"If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen: a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath—a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? Then you are a sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path." From the book, On Combat, by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman
Though there is no scientific evidence* for the characterisation or categorisation of people as presented above, it's pragmatic enough. Whom Lt Col. Dave Grossman called Wolves, Nietzsche called Masters. In his On Genealogy of Morality, he presents a similar analogy, of vultures and lambs.
"There is nothing strange about the fact that lambs bear a grudge towards large birds of prey: but that is no reason to blame the large birds of prey for carrying off the little lambs. And if the lambs say to each other, 'These birds of prey are evil; and whoever is least like a bird of prey and most like its opposite, a lamb, – is good, isn't he?', then there is no reason to raise objections to this setting-up of an ideal beyond the fact that the birds of prey will view it somewhat derisively, and will perhaps say: 'We don't bear any grudge at all towards these good lambs, in fact we love them, nothing is tastier than a tender lamb.' – It is just as absurd to ask strength not to express itself as strength, not to be a desire to overthrow, crush, become master, to be a thirst for enemies, resistance and triumphs, as it is to ask weakness to express itself as strength."
A sheepdog must negotiate it's salary; wolf and vultures don't.
There is a limit to what a sheepdog can get or achieve and that limit is set by the wolf, the vulture.
A sheepdog, to be a sheepdog needs the consent of the governed, a vulture doesn't.
The vulture is evil but death is inevitable, even to the sheepdog.
In tollywood, full of sheepdog protagonists, vangaveeti does what needs to be done. Now, go watch Vangaveeti.
*Actually there is scientific evidence, according to the Big 5 model of personality, there is enough statistical evidence that some people are more agreeable than others and so on.
Though there is no scientific evidence* for the characterisation or categorisation of people as presented above, it's pragmatic enough. Whom Lt Col. Dave Grossman called Wolves, Nietzsche called Masters. In his On Genealogy of Morality, he presents a similar analogy, of vultures and lambs.
"There is nothing strange about the fact that lambs bear a grudge towards large birds of prey: but that is no reason to blame the large birds of prey for carrying off the little lambs. And if the lambs say to each other, 'These birds of prey are evil; and whoever is least like a bird of prey and most like its opposite, a lamb, – is good, isn't he?', then there is no reason to raise objections to this setting-up of an ideal beyond the fact that the birds of prey will view it somewhat derisively, and will perhaps say: 'We don't bear any grudge at all towards these good lambs, in fact we love them, nothing is tastier than a tender lamb.' – It is just as absurd to ask strength not to express itself as strength, not to be a desire to overthrow, crush, become master, to be a thirst for enemies, resistance and triumphs, as it is to ask weakness to express itself as strength."
A sheepdog must negotiate it's salary; wolf and vultures don't.
There is a limit to what a sheepdog can get or achieve and that limit is set by the wolf, the vulture.
A sheepdog, to be a sheepdog needs the consent of the governed, a vulture doesn't.
The vulture is evil but death is inevitable, even to the sheepdog.
In tollywood, full of sheepdog protagonists, vangaveeti does what needs to be done. Now, go watch Vangaveeti.
*Actually there is scientific evidence, according to the Big 5 model of personality, there is enough statistical evidence that some people are more agreeable than others and so on.
Tell Your Friends