ADAM & EVE

[GregKiroKH]

I thought the following was interesting It shows a timeline for how knighthood developed.

The word knight derives from Old English cniht, meaning page boy, or servant (as is still the case in the cognate Dutch and German knecht), or simply boy. Knighthood, as Old English cnihthad, had the meaning of adolescence, i.e. the period between childhood and manhood. The sense of (adult) lieutenant of a king or other superior dates to ca. 1100. From the time of Henry III, a knight bachelor was a member of the lower nobility, preceded by the knight banneret, a commander of ten or more lances who could lead his men under his own banner, but who didn't have the rank of baron or earl. The knights bachelor did not wear any insignia until 1296. The verb "to knight", i.e. to bestow knighthood, dates to that time (the late 13th century).

During the 14th century, the concept became tied to cavalry, mounted and armoured soldiers, and thus to the earlier class of noble Roman warriors known as equites (see esquire). Because of the cost of equipping oneself in the cavalry, the term became associated with wealth and social status, and eventually knighthood became a formal title.

The term knight from the High Middle Ages referred to armed equestrians of royalty and high nobility, in particular heavy cavalry. From the 13th century, the rank of some knights became hereditary. Concurrently, Militant monastic orders were established during the time of the crusades, and from the 14th century imitated by numerous chivalric orders. The British honours system originates with the chivalric Order of the Garter, and has diversified into various other orders since the 17th century.

The 'Yeoman' represented a status between the aristocratic knights and the lower-class foot soldiers and household servants (pages). The 'yeoman archer' was typically mounted and fought on foot (sometimes on horseback if necessary) as compared to infantry (foot) archers, and came to be applied to societal standing as a farmer in particular during the 14th to 18th Centuries. . . . the gentry was located between the yeomanry and the nobility. Unlike the yeomen, the gentry did not work the land themselves; instead, they hired tenant farmers. Unlike the nobility, they lacked hereditary titles and privileges.

The practice of awarding baronetcies was introduced by James I of England in 1611 in order to raise funds. Baronetcies have no European equivalent.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/gentry

Under feudalism, a landed estate given by a lord to a vassal in return for the vassal's service to the lord. The vassal could use the fief as long as he remained loyal to the lord.

The typical knight's fee was around £20 per year circa 1200. . . . A free peasant paid for field work around the same period . . . a[s] much as £3-4 in a year, meaning that a knight's fee was about three to five times more than a peasant's average income.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knight%27s_fee

[GregKiroKH]

It is an interesting topic. I have been studing it for over 30 years. I also have read the quotes you supplied and am well familiar with them though I disagree with François on the origin of knights, otherwise his perceptions are quite good. Knights did come from the nobile houses as even the wealthy merchants could not afford the expense nor would they spare there sons to war if at all possible, they were needed in business. Knights were the sons of nobility. An older son would take a younger cousin or brother as his squire and the knight would be his teacher in more than just the arts of war in the 12th century. Prior to that squires were not the norm. Not all mounted soldiers were knights either. In the germanic and frankish lands I have never found a knight that was not from the nobile class in any documents in the archives. All the knights of the lowlands came from the houses of the Counts of Holland and the Counts of Voorne and other high families and were of nobile birth dating from the 10th century onward. Little is found of the term knight, ritter (german), ridder (Dutch) or chevalier (French) prior to that time.

This has a lot to do with surnames and Adam and Eve. Surnames and organizations have to do with families. And one of the earliest recorded families is Adam and Eve. The orginal quote was the following:

Knights were not a part of royalty or nobility. They were a part of the gentry. Most people belong to the middle class or lower class. The gentry were the upper class. The esquire was one step below a knight, and a gentleman was one step below an esquire. The head of the household was referred to as a goodman, goody, or goodwife. As civilization grew, people found pride with identifying with a family, clan, tribe or community of people. The son of the household was some times given the name junior. Or a relative could be called a cousin, uncle or nephew. And so the middle classes and lower classes began to structure their surnames as the upper classes did.

Many historians wonder about the origins of the gentry or better the English Gentry, etc..

The gentry were thus 'a kind of lesser nobility' whom, as K. B. McFarlane long ago suggested, were what remained when the parliamentary baronage were defined in the fourteenth century. Professor Nigel Saul has traced the emergence of ranks within the gentry. The present reviewer discerned changes in nomenclature rather than in numbers and in composition between the magnates, barons, and knights of the Norman era and the parliamentary peerage, knights, esquires and gentlemen of the fifteenth to nineteenth centuries. To argue that the English gentry . . . What distinguishes the gentry are four facets of its 'collective territoriality': 'collective identity'; status gradations; public office-holding; and collective authority over the people. The gentry, Coss asserts, have always expressed themselves collectively through national and/ or local organs. It was crucial that they ranked themselves in horizontal bands rather than vertically by ties of lordship.
http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/paper/hicks.html

The gentry was a part of the American Revolutions. And this is where my research begins in this subject. The American social structure has roots with the English structure.

Royalty refers to queens, kings, princes and princesses.

Nobility refers to anyone with a title such as Lord/Lady, Duke/Duchess, Count/Countess, etc. Knights are not part of the nobility.

Gentry were the rich land-owning classes. Knights ("Sir Such-and-Such") were considered part of the gentry, not the nobility.

In America: The highest-ranking colonists were the gentry. These colonists lived elaborate lifestyles and were wealthy enough to own mansions and travel in carriages. The men and women identified themselves by using the words Esquire and Madam. The people who were considered gentry's usually were doctors, lawyers, ministers, or well educated in a particular field.

Middle class is a catch-all modern term encompassing merchants, prosperous freeholders, burgesses, and so on.

In America: The middling sort of people worked and owned property, but they were not wealthy. The people who were considered middle class were the farmers, shopkeepers, and sometimes teachers and craftsmen. *

Lower class is a catchall modern term encompassing peasants, labourers, etc.

In America: The lowest class of colonial citizens was the poor. Poor people were considered to be the unskilled laborers, indentured servants, and slaves.

<<http://curry.edschool.virginia.edu/s...al_classes.htm >>

<<http://elizabethangeek.com/costumere...assnotes.mhtml >>edit by me for classroom due to numerous errors

Knights were given the title of "Sir." Baronets were designated by Sir before the name just like knights. I do not know what designation European Knights were given? I think this is where my understanding of knights seem to be confused. Maybe, the terms "ritter" (German), "ridder" (Dutch) or "chevalier" (French) are better titles to use than knights for the European knights.

For the English Gentry, I have:
Magnates (The Polish term "szlachta" designated the "gentle" or "noble class." It encompassed the idea of gentility or nobility of blood, and was roughly coterminous with the English "gentry" and "nobility." A specific nobleman was called a "szlachcic," a noblewoman was a "szlachcianka."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Szlachta)
Baronet
Knight
esquire
gentleman

This suggest that some people considered the gentry to be noble. Which no doubt led to debate after debate.

[GvdM]

That is a very interesting point GvdM. Being a knight seemed to become a fad as the expense of war increased.

It is all very interesting

It is an interesting topic. I have been studing it for over 30 years. I also have read the quotes you supplied and am well familiar with them though I disagree with François on the origin of knights, otherwise his perceptions are quite good. Knights did come from the nobile houses as even the wealthy merchants could not afford the expense nor would they spare there sons to war if at all possible, they were needed in business. Knights were the sons of nobility. An older son would take a younger cousin or brother as his squire and the knight would be his teacher in more than just the arts of war in the 12th century. Prior to that squires were not the norm. Not all mounted soldiers were knights either. In the germanic and frankish lands I have never found a knight that was not from the nobile class in any documents in the archives. All the knights of the lowlands came from the houses of the Counts of Holland and the Counts of Voorne and other high families and were of nobile birth dating from the 10th century onward. Little is found of the term knight, ritter (german), ridder (Dutch) or chevalier (French) prior to that time.

Table of Nations. Oldest Genealogy of the World's people.

Here is the Table of Nations, the oldest record of Human History.

http://www.soundchristian.com/man/

Here is the site to view the latest image taken from space of Noah's Ark.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/noahs_ark_010823-2.html

[GregKiroKH]

Knights were military and horsemen, yes, but they came from the ranks of the nobility. They were the elite fighters of nobile birth. Nobility was a birth-rite not a rank. Knights were lords, had their own castles for the most part and ruled large land areas in the feudal system. Some knights in the crusades did join military orders, but most did not.

That is a very interesting point GvdM. Being a knight seemed to become a fad as the expense of war increased.

