Everybody wants to be a hero

music

I notice this, especially among the liberal crowd. Whenever there is a problem and certain sections are victimized (in terms of race, sexual orientation, etc.) heroes start appearing. They go on and on about virtue, how important it is to respect human beings, equality, etc.

Do you believe most of the time, if not always, these heroes are simply using these social issues as a way to gain recognition? to be a hero? a star? Are the oppressed pawns, then?

lobster

What a heroic question.

Are you a star?

Just a question from an oppressed prawn?

:wave:

vinlyn

First, you'd need to come up with a succinct definition of what a hero is, and that's not something a lot of people will agree with. I'm not sure if it was on our forum or elsewhere within the past couple of weeks that someone was defining a hero as someone like Justin Bieber. Sigh!

I'm sure there are people who want recognition when they become heroes. But -- at least in my view -- a hero only includes people who have made great sacrifices to do what they did. So, if you consider that a person makes such sacrifices, it would seem to me that most people who become true heroes don't do it just for glory...although they may be the recipient of such glory.

riverflow

vinlyn said:

...it would seem to me that most people who become true heroes don't do it just for glory...

"We did nothing special. It's besa!"

vinlyn

riverflow said:

vinlyn said:

...it would seem to me that most people who become true heroes don't do it just for glory...

"We did nothing special. It's besa!"

Exactly.

music

vinlyn said:

First, you'd need to come up with a succinct definition of what a hero is, and that's not something a lot of people will agree with. I'm not sure if it was on our forum or elsewhere within the past couple of weeks that someone was defining a hero as someone like Justin Bieber. Sigh!

I'm sure there are people who want recognition when they become heroes. But -- at least in my view -- a hero only includes people who have made great sacrifices to do what they did. So, if you consider that a person makes such sacrifices, it would seem to me that most people who become true heroes don't do it just for glory...although they may be the recipient of such glory.

Let us say Mr. X is a regular guy - average gifts, nothing special, he works, pays his bills, etc. He doesn't feel special at all, just a regular guy. He sees in gay rights struggle (I am taking that as an instance) an opportunity to be a hero. He starts campaigning, wins support and admiration, feels special, is no longer a regular guy.

Is this the case with almost everyone who is engaging in such progressive struggles, whether your neighbor or Gandhi?

p.s.
Note that I am only talking about people who struggle for progressive causes like gay rights, anti-racism, etc. I am talking about people engaging in this struggle not because they care but because it helps them feel superior.

vinlyn

music said:

vinlyn said:

Let us say Mr. X is a regular guy - average gifts, nothing special, he works, pays his bills, etc. He doesn't feel special at all, just a regular guy. He sees in gay rights struggle (I am taking that as an instance) an opportunity to be a hero. He starts campaigning, wins support and admiration, feels special, is no longer a regular guy.

Is this the case with almost everyone who is engaging in such progressive struggles, whether your neighbor or Gandhi?

p.s.
Note that I am only talking about people who struggle for progressive causes like gay rights, anti-racism, etc. I am talking about people engaging in this struggle not because they care but because it helps them feel superior.

Having lived in the Washington, D.C. area for 3 decades, I have known lots of people who were into various causes, who demonstrated on the National Mall, even a few who testified before Congress.

The most famous person I've ever personally had the opportunity to sit down with for a very long conversation was Julian Bond -- certainly a hero in the Civil Rights area. Mr. Bond just seemed like a very average guy when we talked. He didn't personally take credit for much of anything, but rather talked about others in the cause and about the causes of the issues, major landmarks in the struggle, and where things are going now. He always was a hero to me since I was a child, but when I sat with him for 3 hours and chatted, he seemed pretty much very modest.

I never met Jesse Jackson, but I'm kinda thinking that if you were to sit with him for 3 hours and chat, he would be more about what he accomplished in Civil Rights. But it's probably unfair of me to make that assumption. I'm just basing on interviews of seen of him on television over the years.

