whats your view about being a hero?

[LIGHTNING_71013]

there are a lot of heros in this world, whether it is in movies, games (FF for example), books, myths..(etc.) but what are your views about being a hero? being a hero doesnt just mean just pick up a sword and kill monsters, theres a lot for being a hero. and what exactly does a hero think in mind. for sure, it will be different than many other people, but how different?

my views about heros is that they are very special people that understands about themselves very thoroughly. and they use what they have and what they trust is enough to make a difference. and they are not afraid to face any danger. i feel that they consider other people first before they realize their own needs, and they will try to do whatever they can to make "world peace".(i dont mean world peace in particular, just an idea.) but...there is one thing i've noticed about heros...is that that they can only be in peoples memory...

[KainsBro]

The thing about Heroes: You either Die a hero, or live long enough to become a villain. (Think I heard that in a Movie)

A real hero, is someone ordinary, that does extraordinary things with what he has, for the benefit of people less fortunate than himself. Someone that answers destiny's call, the only problem is that they usually have to die before anyone realizes what they stood for and what a hero they really were. Hindsight is always 20/20, even for History.

[Rocky]

The thing about Heroes: You either Die a hero, or live long enough to become a villain in the sequel.

Fixed for boldness. And yes, thats off the Dark Night.

I'm a hero to many kids already, no need to overextend myself. That just leads to bad things =|

[Heartless Angel]

A hero, in my opinion, is someone willing to sacrifice everything for a cause not his own. A hero doesn't nescessarily have to be the little guy doing big things, it can be a big guy doing big things too. A hero doesn't JUST go in to help someone when there's a chance he may not come back. A true hero goes in when his death is a certainty.

[ultimatekupo]

I think the true hero, is the person who doesn't choose it. There are silent heroes every day. The people you don't hear about, and in fantasy, the characters who do the unnoticed, they are the ones who don't let inconveniences matter and they act selflessly. i think we might have more heroes in our world today, if technology hadn't spoiled cultures. No one wants to do what is inconvenient.

[Furore]

I feel a truly heroic person is one who puts the needs of others first, especially if at the expense of themselves.
When a person does acts that benefit others but also themselves, it's often just vigilantism, and while that often has a bigger positive effect that can be seen, often acts of vigilantism also carry negative, sometimes unfair, consequences.

A heroic person to me would be someone like say, Mother Teresa, rather than Superman.

[che]

A hero is someone willing to do something right, even though everyone else is afraid to stand up for it. He or she will stick by that until death if it takes that much to get it accomplished.

[NeoAquarius12]

Being a hero is sweet.
Everyone loves you. And you get the girl. Unless your bad guy kills her. In which case, you are the vengeful hero. And that makes you a badass. Like Conan, or Batman.

[Dizi<3]

A hero is someone who really has there shit together.
You can't save other people if you havent already saved yourself, anyway.
A hero puts other people before themselves, a problem that many people in our world today have yet to learn how to do.
Heros can make it through anything, and can come with just the right strategy to get the job done.
Most of us can't even figure out how to fix our cars when they get jacked up. In my opinion, heros are advanced individuals who become rarer and rarer through the generations, even though our world is in need of more and more each year.

[deathlord]

For every Great hero comes a tragic end such as Tidus Leaving Yuna for the calm and the warriors of light always dissapearing after a battle end. I mean whats there being a hero when you dont really see it but the same goes for villians such as garland and ultimecia the heros and villians will have to meet again in a never ending cycle its pitiful

[Selcopa]

i think we might have more heroes in our world today, if technology hadn't spoiled cultures. No one wants to do what is inconvenient.

I'm sorry but i'll have to stop you there. You really think people in the past were more benevolent than they are now? Wishful thinking at best really. Why do you think they had Hammurabi's Code?

As far as heroes, there are alot of great people who do heroic things, are they heroes? I don't know, I don't think so, somebody that does something heroic doesnt make them a hero, and if someone is a hero, they can't be be doing nothing. I think the term is just a little too fantasy for me to use it for real life.

[Omni]

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Being a hero is culturally subjective, I feel. If a man makes billions suing doctors, then donates money to a hospital, is he a hero? Or is he just doing what he thinks a hero should do, in the public eye at least?

If a man saves a litter of kitten in the wilderness, but nobody is around to see it, is he a hero? Or is he just a man with a bunch of kittens?

[Heartless Angel]

In my opinion, it isn't just the action that defines a hero, but the motives. Someone the public considers a hero, may just be self-centered douchebag in it for the glory.

[Robbo]

For Me a Hero is someone who sees something happening that is wrong and then intervenes helping another person so basically helping others with no gain for yourself.

[fragdemon]

Perhaps this thread should be merged with:
"The Linking of Ancient and Modern Mythos with the Modern World" on the same forum. The topics are starting to converge.


But the last few posts here have talked about altruism, which is an interesting concept. Altruism is a hugely debated concept in philosophy, psychology, evolutionary biology, etc. We have general deadlocks in basically all fields about it: We can't agree on what should count as an adequate definition of altruism; how to observe, record, or prove altruism once we have settled on a definition; and whether or not altruism is even important.

If we make altruism part of the hero definition, then we risk putting that into the same deadlock. Will we ever be able to tell what someone's motives are? Will the heroes themselves ever be able to understand their own motives?

Who gets to define "gain"? If the hero gets a lot of glory but doesn't care, then do we say he profited from the action? If the hero gets no glory, but has a smug sense of satisfaction, do we say that he acted for no gain?


