To continue my previous theme, the next several problems I want to investigate are called the problems of the investigator, the intellectual, and the loyal man.
The investigator is a person who enjoys trying to solve puzzles. Assume that he wants to gather as much information as possible about a certain puzzle. But due to some external factors, he never collects enough information. Assuming that he must make a decision the investigator must then due the exact opposite of what a careful researcher should, and draw conclusions from his insufficient evidence. So we see that the researcher must become a loud-mouth. But one could object that this is per accident and not per se. But even per se the investigator can become a loud-mouth. For instance, after a review of the Cuban health statistics, such a person could become an outspoken opponent of capitalistic health service. The investigative personality easily transforms from the realm of unbiased observation to the realm of polemical action.
The intellectual is simply someone who prides himself on living and acting in accord with what he thinks is correct. But the intellectual may easily discover theorems and conclusions that go beyond the understandings of his fellows. If that happens, then the intellectual who acts in accord with these conclusions must act in an unusual way; he will be a radical to his friends and a monster to his enemies. As such, then, the radical intellectual is seen as a strange fanatic and his fanaticism may do damage to himself and others. As such then, the quest for truth per se, the calm and level-headed analysis and synthesis of propositions, can lead to wide-eyed fanaticism.
The loyal man, must be considered as a man who does anything for his friends. Yet this loyal man, can become the biggest backstabber. For instance, in politics, if a man loves his friends then he can very well act against the interests of his other constituents or aquaintances that he meets in the other party. If he will do anything for his friends, then he can certainly go so far as to use the confidence entrusted to him by anyone less than his friends, to gain political office and as soon as he gains that office so soon will he retract the lukewarm promises that he had made. So out of loyalty a man can appear to be conniving and false in his relations with others.
The great riddle continues, if you don't want to have a bad reputation then you must cultivate a lack of loyalty, and if you want to avoid rash judgment then you must forget cool-headed inquiry. How do we solve the problem? I'll leave that for another post though I already have a hypothesis.