RoR: Forum

JJ,

Thank you for that very nice little article.

I have seen far too many pseudo-heroes in Objectivism. They are the ones who manufacture villains so they can get attention by railing against them. We, as human beings, come with strong emotions wired in our psyche. Ranting against evil appeals to us on a visceral level, regardless of the issue, because of that wiring. (I think has to do with the fight or flight response.)

However, we need to be reminded periodically of the true nature of the heroism we seek in a philosophy. I know I do. This is where I found your article to be a small oasis - a tiny moment of pleasurable focus, so to speak. What a refreshing thought - that there is no need for a dark side in order to become a hero. Hard work is worth the effort!

These following words of yours about Objectivist heroes are some of the most inspiring ones I have read out of all the recent articles on all the forums I have visited:

They were born ordinary to begin with and made themselves into heroes. Every one of us has what it takes to become an Objectivist hero.

As one engaged in the day-to-day exercise of studying and leaning my new craft as a writer (and some of it is long and hard and boring), your thought in the above quote is the kind of fuel that helps keep me going strong.

Thanks.

Michael

Post 1

Friday, January 20, 2006 - 4:18pm

My definition of a hero is "an individual who pursues proper values in the face of adversity." The greater the adversity, the greater the heroism.

Post 2

Friday, January 20, 2006 - 6:23pm

I have seen far too many pseudo-heroes in Objectivism. They are the ones who manufacture villains so they can get attention by railing against them.

Standing ovation Michael. I'm not going to comment further here about it, but what you mentioned has been driving me mad lately.

Post 3

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 3:01am

My definition of a hero is "an individual who pursues proper values in the face of adversity." The greater the adversity, the greater the heroism.

Is a person who stupidly locks his keys in his car during a snow storm and then trudges 20 miles through the snow to get to his destination more heroic than the person who keeps careful track of his keys? Both get to the destination, but the first gets to his destination despite much more adversity...

Isn't all of life adversity since nothing is free unless you produce it? Ultimately, it seems to me that it's the results that matter, not what was overcome to get the results.

Post 4

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 10:28pm

MSK,

Thanks! I'm glad you liked it.

Bob,

I'm afraid that you missed the point of my article completely. Suffering isn't a necessary ingredient in heroism. An Objectivist hero is measured by his accomplishments, not his costs. If at all possible, he tries to incur as little cost as possible for the same amount of achievements. He doesn't have to suffer to be a hero. And that is one of the reasons that his heroic qualities are relevant to and can be emulated by regular people.

Jeff,

I agree completely.

-JJ

Post 5

Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 6:24am

Thank you, JJ Tuan, for this thoughtful and stimulating article.

I think you are rejecting Bob Palin's proposed definition too quickly. The adversity element in his conception of heroism could include either adversity from nature or from other people. And it would not have to necessarily entail suffering. Do you think his would be a good definition, if adversity were taken this broadly?

It seems to me that Jeff Landauer's comment is partly right and partly wrong. What is right is the idea that all life is adversity. I mean it seems true that life is filled with challenges and problems, even for the rich or the very talented (Moreover, it is life that makes adversity, challenges, and problems possible.)

What seems partly wrong in your remark, Mr. Landauer, is the idea that what matters is results, not struggle to get the results. I don't mean to take up that general idea, but there is shift here from what is heroic to what matters. That man who survived in "Touching the Void" gets the hero badge because of the enormous adversity that he struggled and struggled to overcome. At the beginning of the story, I'm sort of cross with those men for going up on that mountain under those conditions. But given that they took that fateful decision already, . . . well, my heart responds, the struggle is on.

Stephen

Post 6

Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 6:05pm

Part of the reason traditional heroes require contexts of conflict to become heroic is due to traditional ethical standards being altruist. Thus, a man can make a hero by sacrificing himself to society or taking the risk of his life for everyone else's sake in war or in some situation like the movie, Armageddon.

According to altruist ethics, a man cannot become heroic by creating great wealth for himself - no matter how hard he worked for it or what risks he took to attain it. Only egoism recognises such deeds as heroic.

Great article JJ, a timely reminder.

Post 7

Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 11:15pm

Andrew,

You've hit the nail on the head.

