mastervalentine
Posts: 157
Joined: 3/9/2008 Status: offline
|
There are two ways I have seen to look at the arguement, and I will approach them both, if you do not mind my input. I can agree, first, that to claim the title of Master without having any experience is folly. But having the position over someone isn't enough. One must understand the duty, and the sacrifice of both their position, and of the one who submits to them. I could command a dozen people a year and never face a single moment of sacrifice. Never be given a difficult choice, never have my mettle or the strength of my character tested. What good is calling myself a Master then? While I could never understand what being a Master means without having been a Master, I believe also in people. We are what we are. Our worth and our true self never really change. They may be revealed or hidden by circumstance and by responses given to that circumstance, but it would take something very, very powerful to ever change our core nature. In this, I can accept someone claiming the title without claiming experience. When the time comes that they are tested, if they were strong to begin with, they will weather the storm and do it well. If they were weak, then the weakness will be revealed, and I'd be surprised it took that long for the fatal flaw to show itself. I hope you find these views interesting, and well reasoned. Please, debate on. (Edited for typographical error)
< Message edited by mastervalentine -- 3/24/2008 9:00:31 AM >
_____________________________
"If philosophy has taught me any one thing, it is that a rushed action invites disaster." ~MasterValentine Say not, 'I have found the truth,' but rather, 'I have found a truth.' Kahlil Gibran
|