Conflicting views

Right and Wrong are only constructs of society in order to determine what is beneficial to society and what is not. Most other constructs in language are based around how it is beneficial to society, to an individual or to a community. They create an illusion of importance in the ideal's of right and wrong and hence people believe it is the be-all and end-all. Society is designed to push out a certain type of person and what they are pushed out as most people just go with it. This design revolves around personal good as they were taught was good, whether or not they are "good" or bad is a simple conflict as to what they believe they need to live, the importance of certain phrases and their meanings i.e. "good","just","right". You have a narrow mind as to as such a simple question which everyone asks and yet they only want people to confirm their own opinion on the topic.

 

Because many fail to recognize the objectivity of certain acts, or correctly note that it is a matter of subjectivity. Your definition of heroism is highly subjective as well; it should come as no surprise, then, that many acts of equal excellence or exception receive unequal recognition. In this light, it's easy to see how you might hold contempt for it. However, my aim has been and remains for a more clinical definition, one which endeavors to ignore the wanton naming of heroes prevalent in society. By this definition, their use of the term is incorrect--and, often, unfair, or representative of a double standard.

Again, heroism is incompatible with deification. Its use as such is incorrect. I would not defend those who use it incorrectly as such; I would correct them.

Fair enough. My only hope is that you might pass the knowledge along, if you see fit.

What is should not cloud what should be. It is always the effort of a good man to become greater. Encourage (or challenge) the faulty perceptions of people... or discard them. I believe you've got the second part down, but I'm concerned that your definitions are being sculpted by those with faulty definitions of their own.

 

Being that I do not believe heroes exist, I ridicule others for thinking that they do. Either by your definition or the deification one, I do not acknowledge the existence of heroism. I specifically mean moral heroism, or heroism as a moral concept, and I dislike it no matter how you define it if it applies in the same way.

 

Ah, but I'm not defending moral heroism... or, at least, not morally "right" heroism. If that hasn't been clear, let it be now. The form of heroism you spurn is a pale shadow of its former self, cultivated, I believe, by ignorance of the historical context, forced or otherwise. Under my definition, there are heroes of the morally virtuous and morally dubious variety, and more commonly those who are not defined solely or principally by either extreme. If I must go so far as to say that its use to other or more exclusive effect is inherently faulty, I will.

 

Ah, whatever. I will summarize by saying that I see myself as a god and ridicule others for believing in gods but not doing the same. I believe myself exceptional.

While your definition states that anyone can be a hero, you have failed to define what separates a hero from a non-hero by that definition.

 

His initiation journey/quest ? (if his journey wasn' t a source of learning for him at least it can be for others).
Since life, in itself, is a journey ... yeah ...

Coined in English 1387, the word hero comes from the Greek "ἥρως" (heros), "hero, warrior", literally "protector" or "defender" the postulated original forms of these words being *ἥρϝως, hērwōs, and *ἭρFα, Hērwā, respectively. It is also thought to be a cognate of the Latin verb servo (original meaning: to preserve whole) and of the Avestan verb haurvaiti (to keep vigil over), although the original Proto-Indoeuropean root is unclear.
According to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, the Indo-European root is *ser meaning "to protect". According to Eric Partridge in Origins, the Greek word Hērōs "is akin to" the Latin seruāre, meaning to safeguard. Partridge concludes, "The basic sense of both Hera and hero would therefore be 'protector'."


Question is ... protector of what exactly ?

 

Mm. And what have you done to make yourself exceptional?

I haven't at all. If you'll refer back to my first post...

 

I consider most actions that I have done to be exceptional, including posts I have made on this forum. Do you disagree?

I read over it thoroughly, and you have failed to define what separates a hero from a normal person. You have stated that a hero is mortal, and that a villain is "one who, by his/her own standard of moral rightness, chooses freely, knowingly, and willingly to do wrong." Am I to assume that anyone who is not a villain is by default a hero, or should I go to the Greek definition and cite the religious ceremonies part in support of my deification argument?

 

Exceptional on a small scale. Hardly godlike.

It is essentially what we know as the protagonist of a work of fiction: the subject of trial and transformation, one who is changed by his/her journey and, often in tradition, shares his/her new-found wealth with others, no matter the form it takes. In the most liberal sense, the "sharing of wealth" may apply to the perpetration of wicked deeds as well as righteous ones, to simple and subtle gestures as well as sweeping displays of power.

