Why I'm Suspicious of Heroes

[Received]

The only heroes I think deserve their title are those who make no claim to being heroes. You know, Jon Snow, not Daenerys Targaryen. The former doesn't make claim to his own greatness, whereas the latter has half a million titles for what ultimately came down to the most unwilled thing of all, her birth.

The hero that marinates in his own greatness takes credit for something that isn't his own. He ignores the genetic and phenotypic (intelligence, muscles, etc.), familial, upbringing, social economic status, and other variables that make him who he is. Yes, the best hero is the one who asserts his will the most, who takes the most risks. But who can really measure that given the complicated inner world of any particular person? What I see as an amazing act of will might really be an act with the highest motivation and a hidden payoff. The younger Arnold Schwarzenegger is indubitably a hero of bodybuilding, but he's also the guy who said that working out is like reaching an [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. Why should he be a hero compared to the average Joe who puts in eight hours a day and gets no praise?

But there are definitely heroic acts. A man who risks death to save an anonymous child is unambiguously heroic, even if the man himself isn't a hero in the fuller characterological sense. Yet how many people consistently commit heroic acts like this, where the hero genuinely makes a risk over and over again? These types of heroes are short-lived for obvious reasons.

The hero is a flower lavished with praise without considering the garden and soil that made him possible. He as the individual may indeed put in the sweaty will-based work without which he wouldn't achieve the status he has, but this is only the tip of an iceberg, the rest of which is a collection of givens, and no outside person can truly know how hard the hero has worked to attain his status given these givens, centering on motivation, which always pushes a person and so makes willing easier.

The best hero is the one who gives away his status as hero. The hero of humility who reflects back his heroness to the family and upbringing and ultimately the very universe that placed him where he did at the time it did. He realizes like the poet Pablo Neruda that life is a borrowing of bones. You didn't create the prerequisites to becoming who you became. A hero is just someone with a lucky set of prerequisites and not even necessarily a strong will, or any will at all, to actualize them into his heroism.

 

[SkyWriting]

The only heroes I think deserve their title are those who make no claim to being heroes. You know, Jon Snow, not Daenerys Targaryen. The former doesn't make claim to his own greatness, whereas the latter has half a million titles for what ultimately came down to the most unwilled thing of all, her birth.

Ya have to give a drama queen credit for not getting burned in a political battle. Most come out singed.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The hero that marinates in his own greatness takes credit for something that isn't his own.

Argh! Not the "you didn't build that" nonsense.

The reason I would be suspicious at a self-labelled hero is that I would suspect narcissism. People can certainly be heroes for something that is due to their own choice and is to their credit.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[bhsmte]

The only heroes I think deserve their title are those who make no claim to being heroes. You know, Jon Snow, not Daenerys Targaryen. The former doesn't make claim to his own greatness, whereas the latter has half a million titles for what ultimately came down to the most unwilled thing of all, her birth.

The hero that marinates in his own greatness takes credit for something that isn't his own. He ignores the genetic and phenotypic (intelligence, muscles, etc.), familial, upbringing, social economic status, and other variables that make him who he is. Yes, the best hero is the one who asserts his will the most, who takes the most risks. But who can really measure that given the complicated inner world of any particular person? What I see as an amazing act of will might really be an act with the highest motivation and a hidden payoff. The younger Arnold Schwarzenegger is indubitably a hero of bodybuilding, but he's also the guy who said that working out is like reaching an [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. Why should he be a hero compared to the average Joe who puts in eight hours a day and gets no praise?

But there are definitely heroic acts. A man who risks death to save an anonymous child is unambiguously heroic, even if the man himself isn't a hero in the fuller characterological sense. Yet how many people consistently commit heroic acts like this, where the hero genuinely makes a risk over and over again? These types of heroes are short-lived for obvious reasons.

The hero is a flower lavished with praise without considering the garden and soil that made him possible. He as the individual may indeed put in the sweaty will-based work without which he wouldn't achieve the status he has, but this is only the tip of an iceberg, the rest of which is a collection of givens, and no outside person can truly know how hard the hero has worked to attain his status given these givens, centering on motivation, which always pushes a person and so makes willing easier.

