into play. I truly believe that the way arguments are exposed is important, but unless some kind of hypnosis is induced, cases in which even universal truths like 1+1=2 could be attacked, only the talent for narrating doesn't have the power to change very rooted beliefs.

C. The time matter is very tricky for me. On one hand, I think that time itself without other elements has nothing to do with beliefs. At the same time, time itself brings with it changes. So can some of our strongest beliefs remain constant throughout eternity?