There is something the High Priest said that I find particularly important:
"Nobody's pathology, lag, or obstacles, is something to go against them. To go against them, you don't remove yours. To remove both yours and theirs, is the purpose of this.
As for incurable cases, let them be. Nature, and Izfet by its own framework, will consume what is no longer adaptable to exist to the world."
— High Priest Zevios Metathronos
The last part is particularly interesting. The idea that certain behaviours, when left to operate within their own framework, eventually become self-destructive.
I want to approach this from another angle, particularly concerning nobility, personal conduct, principles and what people understand as power.
There are many people who enjoy adopting an aggressive attitude. They say things like:
"I will destroy everyone who stands in my way."
"I do whatever I want."
"If other people don't respect ethics, why should I?"
They somehow associate these positions with strength, independence and superiority.
I find this rather interesting because, in many cases, they are simply adopting behaviours that will eventually work against them.
Consider someone standing in front of a pit with a warning not to jump. Another person ignores the warning, jumps inside and dies. A third person observes this and concludes that since the first person did not respect the rules, there are no rules worth respecting. He then proceeds to jump into the same pit.
What exactly did he gain?
He believes he demonstrated independence by violating a restriction, when in reality, he simply repeated an avoidable mistake.
This is how I view many attitudes surrounding ethics and personal conduct.
1. Nobility in everyday life: What you refuse to do
Let us take relationships as an example.
I personally consider certain boundaries worth maintaining. Pursuing a friend's ex-girlfriend, a friend's sister or a neighbour's daughter are situations I would generally avoid.
Some people will immediately object:
"But why? There is nothing inherently wrong with dating these people."
I understand the argument. However, my position is that certain things are simply not worth doing, regardless of whether someone can construct an argument to justify them.
Consider someone who decides to pursue his friend's ex-girlfriend. Perhaps he succeeds in establishing a relationship. What happens afterwards?
He risks damaging his friendship, creating tension within his social circle and losing the trust of people who previously respected him.
Even if the relationship succeeds temporarily, he has introduced complications into several other relationships.
And if it ends badly, the consequences can extend considerably further.
What did he gain in exchange?
A temporary relationship at the expense of something potentially much more valuable.
The same applies to relationships with neighbours. When people know one another, families become familiar with each other, and trust develops over time. Pursuing someone's daughter can introduce expectations, responsibilities and complications that would otherwise never have existed.
If the relationship ends, the consequences might extend beyond the two individuals involved.
Why voluntarily introduce such complications into otherwise good relationships?
This is not about following arbitrary religious restrictions or being afraid of pursuing what one wants. It is about recognizing that not every available opportunity deserves to be pursued.
There is also something interesting about the long-term consequences of such conduct.
A person who consistently respects the boundaries of others gradually establishes a reputation. Friends become comfortable introducing their partners, families become more trusting, and people generally feel less need to be defensive around him.
That level of trust does not appear out of nowhere. It is accumulated through previous actions.
People sometimes assume that respect is something one obtains through authority, intimidation or status. In reality, a considerable amount of it comes from what someone has repeatedly demonstrated they are unwilling to do.
2. Restraint is not weakness: Understanding power dynamics
Consider another example: the workplace.
There are situations where someone occupies a position of authority or influence and receives romantic attention from someone working under them.
Some might interpret this as an opportunity to obtain something they desire.
But there are two important considerations.
First, there is the question of ethics and power dynamics. When someone occupies a position of authority, they have an additional responsibility not to exploit that position for personal gratification.
Second, there are the practical consequences of mixing professional and romantic relationships.
It can create conflicts, complications, reputational damage and unnecessary difficulties in the workplace.
A decision that appears advantageous in the immediate moment can become a considerable liability later.
This is why I find it strange when people interpret restraint as an inability to obtain something.
Being able to do something and deciding that it is not worth doing are two entirely different things.
In fact, the ability to refuse something that is readily available can be a much better demonstration of self-control than simply pursuing every opportunity.