The best hero is the one who gives away his status as hero. The hero of humility who reflects back his heroness to the family and upbringing and ultimately the very universe that placed him where he did at the time it did. He realizes like the poet Pablo Neruda that life is a borrowing of bones. You didn't create the prerequisites to becoming who you became. A hero is just someone with a lucky set of prerequisites and not even necessarily a strong will, or any will at all, to actualize them into his heroism.

IMO, our society has a social need to put certain people up on pedestals and look up to them as special people. This could be related to some common human psychological need to define and create hero's, but we have been let down, time and time again, when the curtain is drawn back on these same people.

 

[Received]

Hi Mark

Argh! Not the "you didn't build that" nonsense.

The reason I would be suspicious at a self-labelled hero is that I would suspect narcissism. People can certainly be heroes for something that is due to their own choice and is to their credit.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Well, the "you" is what's in question here. Take a billionaire who received his inheritance and made a set of small risks, yielding his current hero status. He definitely built it, but on a deeper and more meaningful level he really only fractionally built it, because of the influences that allowed his successes to be possible. There are definitely people who through sheer will and hard work deserve the credit for building something -- but never in a full sense, because there's always, always preceding influences that allow a person to become what he is. The flower always has to give credit to the garden.

OTOH, if we really had a picture of a flower that gave no credit to the garden (you know, Donald Trump), then no amount of self-praise would be unmerited. Arrogance wouldn't even be a vice.

 

[Received]

IMO, our society has a social need to put certain people up on pedestals and look up to them as special people. This could be related to some common human psychological need to define and create hero's, but we have been let down, time and time again, when the curtain is drawn back on these same people.

I agree.

 

[tatteredsoul]

I think a hero is an archetype that mortals use to be the "go to" for something ultimate. A hero isn't a practical mortal object; the responsibility alone is inhumane. It is a positive scapegoat - an Atlas who is damned never to shrug.

There would be no need for heroes if unity existed. In fact, the hero is often distracted trying to nead and mend basic mortal dencencies lacking in people. And, heroes arent always wanted, given the incredibly subjective mortal definition of "good, hero, favorable, safe, danger, wrong, evil," and other seemingly obvious, yet argumentatively nebulous abstractions. The simplest example of this is politics; the obvious irony is when people try to find scrupulous activity in unscrupulous arenas.

 

[Received]

I think a hero is an archetype that mortals use to be the "go to" for something ultimate. A hero isn't a practical mortal object; the responsibility alone is inhumane. It is a positive scapegoat - an Atlas who is damned never to shrug.

There would be no need for heroes if unity existed. In fact, the hero is often distracted trying to nead and mend basic mortal dencencies lacking in people. And, heroes arent always wanted, given the incredibly subjective mortal definition of "good, hero, favorable, safe, danger, wrong, evil," and other seemingly obvious, yet argumentatively nebulous abstractions. The simplest example of this is politics; the obvious irony is when people try to find scrupulous activity in unscrupulous arenas.

Yes, an an archetype I agree completely, and it should remain that way. The problem is that we see over and over again the hero as a practical mortal object. Every celebrity is basically considered a hero in at least a loose sense.

 

[ananda]

Heroes ... another word for intermediaries.

The constant desire of children to 1. want someone to save them from ___, or 2. to avoid having to do the hard work themselves.

 

[tatteredsoul]

Yes, an an archetype I agree completely, and it should remain that way. The problem is that we see over and over again the hero as a practical mortal object. Every celebrity is basically considered a hero in at least a loose sense.

Which is why people fight tooth and nail to defend their character. Indeed, a hero is impractical for mortals since 1) we die, and 2) we are not perfect. The responsibility of perfection - that inhumane responsibility - is a decent reason why many celebrities turn to drugs and seclusion (besides devilish handlers.)