It is not so simple as making a choice, though that is often a component; and heroism necessitates no praise, though it may indeed be praiseworthy. It is unattainable by gods, though far lesser beings than gods have been worshiped, depending on the exact beliefs of the culture. Again, what remains at the core of the definition is the transformation of mortal man into something greater than he once was.

 

I don't have to be godlike. I just have to be better than those around me.

This does not leave us with a clear definition. Isn't everyone a hero by this definition? Give me an example of a hero, a normal person, and a villain, and how to tell between them.

So, changing for the better makes you a hero? I do not understand this within the context that is used by society.

 

Never thought I'd hear you, of all people, utter a phrase like "I don't have to..."

Sure it does. It's at least as clear as yours--and quite clear to those who use it. It can apply at times and it can not; to certain persons and not. It's subject to interpretation, though less so than the deificatory definition, I believe. The trouble with pinning down a hero in the real world is that they have to make you buy it. If someone relates their tale to you and you're well enough convinced that they have been transformed, or you witness or recognize a definitive shift in a close friend or other associate, you may be witnessing the fruits of a hero's journey. The difference in naming a Campbellian hero is that you are not deifying a god; you are evaluating the progress of a fellow mortal. There is no implication of inferiority or disparity of circumstance.

I suppose a "normal person" would be someone who is not actively journeying, transforming, or spreading wealth. Someone living day to day, not striving to achieve or to excel. The villain is a tad fuzzier, but taking it as a relative term to the hero, the villain is the person or force acting against the hero.

Does it need to be understood as such? The term exists, and so do examples; it is simply better known by its narrative counterpart, with the actual word being appropriated to different uses than it has been historically. Of course, most (if not all) language is subject to change over time, but if it's a detestable change, then an evaluation would be in order.

 

It tends to happen when a standard is not of my own making. I do not have be a god to meet an objective standard of exceptional for a given group.

I see what you mean, but I see such a definition as moot. It is useless to state that someone is a hero because it is indifferent to me. If everyone is a hero, then no one is. And so on. If you could give me a real life example of one, it would be appreciated.

It does in order for me to care about it. I am entirely indifferent to heroes in your definition, and heroism does not make you special or worth paying heed to by it.

 

I agree. But not everyone is. Anyone can be. Regardless of potential, it is still something that must be striven for, and while the credibility of one man's hero may be disputed by another, rarely can a case be made for one who does not strive at all.

I can really only give you examples with which I identify, but here goes...

Derek Menchan is a hero to me. He is the advisor of a local philosophy club. I've known him for two years. He's always telling stories about where he's been, what he's done, and from whom he's studied in his life. He has a talent and passion for music (particularly the 'cello), he is knowledgeable on a wide variety of eastern religions, he is always active in whatever community will accept him, and he speaks profoundly and with an open mind on topics that have shaped my own world views. He's able to find signs and symbols in even the most mundane subjects, bringing out the interconnectedness of life around him. From fighting tooth and nail to be recognized as a musician, exploring the effects of numerous psychedelic drugs, and constantly seeking new ideas and information from his peers, he has forged a unique identity which he shares with his students whenever they're ready to listen. It's not something I can explain fully, but he seems to have an aura about him, as if he's lived a dozen lives. And through it all, he can still crack a good joke or twenty. His lifestyle, his artistic ability, his attitude and his wisdom were all choices he made, choices he continues to make; they mark him as a man who never stops moving, never stops learning, and he sets a shining example for me and many others. He is actively heroic.

Without trying to excel in their lives, without setting out for new horizons, without thrusting themselves into harsh trial in order to strengthen themselves, people are merely surviving and not living. They waste space. Their only hope can be to raise a child who will herself become exceptional. I am contemptuous of the notion that people are unequal in ability, which is what I can only assume you mean by the word "special." My brand of "special" is not someone who simply is excellent, but someone who bothers to be. This is the highest order of excellence and specialty; anything which professes to be higher is a sham.

 

This is true, and I concede your point. However, the definition of heroism that I use is forever tainted by deification and feelings of inadequacy in those who call the hero a hero. While you must strive to be a hero to be worthy of being one, that does not change my view of it, and you must be someone that I feel I cannot surpass to be worthy of such status.

