Reacher wrote:
The Hitler bit was pretty uncalled for.
On the contrary it's a very valid point. You feel it is "uncalled for" because you believe I was comparing you to Hitler. Actually I wasn't- I was insinuating that as you are *against* Hitler's philosophies (or at least I hope so), and as you know that Hitler viewed himself as good and right in all he did, yet you know that he most certainly was not, thus, it is only logical to conclude that people often make the mistake of viewing themselves as something they are not. I was not comparing you to Hitler, but only demonstrating that either you must have a solid basis for your belief or else question your points of views more closely, though as you didn't explain any basis, but rather criticized my question, I can only assume the latter to be true...
Reacher wrote: It is too much to ask, bro. I'm not about to post my Officer Record Brief for you and everyone else to pick through. This question you asked does not require an audience to further the discussion, unless it's your personal requirement. Feel free to take issue with my refusal. My offer of talking one-on-one outside of an open forum stands.
I won't lie- I do confess I wonder if this is just a tactic to avoid the question, but, without evidence, I cannot logically justify my suspicions as either true or false, so I accept your right not to answer. Moving on.
Reacher wrote:
I mean that the core of any 'knighthood' is dedication and service guided by the principles set down by its order - often expressed through a code or oath-taking. Jedi Knights here at Temple of the Jedi Order have that in common with other knights. The idea of guiding one's actions with principles. The actions may differ, but the commitment to the principle is as equal as a Jedi Knight makes it.
Ah, but that dedication and service has completely different requirements for the true knight and the Jedi knight; the former requirements include valour and usually an evidence of that valour, which really brings us back to my original point.
Reacher wrote:
I am not a Jedi Knight.
So you do not consider yourself a *Jedi* Knight, and yet you consider yourself a knight in the sense of old Europe... and yet others here who genuinely hold the title of Jedi Knight and do not consider themselves such, let alone a true knight of old Europe! What does that mean to you in regards to your own attitude?
Reacher wrote: As far as 'knight' goes, however...you publicly asked and I felt comfortable answering according to the metrics you set down. I think you're just a bit puzzled by an answer you did not expect. Even if you had just asked a more generalized question with no examples or metrics, my answer would be the same. I know who I am, and am becoming more myself every day. I stand confidently by what I said.
You're right to say I am puzzled, so I hope you'll enlighten me on the thought behind your answer, and *why* you stand confidently by it. What great and valiant acts have you done that cause you to view yourself as a knight, when others here who I think are very worthy view "knight" as something to aim for? What makes you more a knight than, say, V-Tog? She literally holds the rank of Jedi Knight and yet doesn't consider herself one yet.
Reacher wrote:
Sure, mentoring plays a huge role in a person's life, but they can only show you the door. It's on you to walk through.
True... but that person was, in fact, made, and not found, so my point is correct. If you disagree feel free to logically demonstrate how this would define them as having been "found" rather than "made".
Reacher wrote:
The Jedi here at the Temple have a common foundation in the Codes, Vows, and lessons we study. They are what keep us together as a spiritual family. If the kid you described is truly an instrument, a 'knight' of his philosophy, then his philosophy is probably different than soldier's and is probably different than what we teach here. He can call himself a knight if he likes, it makes no difference to me. What would make a difference to me is being honored with the responsibility of 'Jedi Knight' by my spiritual family if they see and recognize me as one who applies what we teach here to my life.
Ah, but now you've evaded the point. It doesn't matter whether the delinquent calling himself a knight bothers you or not. Is the deliquent, by your logic, worthy of being a knight? Or not? Because according to you being a knight is nothing more than applying your philosophy in life, which I can quote if you like... either you must go back on your own view to re-define your definition so that we can proceed, or justify it. So is he a knight, or not?
Reacher wrote: I think you misunderstand the purpose of a Warrior's Code. There were no codes 'requiring' feats of bravery, unless you consider the Viking religious belief that the only way into Valhalla was to die with a sword in your hand. Codes required only right action, according to the mores and beliefs of the people that a particular warrior class defended.
And yet to adhere to that right action, bravery in war was often required, which means, really, that to adhere to those codes *did* require bravery and therefore defeats your point.
