opnet [OpNet] Are heroes needed by poeple?

[Vox Via]

When I mean this, as whole do humans gain anything by having heroes about them? I mean the Greek use of the word, and not the modern one.

[David 'Dr. Troll' Smith]

There have been experiments done with monkeys. They will pay to look at other monkeys who have high status. So it is in our nature, our heritage, to do the same.

Meaning that we will always have very high status individuals, and they will always be watched by the masses.

It would be nice if the example they set is a heroic one.

[Gerald Haney]

Okay, I gotta ask, but why ask a question like this? I mean, the way it was asked.

Most folks don't know ancient Greek so how the heck could they answer the question? Why not ask a question that they have a chance of answering? You're asking them to research what the ancient greek word "hero" meant and that'll be up to interpretation, ancient linguistics and translation always are.

[Vox Via]

Well, I mean, look at our history books. They were filled with names of great people.The heroes. Hitler,FDR, Ghondi, and countless others. They are all heroes, but really was the world around them shaped by them? Or were they shaped by the world around them? Or better yet, was the world better off with having such dinamitc figures, or would it have been better to have everyone live up to their own inner self.

[David 'Dr. Troll' Smith]

The greats of each generation die, and then are reinvented for the next. Sometimes they live up to their stature, sometimes they do not. Some of them use their stature to do great things for their people, others just enjoy it.

There is no chance of "everyone living up to their own inner self" because it is very much part of our nature to have heroes.

So would we have been better off without Hitler? Very likely, but only probably. Without Hitler the Germans would have found *someone*. Maybe better, but perhaps worse.

[Preston]

Heroes inspire. Heroes lead. Heroes galvanize people to remember.

Like so many things, heroes can be a force for stability, or change, or destruction.

[Great Monster C]

Hitler wasn't a hero. Neither was FDR. Gandhi was pretty close.

And of course we need them. Just like we need the Shakespeares, Jonas Salks and Julius Caesers. They help move us along. They prod us into action either directly or through inspiration.

[David 'Dr. Troll' Smith]

Quote:

Great Monster C:
Hitler wasn't a hero. Neither was FDR.

At the time, to the appropriate people, both were. Hitler then led his people off a cliff, and was a monster in addition, but for a while he was thought to be one of the greats.

[Great Monster C]

Oh please Dr. Smith, I would hope that you of all people would realize there are certain moral truths and absolutes that trump temporary cultural blindness. Hitler was never a hero and I'm suprised at you for arguing that point for even a moment.

[Sakurako Hino]

Here come the split hairs...

Hero in the greek sense is someone of high status and renown/infamy. We've completely changed the term to someone who fits, and is a paragon of, the paradigm of moral, ethical, and personal responsibility to themselves and others.

A Hero in the modern sense also risks something, 9 times out of 10 their lives, for said causes, or for someone.

Hero in the modern world = Role Model.

Hero in the greek world = Someone of/in power.

Of course, that's the distilled definitions. It's far deeper than that. On a side note, Hitler is the DEFINITION of Villian in all senses of the word.

[Great Monster C]

Well, then count me in agreement with Mr. Haney.

I am not an ancient greek. I will argue the word as I understand it in the English language in the current day. That is like throwing around word's like "nigger" and "faggot" and insisting on using them in the context of two hundred or so years ago.

If you mean "people of infamy or renown" use a word that means that today as opposed to a word that meant that a thousand or so years ago.

[Vox Via]

And C, you do not have to answer this question,if you do not want to. I posted this topic worded this to get answers that would suit the little itch in the back of my head.

Now, really do humans gain more than they lose by having novas around? We are heroes, each and everyone of us.

[Lemmy Chillmeister]

Who cares?

They don't get to make a choice. We're here. They can fucking well deal with it.

[Ashnod]

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanguard:
When I mean this, as whole do humans gain anything by having heroes about them? I mean the Greek use of the word, and not the modern one.

Heroes inspire, thus, it is generally considered positive to have a hero. Part of that inspiration is the desire to emulate and adopt the characteristics of the hero figure.

In this way, we are a poor choice for any human to consider their "hero."