Jeffrey

Is this really what happens? Sounds like they found a road to feel good about themselves. The wanting to feel good may ultimately be more interesting than the heroism.

lobster

It seems that you've been living two lives. One life, you're Thomas A. Anderson, program writer for a respectable software company. You have a social security number, pay your taxes, and you... help your landlady carry out her garbage. The other life is lived in computers, where you go by the hacker alias "Neo" and are guilty of virtually every computer crime we have a law for. One of these lives has a future, and one of them does not.

Agent Smith, The Matrix

. . . as for the Buddha . . .
Before Enlightenment chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment chop wood, carry water.
http://zenrevolution.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/chop-wood-carry-water/

Jeffrey

I can't remember if I am supposed to take the blue or red pill ::sigh::

karasti

No. A lot of them are fighting for rights for themselves or for people they love. Not to be some sort of hero and not for recognition. As usual @music, you look to the darker side of humanity rather than the lighter. Many, many people fight for the rights of others without ever even giving their name. Without appearing on the news, etc. They don't seek for anyone to know their name, or for admiration. They seek only to be heard by the people who make the decisions, that hold the rights of others in their hands.

fivebells

Everybody's looking for a connection. Some people find it by trolling.

music

To all members: this is just a question, something to ponder over. No need to get your blood pressure up over this and attack the OP. Just focus on the matter, thanks.

music

The world is a market where everything is for sale, including people. Heroes go for a huge price. People love them. It is a profitable business where both parties are happy. Why do you think superhero movies are so popular?

zombiegirl

music said:

Let us say Mr. X is a regular guy - average gifts, nothing special, he works, pays his bills, etc. He doesn't feel special at all, just a regular guy. He sees in gay rights struggle (I am taking that as an instance) an opportunity to be a hero. He starts campaigning, wins support and admiration, feels special, is no longer a regular guy.

Is this the case with almost everyone who is engaging in such progressive struggles, whether your neighbor or Gandhi?

p.s.
Note that I am only talking about people who struggle for progressive causes like gay rights, anti-racism, etc. I am talking about people engaging in this struggle not because they care but because it helps them feel superior.

Why do you care? You're creating an idea that their intentions are selfish, but does that really matter if their actions are good? Does it make you feel superior to create a reason to look down on those doing good things?

I think it's more likely that these people probably always felt strongly about whatever cause but didn't really step up until they found a reason to, such as, the victimization of an oppressed minority.

"Be not afraid of greatness: some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them."
-Shakespeare

misecmisc1

music said:

Do you believe most of the time, if not always, these heroes are simply using these social issues as a way to gain recognition? to be a hero? a star? Are the oppressed pawns, then?

well, whether a person becomes hero and others become oppressed paws, this is not the point - rather the point is whether their act lead to goodness in society or not. what intention that person had for doing that act - whether welfare of others or recognition - will only affect the karma for that person and character for that person. but their act will affect the lives of other people. so from society's perspective - it is not the person's intention which is important, rather the act is important. but from person's perspective - intention is more important as it shapes the person's character and karma.

JohnG

I have dealt with many such 'hero's', and found them to be the utmost cowards! Beware of those who render elequant speach, and forceful demenour; these are the signs of a coward when faced to have to put rhetoric into pracice. Talke without deed, is not a hero. :coffee:

poptart

music said:

Do you believe most of the time, if not always, these heroes are simply using these social issues as a way to gain recognition? to be a hero? a star? Are the oppressed pawns, then?

I think it must happen. Narcissists are drawn to any situation that makes them the centre of attention. And anyone can be drawn to an issue for the best motives only to then become intoxicated by the adulation it brings them. But I wouldn't go so far as to say this is the case "most of the time". How can we know what's in their heart?

Cinorjer

music said:

I notice this, especially among the liberal crowd. Whenever there is a problem and certain sections are victimized (in terms of race, sexual orientation, etc.) heroes start appearing. They go on and on about virtue, how important it is to respect human beings, equality, etc.