Thus, knights were not necessarily nobles, nor were nobles necessarily knights. The noble class and the knightly class slowly came to merge from the late 12th century onward. Nobles become knights with increasing frequency. . . . The son of a knight is automatically a squire, thus making him eligible for knighthood on the basis of his ancestry; at the same time, knighthood is more and more restricted to descendants of knights by various legal restrictions imposed over the course of the 13th century. . . . In England, the evolution was different:*those who held land in knight's fee but did not wish to take up the profession could pay a tax. Knighthood did not become a hereditary class in England, and instead the knightly class (those eligible to be knights)*became the nucleus of the gentry. . . . There is a case of a clearly military order of knighthood for women. It is the order of the Hatchet (orden de la Hacha) in Catalonia. It was founded in 1149 by Raymond Berenger, count of Barcelona, to honor the women who fought for the defense of the town of Tortosa against a Moor attack.


The term knighthood comes from the English word knight (from Old English cniht, boy, servant, cf. German Knecht) while chivalry comes from the French chevalerie, from chevalier or knight (Low Latin caballus for horse) . . . The German translation for "knight" is Ritter (literally, rider). The Latin term in the Middle Ages was miles, since a knight was by definition a professional soldier. . . . Succintly, a knight was a professional soldier. The old "citizens' armies" of Antiquity had been replaced by professional armies. . . . Men who were not free provided a portion of their crops and labor services. Men who were free provided military service, either personally or (if they were rich enough) using others' services. Thus, a man who held his estate in knight's fee owed service as a knight to his lord. A more sizeable vassal, when called by his liege, would summon his knights and form a contingent in his liege's army. . . . Knighthood was originally a professional association. It included those men who could afford to make and maintain the heavy capital investment required by mounted warfare (horse and armor). It emerges in the 11th century, and its members are nobles (members of the great land-owning families) as well as small land-holders, free men, craftsmen, etc . . . In the course of the 12th century, a social and ethical dimension is added to this professional aspect. The strong influence of Cluny monks . . .

http://www.heraldica.org/topics/orders/knights.htm

In the early middle ages (500-1000 AD), the powerful military men of continental Europe formed into a birth nobility. The rest of the people were commoners. Commoners were mostly peasants, either free or serf. If they were serfs, they were bound to the soil and could not leave, in a semi-slave status. They held land as an inheritable leasehold from their lord. It was a subsistence economy and towns and merchants were at first few. As trade increased and the merchant class became more numerous and well off, they too were considered commoners no matter how wealthy they might become. The nobility passed on their titles by birth. Rulers could grant noble titles but new nobles were not really recognized by the others unless the title had been in the family for a long time. It was a rigid class system based on birth. In England, conditions developed differently. Before William the Conqueror (1066), the old Saxon system in England was based on land holding. A "hide" of land was enough land to lease out to a tenant farmer who could make a living for himself and pay you some rent; the more hides of land you owned, the higher in the nobility you were. So a person could become a noble by acquiring land. When William the Conqueror came from France to take over England in 1066, he brought his nobles and tried to change England to the French system, but it was only partially successful. English social classes never did become as rigid as in France.

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb....e/nobility.htm

It is all very interesting

[GvdM]

I have heard of Lords who wanted to learn things with the knights. From what I understood, they were still called King or Prince or most likely Earl. I thought the orignal knights were horsemen who later made secret organizations (The Order of Teutonic Knights was founded and took its place beside the other two orders of Jerusalem, the Hospitallers and the Templars). I do not know much of the Holland knights. From what I read, these noble knights belonged to some sort of order which might be different from the traditional knight in military history.

Whatever, interesting insight . . .

Knights were military and horsemen, yes, but they came from the ranks of the nobility. They were the elite fighters of nobile birth. Nobility was a birth-rite not a rank. Knights were lords, had their own castles for the most part and ruled large land areas in the feudal system. Some knights in the crusades did join military orders, but most did not.

[GregKiroKH]

This is the English system, it is not true of continental Europe. For instance in Holland knights were nobility.

I have heard of Lords who wanted to learn things with the knights. From what I understood, they were still called King or Prince or most likely Earl. I thought the orignal knights were horsemen who later made secret organizations (The Order of Teutonic Knights was founded and took its place beside the other two orders of Jerusalem, the Hospitallers and the Templars). I do not know much of the Holland knights. From what I read, these noble knights belonged to some sort of order which might be different from the traditional knight in military history.