JJ

Post 8

Friday, January 27, 2006 - 7:31am

"My definition of a hero is "an individual who pursues proper values in the face of adversity." The greater the adversity, the greater the heroism."

I think Bob Palin's comment is definitely part of my definition of hero. It speaks to a persons CHARACTER who continues to pursue their values in the face of great adversity. It is not a matter of suffering. When you continue to pursue values when the majority would have sufficient excuse to give up is a character issue and I think also heroic. Jeff, your trite example of the person locking his keys in his car is a different context than what I read in Bob's remark.

JJ,

"Their heroic acts are possible due to years of purposeful hardwork and continuous self-improvement, independent of circumstances."

There is nothing ordinary, "normal", about the people you are describing in the above sentence, note especially "..independent of circumstances." I appreciate your point and sanction your article but "hero" means someone who is extraordinary in some regard. Who an objectivist would regard as a hero is of course different than the popular definition of hero. Words have meanings.

Post 9

Friday, January 27, 2006 - 2:32pm

I am with JJ and Andrew on this.

There is nothing adversarial or painful about taking on monumental creative projects--which I view to be great heroism, to creatively go where no one has gone before. More so than going against adversity which seems to be the "soldier" view of it.

But I know a lot of people who feel that just getting through horrible situations takes heroic effort but I have also often found that they created the situation(s) in the first place. Like being married to an asshole and getting through the following problems caused by that. Or drug addiction. So really getting through that you arrive in neutral territory.

Michael

Post 10

Friday, January 27, 2006 - 6:29pm

I can't completely agree with JJ's and thus Newberry's view on heroism.

JJ said "Suffering isn't a necessary ingredient in heroism."

Perhaps. But exertion or hard working is. If one acquired millions by inheritance, he is not a hero. If one earned every cent of his millions by his great effort using his mind and hands, then he might be a hero.

"An Objectivist hero is measured by his accomplishments, not his costs."

While the end point counts, the starting point counts as well. How far has a person gone from where he comes from definitely counts.

And about adversity, I feel that for many people born and living in America, the biggest adversity is actually oneself.

Post 11

Friday, January 27, 2006 - 7:16pm

The road traveled is a factor, and no minor one at that. In fact, at times, heroism is possible even without having actually achieved the final goal. So I am with, Hong, on this one. And I agree with Mike Erikson when he refers to a hero as being someone who is extraordinary in some regard.

Michael N., objects to the classification of somone overcoming marital problems or a drug addiction as being "heroic", in this we are in agreement. Some drug addict that spent years rolling around in his own vomit, but who finally manages to take a shower; to decorate him with the title "hero" is an abomination to the very concept. The slime filled road that he traveled, is worthy only of contempt. If he does manage to lift himself out of that condition, at best he is worthy of modest admiration, but certainly no more than that. But the soldier's victory over adversity is not made of this rot. The warrior's truimph is of a wholly different context; and his bravery and accomplishment's are among the noblest achievements a man can attain.

However, I do agree with Michael, when he says, "There is nothing adversarial or painful about taking on monumental creative projects--which I view to be great heroism, to creatively go where no one has gone before." Although Michael�s example would fall under a different category of heroism; for there are different forms of heroism, and the different forms are determined by the context.

If you want to argue that �emergency� or "life boat scenario� heroism gets too much press, while the heroism of extraordinary creative-achievement does not get enough, I can understand that. But the two types should not be seen as being in competition with each other, as if one where more valid than the other.

George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 1/27, 7:52pm)

Post 12

Friday, January 27, 2006 - 8:10pm

"There is nothing adversarial or painful about taking on monumental creative projects--which I view to be great heroism, to creatively go where no one has gone before."

I can't completely agree with this statement either. Take Richard Feynman as an example. Sure you may say that he had such successful career and a seemingly very smooth life, and he is definitely a hero in most people's eyes just by virtue of his achievement. Or is it?

I've known several people who are incredibly smart. Their mental ability was simply beyond my comprehension. They had everything laid out for them to succeed at whatever they choose to do. Only the sky is the limit of what they potentially can achieve. And yet, they have achieved nothing or very little in their lives. There is nothing trivial or insignificant in any genius' achievement.

Michael, take your favorite artists, Michelangelo, Rembrandt, or Vincent Van Gogh, as example, how can anyone say that there is nothing adversarial or painful in their creative endeavors?!