I suggest poking around Wikipedia for starters. But there's tons of social psychology work on the topic for those more scientifically inclined and probably every moral philosopher has taken a crack at the question at one point or another.

The question of altruism and natural selection is a FASCINATING one. So that even things like self-sacrifice start to be defined as selfish on a larger biological level.

[Heartless Angel]

Personally I'm a fan of Schlick's theory, that in some way all of our actions are selfish. Almost seems a bit contradticory to my previous statement, but not entirely so. More or less I mean if someone THINKS they're being altruistic and doing it with no benefit to themselves (even though I believe there IS psychological benefit to the one doing the good deeds), they're the real hero. If someone is doing something good just because they know that it'll make people like or respect them, or make themsem feel good about themselves, then I would say they were not being a hero.

[fragdemon]

Originally Posted by HeartlessAngel
More or less I mean if someone THINKS they're being altruistic and doing it with no benefit to themselves (even though I believe there IS psychological benefit to the one doing the good deeds), they're the real hero. If someone is doing something good just because they know that it'll make people like or respect them, or make themsem feel good about themselves, then I would say they were not being a hero.

What's weird here is this: Self-awareness counteracts heroism.

I went to a social psychology class and learned all about the motivations behind good actions. It's harder for me to believe that I am doing something without being aware of an internal reason.

A man is absurdly generous. He finds himself giving the all the money in his wallet to homeless people every subway ride home. Then one day with his psychoanalyst he learns that this is because of a father conflict he didn't realize he had until just that day. Now, if you believe with me that psychoanalysis is kinda silly, then this may not even be true. But now that the guy thinks to himself (inaccurately) that his generosity is part of a father complex, he is now "not being a hero."


So self-awareness makes someone less heroic and naivete makes someone more heroic?

This is not saying that what you're believing is false, but it is weird. I'm curious about if you want to talk us through it a bit more.

[Unlucky Rufus]

In my opinion, it isn't just the action that defines a hero, but the motives. Someone the public considers a hero, may just be self-centered douchebag in it for the glory.

Thats true. Osama Bin Laden was considered a hero in the middle east for his financial support in driving the soviets out of afghanistan. Stalin, Mussolini, even Hitler were all at one time referred to as heroes. What we consider a hero might very well be a dark, evil individual.

[Heartless Angel]

What's weird here is this: Self-awareness counteracts heroism.

I went to a social psychology class and learned all about the motivations behind good actions. It's harder for me to believe that I am doing something without being aware of an internal reason.

A man is absurdly generous. He finds himself giving the all the money in his wallet to homeless people every subway ride home. Then one day with his psychoanalyst he learns that this is because of a father conflict he didn't realize he had until just that day. Now, if you believe with me that psychoanalysis is kinda silly, then this may not even be true. But now that the guy thinks to himself (inaccurately) that his generosity is part of a father complex, he is now "not being a hero."


So self-awareness makes someone less heroic and naivete makes someone more heroic?

This is not saying that what you're believing is false, but it is weird. I'm curious about if you want to talk us through it a bit more.

Interesting scenario, actually had think about it for a while.

Well, I do believe psychoanalysis to be useful, but only to a limitted extent, but I won't go into that.

I would definitely say this man was being generous prior to the psychoanalysis, but not nescessarily heroic. It depends how well he was getting by in spite of giving away his money. But for the time, I'll just pretend that his generosity = heroism, just for the sake of explaining my views in terms of this scenario, as it could just as easily have been that this guy was running into burning buildings to save orphans because of his father, so his exact actions in this scenario aren't all that important since I defined heroism based on motives. As far as this man was aware, he was acting completely without regard for his own good.

After the psychoanalysis, I would expect the man's motives change. If he goes home that night and says, "Man, that shrink is dumb, that doesn't have anything to do with my father, I'm just a nice guy!", his motives remained what we would call altruistic (though once again, I believe father complex or not the man WAS continuing to do this because it made him feel better about himself, which IS a personal gain, I don't believe in true altruism). If he instead goes home, contemplates this and agrees with it, next time he goes out and hands a hobo a 20, and thinks to himself, "YEAH! **** YOU DAD!", he was no longer acting altruisticly, but because he was conciously aware that his doing this in some way benefitted him. The action was still good, and generous, but I would say not heroic. If he went home and thought about that and realized (or at least thought he realized, since the analysis may not have been accurate) he was't really being generous, he would probably just stop handing out money to hobos. If hegoes home and thinks, "Great, I'm helping myself AND hobos!", and continues giving his money away, I would also say he was not a hero, even though he was generous, simply because I define heroism as someone doing something for (what they believe, again, I like Schlick) is a cause that does not bennefit them in any way. So basically, I think the deed is still good regardless of the motives, but not nescessarily heroic.

[Linus Li Lelouch]

A Hero?

To me, a person or thing that fulfills the dreams of someone else.

It can be a small thing or a large thing, doesn't matter as long as that person at one point in their life said *man that's my hero* without the bit of sarcasm, then we're working with something.

A hero can be an object, whether it was manmade or nature produced, a person whether he's good or evil, it can be fictional, or non-fictional. Doesn't matter.

Ex..
A young girl running away from some perverted guy coming from school, at the same time, there's a dog playing with a large piece of wood. Girl run past dog with wood in mouth, dogs looks up like WTH?, guy trips over the wood in the dogs mouth and hits a pole which knocks him unconscious.

In a weird sense, to that girl, the dog is her hero whether he knew what he did or not.

That's just my take on it.