The most significant military figure of the feudal system of the European Middle Ages was the knight. The word knight being derived from the Old English word cniht, the equivalent of the Latin word caballarius, meaning "horseman."
. . .
The Knighting Ceremony At the age of 21, if he had stood well as page and squire, the young man was made a knight. This was an occasion of elaborate ceremony and solemn vows.
. . .
In France the Order of the Golden Fleece was founded in 1430. It later became the principal knightly order of both Austria and Spain. Portugal had the Order of St. Benedict of Avis. In Germany there were the orders of the Black Eagle and of the Red Eagle. Russia had three orders: St. Andrew, St. George, and St. Nicholas. The Danish Order of the Elephant was founded in the 15th century and revived in 1693. The Norwegian Order of St. Olav was not founded until 1847. In the Far East, Japan had two orders: the Chrysanthemum and the Rising Sun. In countries that are no longer monarchies, the best-known modern order is the French Legion of Honor which was established by Napoleon in 1802. Other republics have similar orders of merit to award civilian and military honors.

http://www.renaissance-faire.com/Renfaires/Entertainment/Knighthood.htm

The Knight in History by Frances Gies

http://historymedren.about.com/od/knighthood/gr/knightinhistory.htm

Like most periods in history, the era of knights evolved gradually. The term "knight" originates from the Anglo-Saxon name for a boy: "cniht". Indeed, most early knights were not much more than hired "boys" who performed military service and took oaths of loyalty to any well-to-do nobleman or warlord offering the most promise of money or war booty.

In the chaos and danger of post-Roman Western Europe, the population had very little organized governmental protection from brigands and conquering warbands. Knowing there was safety in numbers, local lords (who could afford it) gathered around them young, fighting-age men to fend off rebellious vassals or conquering neighbors. These men, in turn, were rewarded with war booty for their service and loyalty. Soon, grants of land were made so the young soldiers could receive an income from those lands and afford the high cost of outfitting themselves with the accoutrements of war, such as horses, armor, and weapons. The era of the medieval knight had begun.

http://www.knightsandarmor.com/history.htm

Teutonic and Livonian Knights
Thus, after various vicissitudes the Teutonic Knights are restored to their original character of hospitallers. Besides this Catholic branch in Austria the order has a Protestant branch in the ancient bailiwick of Utrecht, the possessions of which have been preserved for the benefit of the nobility of the country. The members, who are chosen by the chapter of knights, must give proof of four quarterings of nobility and profess the Calvinistic religion, but are dispensed from celibacy. When Napoleon took possession of Holland in 1811 he suppressed the institution, but as early as 1815 the first King of the Low Countries, William I of Orange, re-established it, declaring himself its protector.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14541b.htm

Whatever, interesting insight . . .

[ragnar]

Hey, what the ~*^%? I went to that site & came back & my computer immediately froze up!

[jdchess]

if the first 2 people on earth were adam and eve and they had children and there chidren had children,ect.. wouldn't we all be kin. products of adam and eve.

Yes, in fact, we would. Going a step further, you'll find that if Noah and his family were the only ones to survive the Flood, then Noah would also be an ancestor to everyone who has ever lived after the Flood.

On a side note, I find it interesting how as the the world of science gains more and more knowledge of humanity and human history, things begin to align more and more with the Biblical view of humanity and it's origins.

I found a great website that I thought some of you might want to check out:

http://www.answersingenesis.org

There are some really interesting and thought provoking articles there.

[GvdM]

Knights were not a part of royalty or nobility. They were a part of the gentry. Most people belong to the middle class or lower class. The gentry were the upper class. The esquire was one step below a knight, and a gentleman was one step below an esquire.

This is the English system, it is not true of continental Europe. For instance in Holland knights were nobility.

if the first 2 people on earth were adam and eve and they had children and there chidren had children,ect.. wouldn't we all be kin. products of adam and eve.

[GregKiroKH]

You say...A fool does not believe in god? Who are you trying to fool?

I am aware of what ignorance is, and I'm relieved that a fool knows who he is.

