Why do we frequently look back to the past, and why must we cling to the remnants of memory to avoid contradicting views we have once stated publicly? Even if those were fallacies you must refute, what then? It is evident that even in the "act" of pure memory, one cannot rely solely on memory itself, but should judge past events in the present under public scrutiny, continuously redeeming and renewing oneself from then on—this is the path of true wisdom.
Stupid compromise and equivocation are the tricks of petty men, widely revered by insignificant politicians, philosophers, and theologians.
Today, we must speak our thoughts of today with certainty, and tomorrow, we must express the opinions of tomorrow with equal certainty, even if they are diametrically opposed to today's views. "Oh, you will surely be misunderstood!" Is being misunderstood truly undesirable? Pythagoras was misunderstood, as were Socrates, Luther, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, and every living, breathing spirit of wisdom in history. Who among them has not suffered from misunderstanding? To become a great figure, one is inevitably destined to be misunderstood.
People are often cowardly and apologetic; they dare not directly say "I think" or "I am," but instead cite the words of saints and sages. Even facing a blade of grass or a rose, they feel guilty. They may be absorbed in longing for the future or weighed down by recollections of the past. In reality, the origins of virtue and vitality follow no rules and are impossible to know. Why must you spy on others' tracks, mimic their appearances, or obey their commands? Your actions, thoughts, and character should be entirely novel and distinct.