I am not exactly a social maven, and far too honest to play the game. I am on the other extreme end of Asper, I am not quiet, reticent or ashamed. I am so loud, bold and proud that I cut through the field of social wheat like a thresher, avoid and am avoided like an epicurean pariah.
I'm stumped as to what this response has to do with the post you quoted, or much at all of this discussion, but nonetheless, I do find something to pursue in it. Cheers for that.
You mention being too honest to play the social game. I can relate to that statement, as I am often accused of being a bit too unrestrained in my own candor. So, from your point of view, is it possible that honesty is not the crux of social problems for many who are "loud, bold, and proud"? Could it rather be, that a good portion of those who so love to proclaim themselves this or that, are actually just obnoxious, and tedious company? It seems that some people tend to become very skilled at self-delusion whilst they are purportedly embracing their true natures. What a paradox. I wonder if there is any cure for that peculiar brand of narcissism. Where it occurs, it's dreadful to deal with.
Thanks for the 'Follow', by the way,
Epicurean Pariah. And to
Slithytoves, my apologies for taking your thread still further from its origins.
What aspects of a person does the term 'ones own nature' refer to? Is it qualities such as being quite, loud, outgoing, controlling, forthright? (I ask because I'm interested to know more about what being true to ones own nature means.)
Is it possible for there to be aspects of ones own nature that are self destrictive, or is it only behaviours that are self destructive? Is it possible for a persons own nature to get in the way of them achieving what they want to achieve?
I hope you won't mind my interjecting, Vinca. You ask good questions, which I believe I can answer simply.
As EP noted, one's 'nature' is their fundamental self...their essential identity and character. 'Quiet' or 'loud' as literal qualities wouldn't apply [the others you mentioned would]. As figurative language for the personality type that goes with those terms, however, then yes, they could be considered aspects of nature. Fair enough?
To be true to one's own nature means to follow, by your actions and the way you choose to view things, those fundamental qualities of who you are.
Now, to your more nuanced questions.
I would suggest that one's essential nature would not be inherently self-destructive, unless you would count a personality that is, from birth, deeply disrupted by mental illness or disorder. Environmental-experiential factors can impede on one's nature, however, inducing thought and behaviour that can indeed be self-destructive.
Yes, I do believe that one's nature can hinder realisation of their aspirations. For example, an innately very introverted individual would have an extremely hard time becoming a tour leader or politician, if one of those was their dream. Aspects of one's nature may often be overcome with effort, but not always. It generally depends upon on the extremity of the quality in question. Does this make sense to you?