Do you view yourself as heroic in comparison? Why or why not?

I mean 'special' as in 'I could not reach the same level' or 'lucky' in many cases. Anomalies, things that you did not expect and cannot fully comprehend once they are presented; something that constantly surprises you when you think about it. That is what special means to me.

 

Well, is there no one who is your equal? Someone you couldn't surpass, but not someone who renders you inadequate by comparison?

I believe I'm on the path, because I'm having my own journey, and I've already begun to share the wealth from my experiences. It's one of my greatest pleasures. I suffer my own trials in the form of immense, sporadic doubt. But I usually come out of the mire and (hopefully) inspire others with my confidence. I'm also actively seeking to improve my writing, and I intend to become published and gain recognition of my own. I'm not on the same level as Derek, but I don't consider it beyond me at all, and it is always a goal of mine; not to know all the same things or to develop the same talent, but to fine-tune my own lifestyle and beliefs. I believe I already carry on the essence of his work, I'm just not in overdrive the way he is. It's a skill to be developed. So if there are degrees of heroism, I am a lesser hero; if there are none, we are the same.

Right. I simply don't consider anyone to be on unreachable levels, nor do I consider lucky ones worthy of praise or heed. Perhaps it is that we were presented with the same erroneous conception of the hero, and one of us chose to critique it relentlessly, while the other chose to search for and refine a different definition altogether.

 

That is what I mean. If they render me inadequate, then I will feel like I have failed to reach their standard. Whether they made a choice that I didn't make at a younger age or they are more talented, I cannot get to their level of progress without going back in time, and we are no longer equals.

Is he a hero because you look up to him, or because he has accomplished something? I would only respect someone who accomplished something that I did not, due to my own failings.

If two people start at the same time, and one of them makes more progress, then after that point in time, the other one has lost ground. It is now an unreachable level, and all competitiveness is thrown off because even if you sought the same levels, your competitor would have a head start and the results would be unfair by comparison. I am a very competitive person, and while I do not respect most forms of luck, I respect people who did better than me with the time that they were given. I might not go so far as to call them heroes, but I do believe that I am unable to reach the levels of someone who has a head start on me, unless I am talented at it. My competitive spirit is what keeps me from acknowledging heroism more than anything else.

 

Progress is relative, paths and obstacles to it varied from person to person. Not to mention, if you believe that talent exerts inexorable influence on people's skill levels relative to each other, would you not also acknowledge that people peak at different levels?

He is a hero for his accomplishment, but as a greater hero (objectively if you will grant such a thing, in my opinion if it's a binary) I do look up to him. The one is conditional and the other is correlative. I respect people for achievements or journeys in any field, not just the ones I know or practice.

 

I do. I suppose that how heroic you are would correspond with whether or not you reach that peak, then?

I respect people for doing things that I wish I could have done. I have a lot of trouble accepting my own limits. If I would not have done something, then I can respect your prowess but not your choice to make use of it. Different values, or are you the same way?

 

Sounds about right. I would also posit that there are plateaus on the way; some self-made, others evident in retrospect. A person can take several journeys in one lifetime. To be a hero of the highest caliber is not necessarily to reach the greatest height or achieve the greatest goal, but to never stop moving, to always be active in the pursuit of self-betterment. A man can do one great thing and spend the rest of his life stagnating, and I would only reminisce about his heroism, never call him one in the present.

There are things I wish I could have done, but I distinguish between those and accomplishments which I recognize as skillful or beneficial but simply have no desire to pursue. My scope is limited; resisting this notion only weakens me.

Nietzsche is quoted as saying, "The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently." I respect and recognize a deep spiritual revelation that does not align with my own, and if the person shares this revelation and affects positive change in others, I would consider that heroic. I have no desire for the whole world to think the way I do or master the same skills as me, nor do I desire to cater to every thought or explore every discipline; but I recognize parallels in effort, achievement, and sharing wealth.

 

I do not see that as heroic, but it is certainly commendable and something that I strive for; I hope to never stop moving.

I desire to explore every discipline and experience as well, to gain all knowledge. I seek to transcend everything, to understand all that I come in contact with, and preferably to never run out of things to learn. But I still do not see the heroism in these definitions, as you are still the first person I have seen use it in such a fashion.