What do you think would happen if Beyonce was caught eating carbs? What about when celebrities fall? Or even politicians: why is it assumed during campaigns they will tell no lies when it is almost a sociological given that "all politicians lie"?

It is almost a psychological disorder the need, want and desire for a hero. I would even venture to say it has warped religion - especially Christianity - as people look to "Hero Jesus" to fix every minutia of their lives (when He Himself told us He was giving us the power to cast out demons, heal, etc.)


And the other side of the hero is equally unfair. If a hero does not deliver in the way "the people" expect or demand, the hero is demonized and even ran off. Again with Christ - amputees still exist therefore Christ sucks. Or, Superman destroyed Darkseid, but some kids and old people died - exile Superman! It is a sophomoric approach to rationalizing and scrutinizing the Hero and his or her duties.

I think hero is often the misnomer for "good." Colloquially, we understand a hero is not something everyone can be (which reduces the layperson''s responsibility to be one.) And, in order for us to continue to live without worrying about doing things to be good (which means more than giving to the poor and so on,) we create an image of "goodness" in heroes.

Things gets tricky when the image seems alive, but is really dead as a doorknob (like with celebs - they walk, talk but are not alive.)

 

[Eudaimonist]

Well, the "you" is what's in question here. Take a billionaire who received his inheritance and made a set of small risks, yielding his current hero status.

And if they were big risks? Or big investments of time and effort? Why are you trying to minimize the accomplishments of heroes?

He definitely built it, but on a deeper and more meaningful level he really only fractionally built it, because of the influences that allowed his successes to be possible.

He built it -- completely -- because he took action to build it. He gets the credit for bringing a value into existence that would never have existed had he not taken action, no matter how much he may have been enabled by others.

I'll agree that a hero should properly give thanks to his teachers, for instance, for their role in educating him. However, they didn't build what he had built. That is his accomplishment. It was a product of his effort, and he should be recognized for all of the hard work in learning what he did from his teachers, and then going on to actually make use of that knowledge and skill.

Saying that there are no heroes is a gross injustice to heroes.

There are definitely people who through sheer will and hard work deserve the credit for building something -- but never in a full sense, because there's always, always preceding influences that allow a person to become what he is. The flower always has to give credit to the garden.

To give some credit, perhaps. But not all of the credit. Credit where credit is due, and a good portion of that falls on the hero.

Saying "you didn't build that" is an act of injustice, and I have to wonder psychologically at people who don't want to recognize the existence of heroes. I'd count that as worse than narcissists such as Donald Trump because it attacks value-creation at its root.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[abysmul]

Once a hero always a hero?
Does a single heroic act make one a hero?
How many acts of heroism make one a hero?
Is someone a hero simply because of their chosen job (ie: police/firefighters)?
Is someone a hero of they are conscripted into a job that is called heroic? (drafted into an army)

Personally I think our current society tosses out the title "hero" far too frequently, and at the same time overlooks the daily intimate acts of heroism that never make the "news".

 

[JackRT]

Personally I think our current society tosses out the title "hero" far too frequently, and at the same time overlooks the daily intimate acts of heroism that never make the "news".

I couldn't agree more. Why call a person a "hero" for simply doing their job and doing it well? Professional athletes come to mind here.

 

[Received]

And if they were big risks? Or big investments of time and effort? Why are you trying to minimize the accomplishments of heroes?

Not at all, only trying to contextualize them and separate the heroic from the fortunate. If a person takes big risks and lots of time and effort, then yeah, his actions can be heroic -- but I don't think he would be a hero. I don't think heroism is a character trait, but rather (as another insightful poster pointed out) an archetype as well as a matter of individual actions. As abysmul asked, "once a hero always a hero?" Contemporary heroes have their heroism projected onto them by other individuals who have a psychological need to look up to other people.

He built it -- completely -- because he took action to build it. He gets the credit for bringing a value into existence that would never have existed had he not taken action, no matter how much he may have been enabled by others.