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 1/28, 7:04pm)

Post 13

Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 12:12am

I am delighted to see that Zhang and Cordero are not Newberry�s boot lickers. But have joined forces and oscillating their efforts. :)
JJ said "Suffering isn't a necessary ingredient in heroism."

Hong added: "Perhaps. But exertion or hard working is. If one acquired millions by inheritance, he is not a hero. If one earned every cent of his millions by his great effort using his mind and hands, then he might be a hero."

Tut, tut. Are you equating "suffering" with "hard work". Then you have my deepest sympathy Hong! And no one here has argued for or implied that inheritance is a heroic feat. So what is your argument?

Hong: "And about adversity, I feel that for many people born and living in America, the biggest adversity is actually oneself."

Yep, its harder to claim excuses living here, what is there to stop a person from achieving your heroic best?

George: "The road traveled is a factor, and no minor one at that. In fact, at times, heroism is possible even without having actually achieved the final goal. [!!!!] So I am with, Hong, on this one."

What are you "with...on this one"? Theoretically, I am sure we agree on good ends and good means. But I don�t see how suffering, pain, struggle, obstacles are added values to the means of creating something major.

George: "The warrior's truimph is of a wholly different context; and his bravery and accomplishment's are among the noblest achievements a man can attain."

I would like George not to just state this abstractly i.e. I would like to know the reasons for the evaluation.

Though I do think that someone putting their life on the line to save and protect innocent lives is indeed a different context. But I wonder about "warriors" I wonder how many of them really care about the values their protecting vs. the rush and the feeling of authority they get from engaging the enemy.

Hong: "Only the sky is the limit of what they potentially can achieve. And yet, they have achieved nothing or very little in their lives. There is nothing trivial or insignificant in any genius' achievement."

These seem like contradictory observations, what are you saying? If someone is potentially brilliant and they don�t fulfill their potential I would feel very sorry for them...

Hong: "Michael, take your favorite artists, Michelangelo, Rembrandt, or Vincent Van Gaugh, as example, how can anyone say that there is nothing adversarial or painful in their creative endeavors?!"

Hahahaha, but there isn�t anything adversarial or painful in painting. If an artist does not enjoy all the trial and errors, and mistakes that might even cost months of labor�I would simply think that art is not for them.

Though a painful part can be about the people that one deals with as an artist�one example, a rather strange one, is that an artist often feel that their art is a "gift" to humanity and other people often feel that art is the epitome of self-indulgence or worthlessness. The movie A Girl With a Pearl Earring brought this out at the climax of the movie�at the point when one of the characters said that "art is nothing, it doesn�t mean anything." A sentiment like that is painful to be in the vicinity of.

Post 14

Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 6:55am

Michael N: I would like George not to just state this abstractly i.e. I would like to know the reasons for the evaluation. Though I do think that someone putting their life on the line to save and protect innocent lives is indeed a different context. But I wonder about "warriors" I wonder how many of them really care about the values their protecting vs. the rush and the feeling of authority they get from engaging the enemy.

I have little doubt that an artist in the act of a new monumental creation operates with a great �feeling of authority� and derives a tremendous �rush� from engaging in it. And yet I have never found this to be a reason to doubt the person's motives in regards to the values they are creating, and in the case of some artists: defending. No less do I find this a reason to doubt the motives of our Medal of Honor recipients. Perhaps for some artists and warriors, the rush is all it�s about; but I think you will find that those, whose sole motivation is the rush, are far less likely to actually accomplish something heroic.

From the abstract to the concrete: Audie Murphy, Alvin York, Pat Tilman, the fire-fighters of 911, the soldiers/civilians that revolted in the Warsaw Ghetto, and every cop, soldier or regular civilian that ever put their lives on the line, or lost their lives, as a result of being loyal to their highest values. You will find that those that are in it for the rush, for the kicks, rarely accomplish anything truly heroic; they paint by the numbers, put on airs and affectations, and talk about what they would do � without ever actually doing it. These people may make for �good� back-ups and support, but they never manage to reach the threshold of the true hero. Of the millions, upon tens of millions, of men that fought in America�s wars, a mere 3,460 have won the Medal of Honor; as you can see, monumental heroism in battle is reserved for the extraordinary, and not for the common.