There is a difference between having desires and being governed by them.
3. Nobility is not martyrdom
I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding surrounding the concept of nobility.
Many people imagine that being noble means constantly sacrificing yourself, accepting losses, tolerating mistreatment and choosing the difficult path simply because it is morally superior.
I don't see it that way.
If someone uses their intelligence, nobility can actually put them in a considerably better position.
Who convinced people that having principles is somehow inferior to adopting the attitude of "I have no rules, I will crush everyone"?
Consider two generals facing a war.
One of them finds himself in an extremely difficult position. He is captured, faces severe threats and has every apparent reason to abandon his position. Nevertheless, he refuses to betray his principles and continues until he eventually succeeds, or faces death.
People observing him might describe him as a hero, a martyr or an extraordinarily noble individual.
But what about his own perspective?
Perhaps he doesn't perceive himself as making some extraordinary sacrifice.
Perhaps, from his perspective, he simply made the best decision available to him.
Betrayal was not an acceptable alternative. It was beneath his standards, and there was nothing particularly extraordinary about refusing to do it.
This is an important distinction.
Sometimes people admire in others what those individuals consider their ordinary standard of conduct.
Something that looks like an extraordinary act of nobility from the outside can simply be the natural expression of someone's character.
And I think this can extend even further.
There are people who are naturally inclined towards certain decisions and instinctively repulsed by others, even before they have developed the reasoning to explain why.
Their character, upbringing, experiences or spiritual development may have established certain internal boundaries that they simply do not wish to cross.
They don't necessarily experience these decisions as sacrifices.
They experience them as the natural thing to do.
4. The practical advantages of treating people properly
There is another misconception I frequently encounter: the assumption that noble conduct is somehow invisible and that nobody benefits from maintaining such standards.
Let us take a rather ordinary example.
Imagine someone entering a coffee shop and treating the waiter properly. He also treats the cleaning staff with the same courtesy.
Now consider someone observing this interaction.
He might subconsciously associate that behaviour with nobility because he assumes that people in those positions are normally treated with less consideration.
He sees someone behaving differently and develops a positive impression.
But from the perspective of the person behaving this way, nothing extraordinary has happened. This is simply how people should be treated.
Now, let's consider the practical side.
In establishments where someone regularly visits and treats the staff properly, relationships naturally develop.
The waiters become familiar with that person, understand his preferences and are more inclined to cooperate with him.
Sometimes they might even bring him something without being asked, make additional efforts to ensure he enjoys his meal or provide assistance beyond what is strictly required.
More importantly, those relationships can become a source of mutual trust.
Consider a hypothetical situation where someone wants to put something harmful in his drink. It would obviously be considerably more difficult to convince someone who knows him, respects him and has an established relationship with him to participate in something like that.
Similarly, if someone starts spreading gossip about him in that establishment, the waiter might naturally disengage or challenge the accusation.
If someone is taking pictures and he is uncomfortable being included, the waiter might even intervene and ask them to respect his privacy.
Notice what happened.
He didn't enter that establishment looking to acquire an ally. He simply treated people properly, and over time, established relationships based on mutual respect.
The same principle applies to people working in one's household.
Treating someone disrespectfully creates unnecessary hostility. It can make an otherwise ordinary living environment uncomfortable and introduce problems that could have been avoided through basic consideration.
Why introduce such possibilities unnecessarily?
This is why I consider courtesy and proper conduct intelligent decisions, not merely moral obligations.
And this is not limited to waiters or household staff. The same principle applies to colleagues, neighbours, business partners, friends and practically every social environment.
People tend to cooperate more readily with someone they trust.
5. Nobility and the consequences of Izfet
Returning to the High Priest's statement, I think there is an important connection here.
Certain behaviours contain the foundations of their own destruction.
Someone who consistently betrays people eventually creates an environment where nobody trusts him.
Someone who exploits every opportunity eventually finds himself surrounded by people who have learned to protect themselves from him.
