>>3844567This part of character is so obvious because it immediately appeals to our sense perception, but if we look closer we see it is not enough to define character and also not enough to make character identical. For people are not defined by only their appearances and names, but rather their virtues, vice, motivations, actions and behavior. This, I think, is the same thing for characters. Indeed, I think the things more obvious to us (the sensible qualities) are in fact less integral to character than the things which belong to the character in a deeper and more proper and profound way. Hence what makes the character most essentially is these three categories (speaking generically): their virtues and vices, or their 'state of character', motivations, or their 'principles and desires of character', and actions, which are their decisions and interactions with the world around them and more simply the 'how the character operates'. This naturally includes things such as their inner and exterior conflicts, dialogue, their modus operandi, practically everything you can name about the character. This, I think, goes back to my previous posts. Neither Faramir nor Rei, speaking from the perspective of character abstracted from the authors, are the same characters as "Faramir" or "Rei" Q. As I said, all three of the above categories match for either case. Hence I think my point still stands. (Part 2/2)