Do you believe most of the time, if not always, these heroes are simply using these social issues as a way to gain recognition? to be a hero? a star? Are the oppressed pawns, then?

All of the above. And, someone can deeply care about an issue and still enjoy the attention of being a crusader. The "Humble Hero" who saves the day and then rides off into the sunset before he can be thanked by the community is a myth.

Motivations are almost never pure. People are never so simple as our labels make them out to be. Take the Rev. Jackson here in the US. The man appears like magic whenever something newsworthy happens that appears to be related to racism or bigotry, just as soon as the cameras and microphones are turned on. His fame and fortune are built off using the media to get his name recognized around the world. So is he in it for the fame and glory? Yet, this man is also an eloquent and passionate defender and speaker for the oppressed. He began speaking out in the South when it took real courage because the white racists really were trying to kill the civil rights leaders. So is this man a hero or villain? I don't know.

seeker242

music said:

Do you believe most of the time, if not always, these heroes are simply using these social issues as a way to gain recognition? to be a hero? a star?

It depends on whether or not the person is a politician. If yes, yes. If no, no.

riverflow

It is very difficult for anyone's actions to be pure, but I would imagine most people find themselves in situations they did not plan on in which something came out of themselves that they themselves didn't know was in them. Rosa Parks, the unknown "Tank Man" of Tiananmen Square, the many unknown people who helped hide or save Jews from the Nazis. People don't PLAN to do the heroic acts they end up doing. They are thrown into a situation and respond to it rather than ignore it.

I'm hardly a hero, but I've done a few things in the past which I can't talk about because I'd feel weird talking about it when it was something done privately between two people. It would make me feel like my action was impure somehow.

Hannah Arendt spoke of this phenomenon in the context of anti-semitism in WWII and for those who saved the lives of Jews, when asked, their response was almost always along the same lines: "I couldn't live with myself otherwise." They didn't cite the commandments of a god or an political ideology-- they simply couldn't live with themselves if they simply turned away. Something bigger is awakened in someone, if even for that one moment, where there is a connection bigger than two egos.

riverflow

^^^^

Responsibility and Judgment by Hannah Arendt is the book.

There are quite a few essays in there which deal with this and related topics. @music I am guessing Arendt is a writer you'd appreciate and I'd recommend this book-- and recommend it to anyone-- it is a very insightful book.

riverflow

Just a relevant passage here:

…Their criterion, I think, was a different one: they asked themselves to what extent they would still be able to live in peace with themselves after having committed certain deeds; and they decided that it would be better to do nothing, not because the world would then be changed for the better, but simply because only on this condition could they go on living with themselves at all. Hence, they had to choose to die when they were forced to participate. To put it crudely, they refused to murder, not so much because they still held fast to the command ‘Thou shalt not kill,’ but because they were unwilling to live together with a murderer—themselves.

The precondition for this kind of judging is not a highly developed intelligence or sophistication in moral matters, but rather the disposition to live together explicitly with oneself, to have intercourse with oneself, that is, to be engaged in that silent dialogue between me and myself which, since Socrates and Plato, we usually call thinking. This kind of thinking, though at the root of all philosophical thought, is not technical and does not concern theoretical problems. The dividing line between those who want to think and therefore have to judge themselves, and those who do not, strikes across all social and cultural or educational differences. In this respect, the total collapse of respectable society during the Hitler regime may teach us that under such circumstances those who cherish values and hold fast to moral norms and standards are not reliable: we now know that moral norms and standards can be changed overnight, and that all that then will be left is the mere habit of holding fast to something. Much more reliable will be the doubters and skeptics, not because skepticism is good or doubting wholesome, but because they are used to examine things and to make up their own minds…

~Hannah Arendt, ‘Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship’ (from Responsibility and Judgment)

Zero

music said:

Is this the case with almost everyone who is engaging in such progressive struggles, whether your neighbor or Gandhi?
p.s.
Note that I am only talking about people who struggle for progressive causes like gay rights, anti-racism, etc. I am talking about people engaging in this struggle not because they care but because it helps them feel superior.