Even in human terms, the noblest and most honorable amongst novakind could and should be replaced in the aspirations of the human heart by the noblest and most honorable of humankind.

Seeking heroes outside of your own species is a disheartening and dangerous territory. A young baseline boy might say that Caestus Pax is his hero, but what the boy is likely saying beneath the surface is that he wants to be able to do the things Pax does, ergo, the quantum expression. If not for the quantum expression involved is Pax so interesting an individual?

Surely a better role model and hero exists for one not quantum born, who performs noble actions without quantum expression to act as a bias.

[Magus]

Again thread creepage yet this instance is a highly positive one.

It would depend on the characteristics chosen to adopt and emulate. There is always going to be that child who with starry eyes gazing intently on some nova or other utters the fateful words: "I want to be just like you." Often they mean in ways they can't conceive of rationally or articulate. They want to be the recipients of adulation such as they feel for that nova. The subject of adventures that have only a passing nod to facts as chronicled in books, comics or cartoons and their likenesses etched in plastic displayed on the shelves of toy stored everywhere.

In the better ones there is also the idea that they want to be worthy of adulation as they believe the nova to be. They desire with the shallow fervor of youth to make a difference. To fight the good fight. This is not the first time humanity idolized and chose to emulate outside its station. Animals, elemental forces and even myth figures they knew to be fiction litter our collective pasts. The harm to them lay not in choosing to emulate noble or desirable characterics. Rather, in believing that only those which are unique are worthy of emulation.

I often give a form of this talk to parent/teacher groups.

[Edward]

Of course we need heroes. Why do you think I do what I do? You think I like eating people? You think I like killing mothers and fathers in front of their children?

No. I do it so I can inspire people.

[Jager]

Heroes can be good things or bad things, depending on the situation. If the young boy wants to be Ceastus Pax so he can kick ass, he is being negatively impacted. If a young girl decides to devote herself to ending domestic violence through mediation because she idolizes Synergy, it is a postitive thing.

Like in so many other things, chose your heroes wisely and take from them the positive lessons.

FYI, in the mid-1930's, Adolph Hitler told germans to take pride in themselves, to have faith in their ability to accomplish things for themselves, and to help one another. It was a good thing that got turned to an evil purpose.

[Great Monster C]

Don't go there Jager. In Hitler's rise to power there were a few basic messages, all intertwined and dependent on each other:

The German people were a good people and should take pride in themselves.

The German people had been harshly and unfairly treated in the Treaty of Versailles.

and

The Jews were responsible poverty and misery in Germany and didn't deserve respect or humane treatment.

You cannot, cannot whitewash this chapter in history, don't even try it. Adolph Hitler was an evil, evil man and any "good" that he did was merely a side-effect from his drive for power, destruction and death.

[Jager]

Calm down GMC, I am no fan of ole Adolph. I brought that up more as a cautionary tale.

For more information, look at the 1928 campaign versus the 1932 and 1933 campaigns by the nazis. The anti-semitic message didn't play that well with the German cities in '28 (were Germans were likely to know and work with Jews), so they changed their tune in '32.

Mind you, they kept their anti-semitic stuff in the rural districts, were the message played to a more receptive audience.

In 1938, FDR and Adolph Hitler were compared and contrasted. Both were seen as ideological saviors of their nations. Events proved there were serious differences.

[Magus]

Creepage. Less positive.

[Magus]

Quote:

Originally posted by Cull:
You think I like killing mothers and fathers in front of their children?

I forsee a series of unfortunate events in your future. On a positive note, it will form the basis of a more applicable cautionary tale to be told than many of the historical events bandied about on this site.

[Vox Via]

Quote:

Originally posted by Lemmy Chillmeister:
Who cares?

They don't get to make a choice. We're here. They can fucking well deal with it.

But that is just it.We are here, but do we have to be here? Do we have the right to ruin their lives? Does it really mater how we do it?

We have the power and ability to move to another place. We can leave earth and find another home, and yet we don't.

Then again, you are one to say we are fucking gods, so I should not really think you could grasp the idea of giving up something yourself.