Sensitivity is inherently a noble aristocratic quality. To one doomed to a life of toil, sensitivity is a dangerous thing, for indignation will only make the chains that burden burn the skin even more fiercely than before. Yet to the free, whether in position or merely in spirit, sensitivity is the depth with which they can taste and wield the ambrosia of life. Think of the best person you know, maybe not the person you look up to most, but the person who stands the most apart, the "greatest," perhaps even the strangest. Time and time again, you'll notice that the most unique and vivid people are also the most aware. Socially, spiritually, emotionally. They notice things others can't and reference simple truths that others can only vaguely gesture to. Wherever someone like this appears, it's immediately apparent, that as long as they have the mastery to keep it together, there is something in them that others lack. Their nobility is their sensitivity. Look at Achilles. While the rest of the Achaeans bluster and fight and step in line, he weeps, clinging to his harp and his wine and his lover. There is something petty to his pain, the loss of a woman who is his property, and yet there is a nobility in it, as if Achilles has something everyone else in the story lacks. He's more vivid, more real, more alive, and you get the sense that in this version of heroism, sensitivity is innately tied to greatness. That the rage of Achilles, that his weeping is what makes him great, for he stands in a different world than the rest of the men in the Iliad do, he stands in a deeper world, swims in waters and depths that they could never dream of. The world then inflicts itself upon him, it destroys him because he's a sensitive man in an insensitive place, and in return he inflicts himself back upon it, and ends the Trojan war. Tolkien understood this well, and trying to create new myths for Europe, he followed it. Feanor is one example, but Aragorn is a more common one. Think of how Aragorn weeps at Boromir's death, and how Boromir responds with "My captain, my king." Seeing Aragorn's tears, we get the sense that he stands apart and higher from the rest of men, that he is in some way more deeply embedded in the world than the rest of them are, and that his kingliness intrinsically tied to this. This is why Aragorn is a healer, and why he sees something in the Hobbits that the others don't. Aragorn is /attuned/ and senses something deeper in the world that others cannot. Ignorance on the other hand, as we see in say, Denethor, is the very root of ignobility, an evil born not of malice but of the inability to touch the deepest ground of this world. Frodo is the same, not as a king but as a priest. Sam is a great hero, but it's Frodo's quest because Frodo is the sensitive one. In Rivendell, as everyone argues at the table, Frodo picks up the ring, as if moved by something other than himself. He is spiritually sensitive, towards god and the rhythms of the world. When the Fellowship breaks, it breaks because Frodo understands and can sense Wyrd while others cannot. He goes against all logic and ventures off on his own because he is sensitive enough to touch that hidden logic of the world, while those who don't are merely acted upon, like leaves taken on by the water of life. Compare a wolf to a dog, or even a cat to a dog! The cat has some innate sensitivity that the dog lacks. Cats have preferences, boundaries, individuality, and an aesthetic sense. There is a certain vivid life to the way they run and hunt and play, to the way they make their own decisions and take their own path. To be loved by a cat is something special, because the cat is equally capable of hatred. And notice how a cat luxuriates in pleasure, and in joy, just as much as it may flee or attack at the slightest movement. The cats nobility is its wildness, and its wildness is its sensitivity. The over-domesticated dog lacks this. They are not without sense, as even an insensitive human is not without sense, but spending time with a dog you get the impression that they're basically dumb and simple and sweet. It's not a canine thing, most of you probably haven't spend time with a wolf or a coyote but if you do you'll immediately notice the same quality I tried to illustrate with the cat, but far greater for they are far more wild. A dog on the other hand is a malleable and impassive creature, you train them and teach them and they listen and obey. They eat their food and are satiated, play and walk and get pet and are satiated. You pamper them, and they appreciate whichever pampering arrives. Man's best friend does not demand the respect a cat does, you follow and he leads, the position here is clear. To be clear, when I say sensitivity I do not mean emotionality, or sentimentality, although those may play a part. Rather I refer to the tendency to take life in its whole, in its fullness. Sensitivity is awareness, and depth of experience, and intensity of existence, above all else. It's to sense, after all, it's in the etymology. And the sensitive sense more, they see more of life, and crucially, because life touches them more deeply, it forges them more dramatically. There is no great man in the world who was not deeply sensitive, who did not stake his entire being upon the grounds of this world, for through the depth of pain and pleasure one experiences, will the depth of their will to sip on the sweet ambrosia of this beautiful world match it.