If you're only talking about one group, then it won't necessarily extrapolate well to 'almost everyone'.
Maybe it's true, however without knowing the motivation in each instance it is challenging collating the data to show to some level of statistical certainty that it is true for any particular group or amalgamation of all groups.

John_Spencer

The Buddha was a great hero who stood up for the oppressed.

He would have been anonymous given the choice.

vinlyn

Cinorjer said:

...So is this man a hero or villain? I don't know.

I don't think that one has to be either a hero or a villain!

nenkohai

What if... because someone is fearful of being perceived as a glory hound, the opt NOT to get involved?

What if, they don't trust themselves to NOT become a glory hound?

Jason

music said:

I notice this, especially among the liberal crowd. Whenever there is a problem and certain sections are victimized (in terms of race, sexual orientation, etc.) heroes start appearing. They go on and on about virtue, how important it is to respect human beings, equality, etc.

Do you believe most of the time, if not always, these heroes are simply using these social issues as a way to gain recognition? to be a hero? a star? Are the oppressed pawns, then?

Perhaps. And perhaps we're pawns in these frequent exchanges.

fivebells

Very punny, @Jason.

music

Jason said:

music said:

I notice this, especially among the liberal crowd. Whenever there is a problem and certain sections are victimized (in terms of race, sexual orientation, etc.) heroes start appearing. They go on and on about virtue, how important it is to respect human beings, equality, etc.

Do you believe most of the time, if not always, these heroes are simply using these social issues as a way to gain recognition? to be a hero? a star? Are the oppressed pawns, then?

Perhaps. And perhaps we're pawns in these frequent exchanges.

No need to get upset. I was talking about the liberal crowd, not the leftists (who are sincere and do not subscribe to the great man theory).

Jason

music said:

Jason said:

music said:

I notice this, especially among the liberal crowd. Whenever there is a problem and certain sections are victimized (in terms of race, sexual orientation, etc.) heroes start appearing. They go on and on about virtue, how important it is to respect human beings, equality, etc.

Do you believe most of the time, if not always, these heroes are simply using these social issues as a way to gain recognition? to be a hero? a star? Are the oppressed pawns, then?

Perhaps. And perhaps we're pawns in these frequent exchanges.

No need to get upset. I was talking about the liberal crowd, not the leftists (who are sincere and do not subscribe to the great man theory).

Who's upset?

music

Jason said:

music said:

Jason said:

music said:

I notice this, especially among the liberal crowd. Whenever there is a problem and certain sections are victimized (in terms of race, sexual orientation, etc.) heroes start appearing. They go on and on about virtue, how important it is to respect human beings, equality, etc.

Do you believe most of the time, if not always, these heroes are simply using these social issues as a way to gain recognition? to be a hero? a star? Are the oppressed pawns, then?

Perhaps. And perhaps we're pawns in these frequent exchanges.

No need to get upset. I was talking about the liberal crowd, not the leftists (who are sincere and do not subscribe to the great man theory).

Who's upset?

You are, apparently.

vinlyn

Geez, @music, leave it alone! :shake:

Jason

music said:

Jason said:

music said:

Jason said:

music said:

I notice this, especially among the liberal crowd. Whenever there is a problem and certain sections are victimized (in terms of race, sexual orientation, etc.) heroes start appearing. They go on and on about virtue, how important it is to respect human beings, equality, etc.

Do you believe most of the time, if not always, these heroes are simply using these social issues as a way to gain recognition? to be a hero? a star? Are the oppressed pawns, then?

Perhaps. And perhaps we're pawns in these frequent exchanges.

No need to get upset. I was talking about the liberal crowd, not the leftists (who are sincere and do not subscribe to the great man theory).

Who's upset?

You are, apparently.

Not in the slightest.

lobster

@music
What would the heroic do?
Be kinder to others. They deserve your best. Your pain manifests. Others 'above it all' condition manifests. Your situation is hard but your potential transformation is vast . . .
:wave: