And, for the trifecta, if you don’t consider any person (living or dead) heroic, why not?
Firefighters.
'Cause they get all the tail.
Rudolph Giulliani. That man kicked ass to get New York City back on its feet after 9/11. Nobody better say a bad word about him in front of me.
She had the courage of her convinctions. Moreover, she wasn’t Jewish or otherwise in danger so she could have kept quiet. Instead she stood for others. I feel I should do the same in her position but fear I wouldn’t have the courage.
Getting the ball rolling…
People can be heroes in all different ways. I have many heroes.
Among world figures, Jefferson, Gandhi, Mandela are up there.
You’re welcome.
Remember, Og made firefighters so cops could have heroes, too.
Amen. If I’m ever in Berlin, I’ll make a point of visiting her memorial.
In a similar vein - there are a lot of very brave journalists in Russia who take enormous risks in criticizing the government and reporting its abuses. Anna Politkovskaya was one of them, and she died for it: Anna Politkovskaya - Wikipedia
One of the things that gives me real hope for the future is that people keep fighting their tyrants - and when they die, others take up the torch.
There are many, but one easy one that comes to mind is Oskar Schindler.
Nope, no heroes. “If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him,” that’s why.
Would you care to give a little more detail?
Lars Vilks.
Because he doesn’t take shit from anyone. Not even pissed off Muslims.
Raoul Wallenberg. He could have said the plight of the Jews wasn’t his problem. Lord knows enough people did and do that.
Hero-worship is a trap that prevents one from completing one’s own journey, essentially, by drawing one’s focus on how someone else did it, when we are each unique and should find our own version of a path to enlightenment.
Also, No-one is good enough to be a hero, in my eyes. Mostly because the things I value highly don’t often occur together in one person, and anyone without all of them is too flawed for me. So: Gandhi - too religious. Mandela - never renounced violence.
My hero would have to be a pacifist, atheist, anarchist scientist/artist. The only one who comes close is Chomsky, and he’s just not that great.
[quote=“MrDibble, post:13, topic:540244”]
Hero-worship is a trap that prevents one from completing one’s own journey, essentially, by drawing one’s focus on how someone else did it, when we are each unique and should find our own version of a path to enlightenment.
[quote]
Why are you conflating hero and deity (or even demigod)? One can consider a person heroic without thinking him perfect, much less worthy of a cult.
What does “completing one’s own journey” mean?
Okay, I can understand the first three (though frankly I could never get behind anarchism). But why must a hero be BOTH a scientist and artist?
While I respect pacifism, and believe that nonviolence is always the preferable tool - would you agree that sometimes violence is necessary to fight an evil system? Maybe violence wasn’t necessary to bring down apartheid - you’d know that far better than I. But the idea that nonviolent resistance could have brought down the Nazis, for example, is absurd. Nor would nonviolent resistance to the Taliban likely be effective.
Some people are simply so dedicated to inflicting evil upon others that they cannot be persuaded to do otherwise. Refusal to use violence against these folks isn’t a principled stand against violence - it’s just a decision that you’ll let innocent people be the victims of it, instead of the folks who genuinely deserve some high-speed lead poisoning.
Annie–If you ever find yourself prisoner in my car again, please be prepared to hear a LOT of very bad language about Rudy. I’ll save some up special for you. I detest the man, sort of like how you feel about Woody Allen, except minus all your admiration for Woody’s adorability and ethical qualities. I’m not even sure Rudy IS a man, in fact–I’m leaning toward soulless, evil android at the moment.
My hero is Jonas Salk. The man worked around the clock for years to come up with a safe and effective vaccine against polio. And when he succeeded, he gave it to the world for free.
Excerpt from the Wikipedia article, discussing the interview between Salk and Edward R Murrow:
I’m old enough to remember a percentage of kids in my grammar school were in leg braces and wheelchairs because of polio. In those pre-handicapped accessible days, the children (and their wheelchairs) had to be carried up and down the stairs, and they considered themselves lucky not to be in an iron lung…or worse.
When the vaccine became available it was an enormous thing!
I can’t say I have one. I just…I’ve never really given it much thought. What’s the benefit of having a hero, anyway? I don’t get that part, I guess.
When the going gets tough, perhaps it would be helpful and inspirational to reflect on the courage, principles, dedication, and/or strength of someone you admire?
I don’t mean “perfect”, I just mean “superior”. I need my own personal heroes to be better than me at the things they’re heroic at.
For me? Working out for oneself an *authentic **existentiell **ontic *understanding compatible with one’s *existential *understanding of ontology. I’m afraid I can’t explain it simpler than that. Not without having to explain each of those terms and my take on them, which would be a major hijack.
Not a hero. *My *hero. Some people look up to firemen or military butchers or Gandhi, I’d look up to those people who best combine the two opposing halves of the bicameral mind. Because that’s what I think I do best, and what I’d like to be best at.
No, I wouldn’t.
Why? Would there have been any Nazis left if no-one worked in their factories or fought their wars? If everyone chose non-violent resistance instead? And I do mean everyone. Whenever I bring up pacifism and its success in India, people remind me that it was only successful because the British weren’t the like Nazis, and could be swayed. Clearly not people who ever lived in South Africa, home of the first concentration camps. I think it was, instead, a numbers game, and Gandhi simply had enough followers to create a tipping point. The same would, IMO, have worked on the Nazis, eventually. All it requires is enough people who believe. Such faith is, of course, thin on the ground. Understood, and it makes me sad. But that doesn’t change the principle of the thing, any more than the current non-achievability of universal anarchism makes it ideologically wrong.
You think they’d butcher *every woman *in their country if they *all *refused to play along? Really? Or all just upped and left?
Oh, agreed. But there are non-violent methods of dealing with even such, from shunning, to economic coercion. No human is so self-contained that they would last long without some enablement, even if it is by the subjugated.
I wouldn’t “let” anyone be anything I’m not willing to be myself, and have in the past. I still have scars to show for my non-violent resistance to oppression.