People always had a misconception: "The strong feared nothing." The key to this misconception was that people always believed only those who feared nothing could become strong... Strange, wasn't it? The causal relationship simply did not hold up, did it? Shouldn't one first "become strong" and then "fear nothing"? Since when had it become "fear nothing" first, then "become strong"?
Leaving aside whether such a thing could even be done, it was fundamentally unreasonable from the start. Why should someone fear nothing before becoming strong? What did having fear or not having fear have to do with growing stronger?
Studying knowledge, training one's strength, accumulating wealth... Weren't those the proper ways to grow stronger? What was the point of battling fear every day? What if one won? What if one lost? The strong would remain strong, and the weak would remain weak.
In fact, as long as emotions arising from within did not interfere with learning or rationality, wrestling with them was simply a waste of time. To put it simply, everyone was afraid of choking to death while eating. Did that mean they stopped eating because they feared choking? Switched to liquid food?
Didn't they still happily eat lavish meals every day? Even if the fear remained, didn't it have no effect?
The same applied to becoming stronger. The requirements for becoming strong were indeed harsh, but not so harsh as to be absurd. In theory, it was certainly best to be like some monster mage, free of superfluous emotions and wholly focused on gaining power. But having abundant emotions did not matter either. As long as one could control one's own mind, weren't "studs" like Kane and even old Eman, who collected harems whenever they had nothing better to do, still constantly growing stronger?
The Archmage's trial was