I'll agree that a hero should properly give thanks to his teachers, for instance, for their role in educating him. However, they didn't build what he had built. That is his accomplishment. It was a product of his effort, and he should be recognized for all of the hard work in learning what he did from his teachers, and then going on to actually make use of that knowledge and skill.

Saying that there are no heroes is a gross injustice to heroes.

Again, the "he" is true only physically -- he as a person with a body built it. He actualized the thing. But all "hes" and "shes" are really flowers that grow out of a garden of extra-individual variables. The individual grows out of his dependence on other persons and things in the past and the present. At its deepest phenomenological level, I am individual insofar as I choose, but both the position I'm at from which I choose and the very possibilities that are given to me from which to choose aren't in my own power.

So it's obvious that a person built "that", but we always have to ask who helped build the person. You can't build yourself through pure will, but always have to take into account genetics, upbringing, and even oxygen. What really built "that" is a spark of individuality that belongs to a person who is otherwise part of the same garden you and I are. And good thing we have this spark, because too many don't really have a spark at all, living in a backdrifting state through life without really willing. And sparks can start fires.

 

[Received]

Once a hero always a hero?
Does a single heroic act make one a hero?
How many acts of heroism make one a hero?
Is someone a hero simply because of their chosen job (ie: police/firefighters)?
Is someone a hero of they are conscripted into a job that is called heroic? (drafted into an army)

Personally I think our current society tosses out the title "hero" far too frequently, and at the same time overlooks the daily intimate acts of heroism that never make the "news".

Yes, exactly. Our society idealizes individuals who rarely make actual risks and courageous acts that constitute heroic acts because it equates heroism with superlative traits -- strength, acting ability, whatever -- traits that often require no real assertions of the will, no real acts of courage.

 

[quatona]

My personal heroes are persons who inspired me at some point. I don´t care whether and what it costed them to do that.

 

[variant]

A Christian who is skeptical of hero stories? Irony.

 

[TillICollapse]

I think it goes without saying, that "heroes" are subjective and subject to the eye of the beholder (redundancy). Growing up, a close family friend's mother was dirt poor, literally had no front door on their house, often went without food (and when they did have it, they often shared it with anyone who happened to stop by), but raised three children to become quite successful in modern society, and she always had their respect and love and they were honest with her. She passed away when her youngest was still in high school ... I often have viewed her as one of the most successful people I've ever known. Most people, looking at her on paper, probably wouldn't. However I wouldn't label her a hero, though to her children she was a hero I presume.

People are obviously capable of heroic acts, but that doesn't necessarily make them heroes ... and thus, why people who perform heroic acts often are unable to maintain place on the pedestal they may be put on either by others or themselves.

IMO, heroes embody ideals and concepts and have essentially given themselves over to such a thing. More than a poster child, they symbolize the very ideal they represent or live for, or die for. They do not perform heroic acts only, rather they define them and often their very identity becomes synonymous with the ideal. Their personality and persona are transcended by their heroic identity.

I almost hate to bring up Batman as an example lol, but I do so because of a quote from one of the Batman movies:

"But if you make yourself more than just a man, if you devote yourself to an ideal, and if they can't stop you, then you become something else entirely." IMO, this is touching upon the "hero" label.

I do more or less agree with the notion that a "hero" isn't someone who gives themselves that title, rather it is bestowed upon them or they are relegated to it. But even then, obviously, it doesn't mean they are deserving of the title across the board, it's still obviously subjective.

I may argue that the need in humans to have and recognize heroes, partially, speaks to a necessity of attempting to identify hierarchy in society, as well as advantages others have over us or that we may obtain over others for ourselves, etc.

 

[Received]

A Christian who is skeptical of hero stories? Irony.

Go on.

 

[TillICollapse]

I would also add, that I like the *idea* of heroes: personally, I would view an attribute of a hero as someone who inspires others in such a way, that they help to show them they can be something more than they often imagine, accomplish more than they may believe they are limited too, etc. This inspiration can come from a "hero's" actions, choices, influence, etc. Heroes can help to reveal the possibilities. They are often catalysts.