Reacher wrote: Samurai and knights served in both times of war and times of peace, just as we do.
So you're saying that as soon as the times change to war you will turn into a samurai-knight and be valiant on the battle-field? If so there are many worthy wars in the world you and others could fight in.
Reacher wrote: SoulSeeker, regardless of your intent, thank you for challenging our beliefs here. Sometimes it's great to fire up the kiln and pound away at what we believe. That which cannot withstand the heat and pounding is burned away, and the rest is refined and gleaming. I feel much better having thought about what you bring up here. I hope this answers some of your questions, and provokes others.
Force Guide You.
And, regardless of yours, thank you for answering that challenge. I find that your responses have been far more direct and far more rational than most others.
Desolous wrote: Concur with resticon. this guy has a refutation for everything, an 'im right and your wrong no matter what' style of 'argument' that i would expect of my precocious six year old. i personally have had enough of it. if he only joined the jedi temple to 'prove his superiority' to its members or denigrate them using above said outdated definition of one aspect of the order, he needs to leave.
This reveals a great deal of insight into how different people think.
You have just seen some questions that, if you answered them as logically as possible, would require you to re-define or even go against your own set beliefs. However you desire to hold onto those beliefs, and so the questions stir a reaction in you, perhaps something a little like panic; you wanted to get back into your comfort zone and so would have strongly desired my points had been "disproven", which would have allowed you to do so. Yet then you see Frater attempt to answer and yet get debunked so easily, that the nudging feeling that perhaps there is some truth to my questions disturbs you. As evidence for this I quote instances such as this:
SoulSeeker wrote:
FraterDavid wrote:
SoulSeeker wrote: If there's any logical fallacy I've pointed out that you feel is unfair, feel free to quote it and explain, logically, why this is, and I shall respectfully retract the statement.
I sincerely doubt you would retract any bit of what you've said,
And there it is. The clearest piece of proof yet of your attitude to this entire discussion.
You: "SoulSeekers, you committed a logical fallacy."
Me: "Alright. Where?"
You: "I sincerely doubt you'd admit it even if I showed you. But... but trust me, you did."
and again here:
SoulSeeker wrote:
FraterDavid wrote:
SoulSeeker wrote: Good. I'm shaking in my boots.
Oh, come on, it's not that cold outside. Did you forget to wear socks? Be honest, now.
I must have. Because I'm litereally shaking in my boots at the "logic" you're going to use to justify yourself. Let's get this over with...
FraterDavid wrote:
SoulSeeker wrote: Firstly, I never said that "greatness" is the "opposite" of humility, only that to claim the title of knight is 1. not humble and 2. a claim to greatness.
Actually, you did say that. And I quote:Therefore, it is logical that to claim the title of "knight" is *not* a sign of humility, but actually it is the opposite- a claim to the greatness true historical knights (or warriors, samurai, monks depending on what you call yourself) exemplified.
If you can't even remember what you've said, we probably shouldn't continue the discussion.
Ah, but I said that a "claim of greatness" and "arrogance" amount to the same effect. In other words, "it is *not* a sign of humility, but actually it is the opposite- a claim to the greatness of true knights(ie. a sign of arrogance)". Thus, a "sign of humility" is the opposite of a "sign of arrogance".
Now I'm sure you're feeling somewhat embarrassed about how what you saw as a solid argument was debunked so casually, so I'm going to remind you again: look at what's actually being said. *Think* and take time to *consider* before you post, or you end up looking like an idiot.
However, you cannot go against your beliefs, so this, then, gives way to anger, which caused you to blame the questioner, and desire I leave. A shame, too, since you had actually brought a valid point to discussion, namely, that modern knighting is different these days from ancient knighting, and I would have liked to have you explore yourself a bit more.
Let's compare your reaction to Reacher's, though: Reacher, like you, suspected that I had "ulterior motives" for my questions and yet, unlike you, asnwered them rationally, viewing them as something he could use to refine his own points of view, rather than growing frustrated and lashing out.
That's what I mean when I say this discussion has not only been educational for others, but me, too, because the differences in these reactions show differences in how people think, how some will see a challenge in life as something to be overcome but others will see it as a "threat" or an "evil".
Topic Author