Someone who disregards every boundary eventually discovers that other people have boundaries too.
And someone who believes that having no principles makes him superior might eventually discover that he has sacrificed the very things that make his position valuable.
This is precisely why I find the idea of allowing certain behaviours to consume themselves so interesting.
You don't necessarily need to become like someone you disagree with to defeat their behaviour.
Sometimes you simply need to maintain your own standards and allow the consequences of their decisions to unfold.
There is also a spiritual dimension to this.
From my understanding of spiritual laws and the relationship between one's conduct and the spiritual world, consistently maintaining a noble character can have consequences beyond the immediate material environment.
I believe that spiritual beings are not indifferent to the overall character and conduct of an individual.
Someone who consistently demonstrates restraint, integrity and respect establishes a different relationship with the spiritual world than someone who habitually creates unnecessary hostility and Izfet.
This does not mean that a person becomes incapable of making mistakes, nor that legitimate correction should be rejected.
However, I believe there is a considerable difference between an isolated mistake and a consistent pattern of destructive conduct.
The overall direction of someone's character matters.
In this sense, I find the idea of spiritual protection particularly interesting. Someone who has consistently maintained their standards may find themselves in circumstances where the spiritual forces associated with their path become particularly favourable towards them.
And sometimes, attacking someone who has consistently conducted themselves honourably can itself become an expression of Izfet, particularly when the attack is disproportionate or motivated by malice.
It reminds me, in a somewhat humorous way, of the VETO right.
Someone might have made a mistake in one particular matter, but that does not necessarily justify attempting to destroy everything they have established or disregarding their entire character.
There is a difference between correcting someone and seeking their destruction.
And I believe that distinction matters.
6. Why I don't consider nobility a sacrifice
I want to return to the original question.
Am I noble, or am I a cuck?
I think this question reveals something about how people sometimes evaluate strength.
They see someone refusing an opportunity and immediately assume that he lacks the ability to obtain it.
They see someone refusing to retaliate and assume that he is incapable of doing so.
They see someone maintaining boundaries and assume that he is constrained by fear.
But these assumptions overlook an important possibility:
Perhaps the individual simply doesn't consider those actions worthwhile.
Perhaps he understands consequences that others haven't considered.
Perhaps he has established standards that he doesn't feel the need to abandon whenever an opportunity presents itself.
And perhaps what others interpret as weakness is simply something he considers ordinary conduct.
I don't believe someone should follow principles merely because they expect recognition, rewards or protection in exchange.
You should live properly because you want to live properly.
Whether someone notices it, appreciates it or rewards you is secondary.
However, that doesn't mean the consequences are invisible.
People notice consistency. Relationships develop around trust. Opportunities emerge through reputation. Cooperation becomes easier when people know what to expect from you.
Even among the Yehubors, principles can become necessary when dealing with one another, because betrayal carries consequences. Even where nobility is not the primary motivation, the practical cost of dishonesty can make maintaining certain standards advantageous.
So why assume that abandoning principles is necessarily the more intelligent position?
I would argue the opposite.
A person who needs to betray his standards every time an opportunity presents itself has not necessarily demonstrated freedom. He might simply have demonstrated that his standards are easily purchased.
And that, to me, is a considerably more interesting measure of character than how many people someone claims to have defeated.
Ultimately, I don't see nobility as martyrdom, weakness or the willingness to lose everything for an abstract ideal.
I see it as a standard of conduct that, when properly understood and combined with intelligence, can preserve relationships, establish trust, prevent unnecessary conflicts, strengthen one's position and align one's actions with one's spiritual principles.
You don't have to become destructive to demonstrate power.
You don't have to betray people to demonstrate independence.
And you certainly don't have to abandon your standards to prove that you are capable of obtaining what you want.
Sometimes the greatest demonstration of power is having the opportunity to do something, understanding that you could get away with it, and simply deciding that it is beneath you.
And nobility is actually very very beneficial and very pragmatic.