In the hierarchy of humanity, it has time immemorial been assumed that the greatest knowledge rests with the nobility, and therefore should be considered as a standard of comparison with which the common man should test his own. Doing so, the common man often finds himself in
the position of having to challenge the body of knowledge the nobleman possesses, as a means to test whether he is worthy of being considered an equal, in particular of the knowledge and wisdom he seeks to present in front of the nobleman is for a noble cause itself.
It would be unwise for the nobleman to refuse this offer, given his influence over the affairs of the common man, and any common man that is aware of this, would find it strange indeed. It is the air of superiority a nobleman presents that often serves as a role model for his fellow man, the common man, and often drives the commoner to an often lifelong pursuit to talk, walk, act, dress and know as the nobleman does, otherwise the commoner would lack direction. He would lack an example by which to mimic, and to distinguish from good and evil, from what is lowly and what is refined.
Therefore it’s logical to assume that despite the common man’s ambition to best the nobleman, part of this ambition stems its roots in the fact that noblemen are often admired, and this admiration is what the common man seeks to envelop himself in.
In public inquiry lies a sort of usefulness as it pertains to uncovering the truth, as a sort of crowd sourced investigation, and considered an unwavering pillar of modern democracy. The public often contemplates, with great doubt and skepticism, the existence of God and the human soul, it’s condition or it’s perceived or unperceived materiality or lack thereof. For this, whomever wants to attest to this truth should take up an impartial inquiry on his own and debate on what he considers right or wrong. In order to truly decide what truth is the most truthful, an inquirer must allow himself to examine material in relations to a subject thoroughly before rendering a judgement that sides with either verdict. There always exists a possibility that during the process of examination the impartial inquirer might stumble upon a piece of information that puts the whole scheme of things in a light in which taints the inquirer’s ability to think further into the subject-matter, and would be prudent if the inquirer re-examines the material vigilantly in order to fully consider an adequate response.
It would also be prudent on behalf of the inquirer to know when the subject in question is acting in a manner that is counterproductive, but would be admirable to grant them forgiveness on account of some temporary infliction of stupidity or lack of judgement, and try to source the cause of the problem. Recognizing this, the subject of the inquiry should not have to bear the burden of being apologetic for every blunder, and we must heed to separate trivial matters from those matters that are of upmost importance. When presented with a game changing discovery, one must not allow his own prejudices to muddle his ability to see this as the truth.
One would have to be very stubborn, uneducated or acting in bad faith in order to insist on this path, especially when given evidence that supports the contrary of his beliefs. It is therefore imperative to take away the power of those who seek to redefine justice as only what interests them, even if it creates a situation in which the good of the general public falls ill, in particular through censorship of truth disseminated in good faith or through re-branding of facts as opinions and vice versa.