Physical strength develops through the perseverance of training, and strength of character is demonstrated by adhering to and applying integrity—the universal moral and ethical principle of doing no harm. Neither one of these is easy. Both require self‑initiated discipline, dedication, determination, perseverance, and resilience to develop and advance self‑empowerment potential, understood as the individual’s inherent capacity for autonomy and agency; yet even with such effort, empowerment is not guaranteed, as it is realised only through consistent action rather than stated intention.
At the centre of both physical training and intrinsic moral development is a single reflective question, as …
Physical strength develops through the perseverance of training, and strength of character is demonstrated by adhering to and applying integrity—the universal moral and ethical principle of doing no harm. Neither one of these is easy. Both require self‑initiated discipline, dedication, determination, perseverance, and resilience to develop and advance self‑empowerment potential, understood as the individual’s inherent capacity for autonomy and agency; yet even with such effort, empowerment is not guaranteed, as it is realised only through consistent action rather than stated intention.
At the centre of both physical training and intrinsic moral development is a single reflective question, as presented in Responsibility Theory®: “What am I responsible for, and what power do I have?” This question immediately and directly directs attention to the self. It demands a universal answer: “I am responsible for, and I’ve got the power over what I think, do, say, learn, and choose.”
This answer now immediately prompts another question, which is: “Is this answer universally true?” This question now leads to a deeper analysis that is advanced with the following two questions: (1) Does anything of what has been written and presented thus far possess personal or social veracity? And (2) Does any of what has been written align with the principle of universal application?
If the answers to all of these questions cannot withstand universal scrutiny, i.e., if what has been written cannot be applied to all, should all of this then be dismissed and forgotten altogether? To examine this issue from a universal perspective, we turn to Aristotle and Sartre.
Aristotle held that virtue – integrity – is formed and displayed through every moral choice and action. Character is not hidden; it is revealed in conduct. Virtue is not an abstract ideal but a lived practice, shaped through repetition and demonstrated in the world by the presentation of each and every choice and associated actions and behaviours.
From an existential perspective, Sartre contends that the individual is responsible not only for their choices but also for what those choices reveal about them. Sartre sharpens this further by noting that every person becomes who they are through the choices they make. Aristotle anchors character in action, and Sartre anchors identity in choice. This also aligns with the following responsibility theory precept: “I think, therefore I am” (Descartes). I am what I think, do, say and choose.”
With these words now written and possibly read (over which I have no control), the decision is the reader’s: to accept what has been written or reject it. Either choice carries consequences. If rejected, the ethical and moral action is to stop reading. If accepted, the reader alone will choose the next step.
Recognition and Potential
The contention here, and the research suggests, is that personal strength grows when the individual recognises that their thoughts are not passive events but deliberate constructions. Ultimately, according to Glasser (1984), individuals are accountable for their own attitudes, actions and behaviour: “all living creatures, from simple to complex, control themselves.”
Research informs that when a person governs their thinking, they have the potential to recognise impulses and, from this recognition, they also have the intellectual capacity to choose whether emotional impulses become an action or whether to pause and consider. All of this also aligns with findings in self-regulation research demonstrating that impulse awareness enables behavioural inhibition by initiating intentional, deliberate choice (Tice et al., 2001; Baumeister & Vohs, 2007).
This in turn aligns with the insight of Viktor Frankl, the author of Man’s Search for Meaning, in which he wrote: “Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom.”
Universal Inevitability
Recognition of a circumstance does not mean choices will be easy. However, the universal inevitability is that choices are constantly being made. Even if you disagree with this, this is a choice, and the same universal truth takes place if no choice is made. Not making a choice is a choice. In the final analysis, all of this can be rejected or accepted. The choice belongs to the reader.
The Potential of Insight
Both of these choices align with the potential of insight. All of this may or may not be easy. Even with this being the case, the inference being explored here is to now declare (rather than suggest) that strength of character and self‑empowerment have the potential to develop and advance when you acknowledge, accept, embrace and self-reflectively agree that you are (in absolute terms) responsible, and that you’ve got the power over what you think, do, say, learn and choose; to which the brain immediately responds. As Doidge (2015) writes: “Everyday thought, especially when used systematically, is a potent way to stimulate neurons.”
With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility
Self‑governance and self-empowerment are not promises of ease or rapid transformation. Self-governance and self-empowerment are about the ongoing, inherent, universal inevitability of choices, which involve the conscious, self-reflective application that you will know how to act with integrity, and that you also have the universal willingness and the strength of character to take ownership of your thoughts, choices, power, and all actions and consequences that will follow, for which you are (in absolute terms) responsible. This insight involves power, real, meaningful power. All of which belongs to you, which means you have power over yourself. With great power comes great responsibility.
References
Aristotle. (1999). Nicomachean ethics (T. Irwin, Trans.). Hackett Publishing.
Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2007). Self-regulation, ego depletion, and motivation. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1(1), 115–128.
Baiasu, S., Head, J., Tomaszewska, A., Bojanowski, J., & Vanzo, A. (2015). Kant and Sartre: Existentialism and critical philosophy. In Comparing Kant and Sartre, 3–18. Palgrave Macmillan.
Broadie, S. (1991). Ethics with Aristotle. Oxford University Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2013). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Springer Science & Business Media.
Doidge, N. (2015). The brain’s way of healing. Scribe, Melbourne, London.
Duckworth, A. (2016). Grit: The power of passion and perseverance. Scribner.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.
Flynn, T. R. (2006). Existentialism: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press.
Frankl, V. E. (2006). Man’s search for meaning. Beacon Press. (Original work published 1946)
Glasser, W. (1965). Reality therapy: A new approach to psychiatry. Harper & Row.
Glasser, W. (1984). Control theory: A new explanation of how we control our lives. Harper & Row.
Glasser, W. (1998). Choice theory: A new psychology of personal freedom. HarperCollins.
Purje, R. (2014). Responsibility Theory® (Who’s got the power?) ®. Amazon/Kindle.
Sartre, J.-P. (2003). Being and nothingness: An essay on phenomenological ontology (H. E. Barnes, Trans.). Routledge. (Original work published 1943)
Sartre, J. P. (2007). Existentialism is a humanism (C. Macomber, Trans.). Yale University Press.
Tice, D. M., Bratslavsky, E., & Baumeister, R. F. (2001). Emotional distress regulation takes precedence over impulse control: If you feel bad, do it! Journal of *Personality and Social Psychology, 80(*1), 53–67.