Of course heroism is also divided by degrees, from a lesser heroic act to the greater, from the momentary to the enduring, I believe it is the same within the heroism possible in creation.

Michael N: But I don�t see how suffering, pain, struggle, obstacles are added values to the means of creating something major.

I was not agreeing with Hong on this point, but rather when she said, �How far has a person gone from where he comes from definitely counts.�

George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 1/28, 7:27am)

Post 15

Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 8:33am

George,

To be a warrior hero it is necessary to have an enemy; can�t be a hero without one.

For an idealist, of the warrior hero variety, would that mean that if there is not an enemy you would need to create one?

A creative hero doesn't have any such paradox.

Michael

Post 16

Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 9:03am

Michael N: To be a warrior hero it is necessary to have an enemy; can�t be a hero without one.

I don�t know about the word �enemy� as being all inclusive for every type of warrior hero, for some the word 'adversary' will do (the fire, to the fireman), but yes, I understand your point; and my answer to that is: yes.

Adversity is the canvas upon which the warrior-hero paints. It is the precondition to his heroism.

Michael N: For an idealist, of the warrior hero variety, would that mean that if there is not an enemy you would need to create one?

Yes and no; for a Cromwell, yes, but for a George Washington, no. And of course, there are many that lie somewhere in between. But your example requires a near utopia in order to be valid, therefore the need to create an enemy. From the vantage point of history, from time immemorial, there has never been a shortage of Al Capone�s for the heroism of an Elliot Ness to respond to.

Michael N: A creative hero doesn't have any such paradox.

Oh, really?

BTW, there is no sarcasm intended in that "Oh, really?" of mine, I am honestly asking.

Just for fun, I will wade way out of my depth, with the following examples. In his life, Van Gogh did not sell a single painting, yet, he painted on. What of the struggle of the legitimate artist against the tyranny of post-modernism; is not his every brush stroke engaged in a battle of sorts? Is not the �writer�s block� that every artist faces and must overcome, isn�t that enemy a precondition to his success?

George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 1/28, 9:16am)

Post 17

Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 10:24am

"Adversity" is much better than "enemy". Kudos.

George: Adversity is the canvas upon which the warrior-hero paints. It is the precondition to his heroism.

Oh...scary image.

G: In his life, Van Gogh did not sell a single painting, yet, he painted on. What of the struggle of the legitimate artist against the tyranny of post-modernism; is not his every brush stroke engaged in a battle of sorts? Is not the "writer�s block" that every artist faces and must overcome, isn�t that enemy a precondition to his success?

About Van Gogh, that is not about the painting but about his interrelationships or lack of them with exceptional collectors.

About the "tyranny of post-modernism"...how that affects a representational painter? That is kind of an absence issue. There a several postmodern artists that raise millions of dollars to implement their visions. Christo�s Gates or Jeff Koon�s Stainless Steel Teddy Bears...I don�t know what I would make with an open ended 2 million dollar commission for the Guggenheim�but it would be different than I am making now.

I have had an idea and studies for epic paintings like the Individuals� Revolution, it would be about 10 x 14', but we are talking about 3-7 years full-time work, without any outside interruptions, on one painting. Who is going to buy it or who will commission it? Where is it to live? That project is not something I can realistically do without huge financial resources.

For Christo or Koons, the fund raising, their P.R., their business aptitude, the management of the workers that actually make the thing�all of this is considered by many including themselves, as making art. But that is not art to me. Art is the act of drawing, painting, sculpting�I am not an artist so that I can manage a factory of artists and sign the results with my name.

So would that make me more of a hero�to drop everything and embark on painting the Individuals� Revolution without moral or financial support? That would indeed be adversarial. So far I have not come across an individual or group with the exceptional vision and the resources to back such an undertaking.

Michael

Post 18

Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 11:18am

Newberry wrote
"If someone is potentially brilliant and they don�t fulfill their potential I would feel very sorry for them..." and "what is there to stop a person from achieving your heroic best?"

Perhaps they heeded to the advice of Master Newberry that one doesn't have to overcome adversary or experience pain to achieve a heroic deed?

Sorry gentlemen, I have to run now, but will come back to it later today - hopefully.

And...... Happy Chinese New Year to everyone!

Post 19

Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 11:39am