If it is foolish to wonder if the Heavens came before the earth..then why did they write it in the bible genesis? ..lot's of stone-age thinking, and some basic geography, and mention of various ethnic groups

I think creator God wanted us to know that in the beginning the Heavens came before the earth while the Lord wanted us to think about the Earth and the Heavens. God must travel from the Heavens to the earth while man will travel from the earth to the Heavens. We are now able to fly. And so civilization must now decide to work together or to understand the power of the Lord. (Maybe, this civilization is totally nuts or totally Holy? The real foolishness . . .)

I think if the Lord did what he did then I could at least try to develop my thoughts too. I have always wondered how the Lord has influenced my life. I know that I am who I am, and the Lord has more important things to do than to worry about my day to day experiences. Yet, I feel as if I need to try to understand the awesome greatness of the Lord. I find the surname project to be important. I did a search on the subject, and decided to edit the following:
Where do people’s names originate? Why do governments need surnames? How have surnames influenced the lives of individuals?

First names used in the Western World originate from five languages (http://www.mayrand.org/meaning-e.htm), Hebrew, Teutonic, Greek, Latin, and Celtic, while many surnames were based upon occupation, location, patronymic, physical characteristics, nicknames, animals, spelling variations of family names, patron, and local land owners. “In nearly every case, surnames were first used by the nobility and wealthy landowners (German nobility used middle names as a second “first” name in the 15th century), and the practice then trickled down to the merchants and commoners. The first permanent names were those of barons and landowners who derived their names from the manors and fiefs. These names became fixed through the hereditary nature of their lands. For the members of the working and middle classes seeking status, the practices of the nobility were imitated, leading to the widespread use of surnames.”

Knights were not a part of royalty or nobility. They were a part of the gentry. Most people belong to the middle class or lower class. The gentry were the upper class. The esquire was one step below a knight, and a gentleman was one step below an esquire. The head of the household was referred to as a goodman, goody, or goodwife. As civilization grew, people found pride with identifying with a family, clan, tribe or community of people. The son of the household was some times given the name junior. Or a relative could be called a cousin, uncle or nephew. And so the middle classes and lower classes began to structure their surnames as the upper classes did.

Governments needed to know information about their citizens. At first they would have a census. As the civilization grew, it became important to track families and gangs as well. Surnames became important for the administrative activities of governments, especially for military services, levying of taxation, law enforcement, employment, and other civil services. Surnames provided individual links to a family and to a historical background to help regulate large populations of people.

No doubt people had names and families since antiquity. These men and woman traveled in large groups. No doubt they had some system of communicating and identifying each other. The Greek alphabet was introduced in the eighth century. During this time, there was a society of poets called the Homeridea. These men would sing the oral traditions of their lands as did many other scholars did in many other lands. In many of the oral stories, the people had first names such as Adam and Eve who lived around 4004 B.C..

The Chinese customarily have three names for each person. About 2852 B.C., Emperor Fushi of China decreed the use of surnames. But this was not true in the Western World. The Romans had only one name in ancient times. They later adopted three names called the praenomen, nomen, and cognomen. The nomen designated the gens or clan while the cognomen designated the family name. A fourth name called the agnomen could be added to commemorate something special. As the Roman Empire broke apart, single names once again became customary.

“The modern hereditary use of surnames is a practice that originated among the Venetian aristocracy in Italy about the 10th or 11th centuries. Crusaders returning from the Holy Land took note of this custom and soon spread its use throughout Europe. France, the British [Isles], and then Germany and Spain began applying the practice as the need to distinguish individuals became more important. By the 1370's the word "Surname" was found in documents, and [it] had come to acquire some emotive and dynastic significance. Men sometimes sought to keep their surname alive by encouraging a collateral to adopt it when they had no direct descendants of their own in the male line, Although we can see that the handing on of a surname has become a matter of pride, we can only guess as to the reasons for adopting hereditary surnames in the first place.”

