# Warrior/Scholar Dichotomy



## GundamChao (Jun 17, 2014)

It is often said that most people can view themselves as either a scholar, a warrior, or both. While the concept of a "scholarly warrior" is praised in some cultures while mocked in others, this poll is more about personal perception than cultural beliefs.

Which of these three types do you see yourself most like? And why?

(A visual novel called Rising Angels Reborn got me thinking about this, if you're curious about why I'm asking this. A character named Zuri got me fixated on this subject with how she saw the world in these black-and-white terms.)


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

I've been both, not always at the same time, but now it seems more like that.


----------



## Turlowe (Aug 4, 2014)

I am and have been both, usually at the same time. I reject the dichotomy though, as that implies that the two are mutually exclusive. In my experience thats not remotely accurate. Further it rejects many common archetypes that neither or both of these might encompass.


----------



## Fievel (Jul 9, 2013)

Both as well.


----------



## Agelastos (Jun 1, 2014)

We usually prefer to be called 'warrior poets'. :wink:


----------



## GundamChao (Jun 17, 2014)

Turlowe said:


> I reject the dichotomy though, as that implies that the two are mutually exclusive. In my experience thats not remotely accurate. Further it rejects many common archetypes that neither or both of these might encompass.


For the record: I completely agree! But Zuri doesn't, and I had wondered if most people saw it that way.


----------



## with water (Aug 13, 2014)

Scholar. Heals and DoTs are more fun to annoy with than an axe.


----------



## haephestia (May 13, 2013)

To be perfectly honest, I think I became 'more of a warrior' by necessity when I was young. My last name was one begging to be made fun of by elementary kids, I was was overweight until puberty and I fought back against anyone who tried to use that shit against me. The thing is, I fought back by being better. I fought back by being the smartest, the best, the one who could be friends with everyone but best friends with my chosen few. 

At this point, I use my education to defend and protect others and intend on making that my profession, so the combination of both is the ultimate end goal for me.


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

Meh, I've never considered myself scholarly or a warrior type. I just get stuff done. If rhetoric seems the best avenue, I'll choose that, but if a flame thrower is needed, I'm good with that, too. Main thing is that the project moves forward.


----------



## GundamChao (Jun 17, 2014)

Agelastos said:


> We usually prefer to be called 'warrior poets'. :wink:


Now that's a badass term! Butt-whooping with a side of haiku! (I love TVTropes, btw.)


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

I wouldn't consider myself a warrior: I never served in the military, and never was in a war-zone. Admittedly I am pretty skilled at hand-to-hand combat (though I don't have quite the balance and aim I used to have), knew how to throw knives, and was an extremely accurate shot with a rifle, so I suppose I could fight okay.

As a scholar, I don't usually think of myself as overtly intellectual: I do read a lot (in fact anybody online right now is actually reading -- terrifying thought huh?) and was an assistant professor at a college, a high-school sub-teacher. I usually try to be knowledgeable in the subjects I learn but that's either because I find it fascinating or because I genuinely think it's useful knowledge _(for example knowing certain things about your body could be useful -- knowing that having a fever and pain in the lower right torso that gets worse right after you let go could save your life -- it means you likely have appendicitis so you'll want to make a beeline to the E.R.; as @Promethea once said: 1/15 people's appendix will try to kill them)_. I also get bored easily...


----------



## JTHearts (Aug 6, 2013)

Neither because I'm not good at anything


----------



## Agelastos (Jun 1, 2014)

john.thomas said:


> Neither because I'm not good at anything


Sure you are! You're great at self-pity!


----------



## JTHearts (Aug 6, 2013)

Agelastos said:


> Sure you are! You're great at self-pity!


yeah but that's not a warrior or scholar thing


----------



## Protagoras (Sep 12, 2010)

I do not get the dichotomy, or the meaning of the words 'scholar' and 'warrior' in this context. Perhaps this is a cultural thing, but this seems really weird to me. Is there any background to this that I am missing? It seems to me that this is not to be taken literally, but I do not know how to understand this differently either. 

Would someone care to enlighten me?


----------



## Aelthwyn (Oct 27, 2010)

Protagoras said:


> I do not get the dichotomy, or the meaning of the words 'scholar' and 'warrior' in this context. Perhaps this is a cultural thing, but this seems really weird to me. Is there any background to this that I am missing? It seems to me that this is not to be taken literally, but I do not know how to understand this differently either.
> 
> Would someone care to enlighten me?


well I'm not entirely sure, but the impression I get is that boiled down to the basics of these 'archetypes' it's a question of:
are you more someone of action, strength, and skill, someone who is proactive and okay with conflict

or are you more someone who relies on knowledge, theory, and cunning, someone who avoids conflict and takes their time studying something before taking any action (if ever getting around to action at all). 

perhaps this isn't what's meant, but that's my guess anyway. I think its also related to role playing game classes.

personally I'm definitely someone who is interested in understanding things as an observer on the sidelines, but I'm not assertive or very active.


----------



## Protagoras (Sep 12, 2010)

@Aelthwyn: what you are saying makes sense, up to a point. I would understand it like that if no better explanation was given to me, and so far no better explanation has been given to me.

But if I am to take it like that, it still makes very little sense. It is a forced dichotomy, it seems to me, not just because you could be (a little of) both, but also because you could be an entirely different type of person; neither scholarly, nor warrior-like. 

I am also doubtful about whether this makes sense as a reference to roleplaying games, for 'scholar' is not a typical class in RPGs, and although 'warrior' or 'fighter' is, there are many more classes, like 'wizard', 'rogue', 'cleric', 'druid', etc.; some of which are neither particularly warrior-like, nor scholarly in nature. 

However, that being said, I do not have a better explanation of this arbitrary 'warrior/scholar' opposition, so I think your explanation is as good as any. In the absence of any adequate explanation, yours seems to be a very good, common sensical interpretation, at least.


----------



## 0+n*1 (Sep 20, 2013)

I'm neither but if I have to choose one I'd go with scholar. I wish I were both (because I'm still not a scholar).


----------



## Clyme (Jul 17, 2014)

If anything, I'm a scholar. Education is what I pursue most. I do, however, put my words towards shining a light in the darkness of the world as best as I possibly can. I perhaps use my words as my weapon. I am definitely not violent though, nor have I been physically strong in any capacity.


----------

