It’s usually pretty negative.
Take it with a grain of salt. We don’t know which individuals informed the perspective of the various historical commentators on temperament. They might have had in mind people who would, in our context, be in need of intense psychiatric care.
What I’m looking for when I read this stuff is tendencies, trends, clues as to how temperament was interpreted.
They shouldn’t be taken as universally authoritative texts.
Especially since they often contradict one another at various points!
I mention this because a reader wrote inquiring about part of Kant’s work that I quoted at length. Kant was a pretty unusual guy himself, but what does he mean when he says:
In case of perversion of his feeling and lack of a cheerful reason he succumbs to the adventurous: inspirations, apparitions, temptations.
If the understanding is even weaker, he hits upon grotesqueries: portentous dreams, presentiments, and wondrous omens.
He is in danger of becoming a fantast or a crank.
I think what Kant is describing is one of the dangers for a melancholic who loses his way. I stand to be corrected by any scholars of Kant who might come across this, but my interpretation is that melancholics are prone to let their ideals become detached from reality.
A ‘fantast’ is a dreamer, someone off on an adventure who follows (as Kant puts it) inspirations, apparitions and temptations.
A crank is an eccentric…the kind of person who clings to dreams and premonitions and omens.
I think Kant is warning that we can go off in strange directions if our ideals deviate too far from reality. This is under the heading of “degenerate form of the character”, so it’s not something we should all worry about.
Ultimately this is just Kant’s view. It tells us something about Kant, and the things he observed. I approach it as something potentially useful, but not necessarily true.
Then again, I’m a bit of a fantast and eccentric myself.