[M.O'Connor]

I often find it difficult to answer a question with the ideas of other people. Socrates was quoted by someone to say, "I am Ignorant." A fool would have answered the question rather than to humble himself. We are all ignorant. We cannot know everything. As far as the Bible is concern, the first five books of the Bible is said to have had four authors who are called E, Y, P and D. The four Gospels are Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John. Each author has viewpoints based upon their prospective. A fool tries to change the law. A fool would add knowledge to someone else’s argument while claiming that it is their truth. A fool would take a law, and the fool would change it to fit his life. A fool does not believe in God. A fool claims his own deity above all else. Is being a fool right or wrong, good or bad, holy or evil? Experience in life will tell. Wise men from the past do not agree with the fool. A fool does not have to be told he is a fool. He is just one as a donkey is not a stallion. The fool may be an authority who leads the world away from peace and cohabitation, or he may just be a greedy or sinful man who does not listen to other people. It is not foolish to wonder if the heavens came before the earth or if the earth came before the heavens. The original sin is with mankind's ability to listen to the Lord's pathway. The Lord was here before I was here, and even a foolish thought may help with ignorance.

You say...A fool does not believe in god? Who are you trying to fool?

I am aware of what ignorance is, and I'm relieved that a fool knows who he is.

If it is foolish to wonder if the Heavens came before the earth..then why did they write it in the bible genesis? ..lot's of stone-age thinking, and some basic geography, and mention of various ethnic groups

[GregKiroKH]

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

. . .

Who gets to decide who the fools are.?

Are fools singular people?..or can a group of people be fools?

If groups of fools exist are they found only in small numbers throughout the World, or can a large group be Fools?

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaa

Maybe only a Fool knows a Fool.

my opinion

I often find it difficult to answer a question with the ideas of other people. Socrates was quoted by someone to say, "I am Ignorant." A fool would have answered the question rather than to humble himself. We are all ignorant. We cannot know everything. As far as the Bible is concern, the first five books of the Bible is said to have had four authors who are called E, Y, P and D. The four Gospels are Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John. Each author has viewpoints based upon their prospective. A fool tries to change the law. A fool would add knowledge to someone else’s argument while claiming that it is their truth. A fool would take a law, and the fool would change it to fit his life. A fool does not believe in God. A fool claims his own deity above all else. Is being a fool right or wrong, good or bad, holy or evil? Experience in life will tell. Wise men from the past do not agree with the fool. A fool does not have to be told he is a fool. He is just one as a donkey is not a stallion. The fool may be an authority who leads the world away from peace and cohabitation, or he may just be a greedy or sinful man who does not listen to other people. It is not foolish to wonder if the heavens came before the earth or if the earth came before the heavens. The original sin is with mankind's ability to listen to the Lord's pathway. The Lord was here before I was here, and even a foolish thought may help with ignorance.

[M.O'Connor]

The Fool (Proverbs 26:1-11, http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=618)
7. THE FOOL IS UNPLEASANT, UNLIKED, AND UNDESIRABLE.
6. THE FOOL IS UNTEACHABLE.
5. THE FOOL IS UNRELIABLE.
4. THE FOOL IS UNDISCIPLINED.
3. THE FOOL IS UNREALISTIC.
2. THE FOOL IS UNWISE.
1. THE FOOL IS UNRIGHTEOUS.

Many people just make up thoughts based upon what they have heard instead of reading for themselves.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Reading what for themselves?.....reading something somebody else wrote.?

Does something writen down have more meaning than something said out of thought? it seems to me that all written things came from thought. It does not make all things written correct. Thoughts written down are still thoughts.
And if re-read they become thoughts again. Sometimes one's written thoughts can be misinterpreted by readers.

7. THE FOOL IS UNPLEASANT, UNLIKED, AND UNDESIRABLE.

(only if people turn their backs on people they label fools.)

6. THE FOOL IS UNTEACHABLE.
(The fool has taught others to find him different.)
(If others refuse to learn from the fool..they are Unteachable themselves)

5. THE FOOL IS UNRELIABLE.

(What kind of statement is that? A Foolish one for sure.)

4. THE FOOL IS UNDISCIPLINED.

(undiciplined makes no sense..i'm sure even the fool has a daily routine)

3. THE FOOL IS UNREALISTIC.

( what is realistic?..is it different from "Real".. what is "Reality" is it thought? )

2. THE FOOL IS UNWISE.

The fool is wise enough to survive and not believe everything they are told or everything written by others.

1. THE FOOL IS UNRIGHTEOUS.

righteous only exists in the minds of some people..others may dismiss it as nonsense.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaa

Who gets to decide who the fools are.?

Are fools singular people?..or can a group of people be fools?

If groups of fools exist are they found only in small numbers throughout the World, or can a large group be Fools?

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaa

Maybe only a Fool knows a Fool.

my opinion