Grayman
Soul Shade
I have within me a philosopher. I have within me a person who upholds verbal freedom to a great degree. Regardless of this, the world exists in moderation and cares not from my ideals. There are limits to everything. So what is my limit? What is my role? Should anyone be exempt from being under the microscope? Should all sides and perspectives be taken into consideration? Should we consider all avenues?
What do I mean by a philosopher? Many philosophers have but one goal and that is to seek answers and find truth above all else. They will dig for answers and ask any question and make any observation regardless of social consequence. What is society’s reaction to this?
The poor philosopher means no ill will. He simply wants truth. There is a truth he cannot or will not see. That is the truth about society, about emotions, and the truth that not all answers are his to have. Not all observations should be made.
The poor member of society feels attacked by the philosopher and personal boundaries are pushed. He feels the need to defend himself. Society puts up heads to protect its members and these heads rarely contain philosophers. Philosophers don't want to lead. They want the freedom to seek and understand and don't want to be tied to other duties. So it is that society has at its head people who do not understand the philosopher. People who disagree with the philosopher’s intentions and actions and they want to silence the philosopher and make him stop pushing boundaries. These heads feel a great need to protect the societal members as is their duty.
The philosopher complains, and he only ever complains when knowledge is kept from him. He complains when he silenced and can no longer ask his questions. This is when the philosopher feels a need to make a stand.
We have on this forum a great many philosophers. They don't realize or forget or will not accept that the INTPf is not exempt from societal rules, and that they still have to keep in line with such things to at least a minimum. So they press and the members of society and their protectors push back.
So where do we remedy this? Where do we compromise between the philosopher and society? How do we keep them from separating and fighting? Where is the compromise in the philosopher to not push and to accept a degree of society rules and values? Where is the compromise in society to accept the philosophers need for knowledge and to realize he means no harm?
Am I seeing something that is not there, or is this forum in danger of a having a dividing line of opinion on this. A line that is damaging and deconstructive to the forum. What is the answer? What is the real issue? Where do we resolve this and where do we compromise?
Perhaps the philosophers are still a rarity in this society on this INTPf and they should learn to live within the expected norms of society. Is this fair? Is it realistic and necessary? Perhaps they should realize that they simply cannot have it all and they must settle with much freedom instead of every freedom to seek truth, but how far does that go? Where do we put the boundary?
What do I mean by a philosopher? Many philosophers have but one goal and that is to seek answers and find truth above all else. They will dig for answers and ask any question and make any observation regardless of social consequence. What is society’s reaction to this?
The poor philosopher means no ill will. He simply wants truth. There is a truth he cannot or will not see. That is the truth about society, about emotions, and the truth that not all answers are his to have. Not all observations should be made.
The poor member of society feels attacked by the philosopher and personal boundaries are pushed. He feels the need to defend himself. Society puts up heads to protect its members and these heads rarely contain philosophers. Philosophers don't want to lead. They want the freedom to seek and understand and don't want to be tied to other duties. So it is that society has at its head people who do not understand the philosopher. People who disagree with the philosopher’s intentions and actions and they want to silence the philosopher and make him stop pushing boundaries. These heads feel a great need to protect the societal members as is their duty.
The philosopher complains, and he only ever complains when knowledge is kept from him. He complains when he silenced and can no longer ask his questions. This is when the philosopher feels a need to make a stand.
We have on this forum a great many philosophers. They don't realize or forget or will not accept that the INTPf is not exempt from societal rules, and that they still have to keep in line with such things to at least a minimum. So they press and the members of society and their protectors push back.
So where do we remedy this? Where do we compromise between the philosopher and society? How do we keep them from separating and fighting? Where is the compromise in the philosopher to not push and to accept a degree of society rules and values? Where is the compromise in society to accept the philosophers need for knowledge and to realize he means no harm?
Am I seeing something that is not there, or is this forum in danger of a having a dividing line of opinion on this. A line that is damaging and deconstructive to the forum. What is the answer? What is the real issue? Where do we resolve this and where do we compromise?
Perhaps the philosophers are still a rarity in this society on this INTPf and they should learn to live within the expected norms of society. Is this fair? Is it realistic and necessary? Perhaps they should realize that they simply cannot have it all and they must settle with much freedom instead of every freedom to seek truth, but how far does that go? Where do we put the boundary?