animus_network | Sixth Candelbram

Entry tags:

Sixth Candelbram - Voice

What is strength to you, or what it is to be strong?

Alternatively, who is it that has right to rulership, or to command? Do you agree with the sentiment that those who are strong are superior and thus have greater rights than those who are weak?

And if that is the case: may the weak become strong?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

To me, being strong means I can help the people and things I care about any way I can without hurting others in the process.

As for who should rule..maybe the strong should help the weak get stronger as well and stand on equal ground!

Is it truly strength if you are taught it?

To provide someone help at first is acceptable. But they must come to learn they are alone on all other things, in the end.

Sure! I don't see why the strength would change just because you had to learn and work towards it.

And people aren't all alone! Even if they think they are, they always have someone around.

Strength can be taught, but it must be taught alone. If it is taught through another, it is not your strength.

To rely on others is foolishness, even if it is only temporary reliance.

Why not? If you can continue to be strong after someone else has taught you and helped you, why is that strength not yours?

..And constantly relying on people is rather silly..but if you can depend upon them when you really need them, then there's nothing wrong with that.

Because it is based on something that is not yourself. True strength only lies within oneself.

And when you find yourself in a situation where none can be relied upon, what then?

But if people can help show you the strength that does lie in you and help you use it, then there's nothing wrong with that. It's still your own strength. A writer is helped by editors and other things, but the book they write is still their own!

...And what sort of situation would that be?

It depends on how situational that strength becomes. That there is a process of refining in writing is true but all writers have editors, and some writers are still better than others whether they have editors or not. In the end that strength is superficial because it is not strength but rather a vague refinement.

A situation where you are all alone, and only enemies surround you. Such situations do happen.

However, the writers that aren't as good as others can improve. And some writers are better than others in certain skills! And I don't think that sort of strength is fake. After all some writers are stronger in certain spots than others. But other writers can work towards that level of strength or be strong in parts the other writer cannot be in.

And in that situation, I would defend myself with using the knowledge and tools I have and the stuff that others have given me. People can help in that way.

And yet there are some who might be skilled all around, and better than those in general. Would you entirely deny that?

That is knowledge you learned only partially from others. Part of it was something you had within you all along, and must have a natural talent for. Without natural talent, any measure of learning would be worthless.

I would. Even if a writer seems to be skilled all around, there's usually one or two faults or failings they have. Not that it makes them bad writers-it just means they have weaknesses as well. that's normal.

However, everyone has natural talent. What they have a talent for is different though.

And yet they still may have less than others.

They do. But some talents are worth more than others.

That's true..but they would still have them where others may not. Maybe there is no truly strong or truly weak person then..

[Pardon Tohko as she muses to herself.]

How so?

There are. You're confounding yourself with unnecessary factors.

To be able to hunt is more important than to write. To be able to build a building more important than sculpting. There are trivialities, and in these we take joy, but they are not skills important for life.

How are they unnecessary?

That depends upon the person and where you live, of course.

The idea that you seem to not understand how some traits are inherently more needed than others.

No. To hunt and provide food will still outweigh the use and necessity to write no matter where you are.

Well, some traits are needed more than others. But it depends upon the person which things are more necessary than others.

Again, it depends upon the person. What if a person can only eat writing and not meat?

I see.

That is interesting.

[Because there are many creatures in his world, many figures of mythology, who can only feed and survive in esoteric ways. In bizarre ways, as dictated by their mythologies. He has to pause for a moment.]

I would say that, if that is the case, they are not counted among the weak but share it's traits. I will not say it is wrong to have weaknesses - some do have them - but some are more crippling then others. And when those are present they are inferior to others.

Equality is a lie.

..I will admit that some traits are more harming than others..but people can rise above those traits and overcome them usually. And if they can't, then they can improve themselves in other ways. I don't agree with you. Equality is not a lie.

Then you're naive.

As much good as people claim it might do, immeasurable amounts of what I would think people would consider evil have been done in the name of "equality".

Well, that just means that people have been throwing around words and ideas to justify what they're doing. It's not good that they are, but people do that sometimes.

Just as you are right now.

And what makes you think I'm doing terrible things?

Who said anything about terrible things.

I just meant you're throwing words around to justify what you think and do.

I'm not using them to justify what I think. That is how I think.

[Text]

[Text]

[Text]

[Text]

[Text]

[Text]

[Text]

[Text]

[Text]

[Text]

[Text]

[Text]

[Text]

[Text]

[Text]

Re: [Text]

[Text]

[Text]

[Text]

[Text]

[Text]

[Text]

[Text]

Re: [Text]

[Text]