What is a Hero?

[Story_Marc]

It's time for another episode. I'm certain there will be plenty of disagreement, but I feel this is essential. I decided to explore what constitutes heroism more this time while focusing on trying to get at what I view as the heart of heroism. I reject the notion that "heroism" is a subjective matter based on perspective, though I know this is something many are resistant to -- for reasons I bring up in the episode. Regardless, I am throwing my hat into the "what is heroism" argument and trying to give a helpful answer.

 

[SailusGebel]

Thank you!

 

[TaciturnHuman]

We all need a hero~
Somebody to help us to be brave~
We all need a hero~
And someone he can save~
We all need a hero~
Believing that deep inside~
We'll find there is some kind of hero too~
Like the one I found in you~

 

[TheEldritchGod]

Easy: He's this guy.

 

[Voidiris]

I honestly wonder how you can argue against the notion that heroism is defined by culture... I should just watch the video.

 

[Story_Marc]

I honestly wonder how you can argue against the notion that heroism is defined by culture... I should just watch the video.

I bring up General Zod specifically for this point to show how screwed up that logic can become. I discuss that in the comments, too.

 

[Voidiris]

I bring up General Zod specifically for this point to show how screwed up that logic can become. I discuss that in the comments, too.

I guess your point is that he's the hero of the cryptonians but he does obviously bad stuff, for our culture.
This reminds me of the story of the trojan horse that was used to trick the trojans, at the time of the story it was seen as a cowardly act because at the time something like strength and direct confrontation but over time the opinion changed until it was seen as a heroic act of wit. But I can't change any opinion here because I didn’t watch the video and my arguments are either way pitiful. As long as a person believes not in subjective morality the arguments will fall on deaf ears anyway, I still struggle to understand why you need a objective moral reason to not murder someone, I guess that happens when objectivism wins and naturalism is left to rot. I digress.

 

[Story_Marc]

I guess your point is that he's the hero of the cryptonians but he does obviously bad stuff, for our culture.
This reminds me of the story of the trojan horse that was used to trick the trojans, at the time of the story it was seen as a cowardly act because at the time something like strength and direct confrontation but over time the opinion changed until it was seen as a heroic act of wit. But I can't change any opinion here because I didn’t watch the video and my arguments are either way pitiful. As long as a person believes not in subjective morality the arguments will fall on deaf ears anyway, I still struggle to understand why you need a objective moral reason to not murder someone, I guess that happens when objectivism wins and naturalism is left to rot. I digress.

No, my point is that he isn't a hero, for the reasons I made clear when noting heroic attributes and how he falls short.

And then I brought up Superman killing Zod and why his kill doesn't make him NOT a hero. I spelled it all out in the video. Why debate things if you aren't even going to hear out the argument to begin with?

 

[Bartun]

“People once asked me what it takes to be a hero. Many say ‘the will to go on, the will to keep fighting for what is right, the will to endure it all’. Ideal traits for warriors, but I differ. Anyone can be a hero; all it takes is a nosey and stubborn attitude, the ability to pry into other people’s problems and make it your business, to not look away when things get ugly, and to stay and follow through, no matter how hard the problem gets. That’s all it takes. Nothing special really,”

 

[Envylope]

No, my point is that he isn't a hero, for the reasons I made clear when noting heroic attributes and how he falls short.

And then I brought up Superman killing Zod and why his kill doesn't make him NOT a hero. I spelled it all out in the video. Why debate things if you aren't even going to hear out the argument to begin with?

Unfortunately that’s how the internet is. Sometimes even irl

 

[Mnotia]

Great watch

 

[Thraben]

Ok. I'm writing this response continuously as I watch the video and bringing up my response to those points as we go.

Let's start us off.


You've taken an awful lot of time to both harshly criticize the idea that 'what is a hero' is a subjective question, and then choose to rigidly define a set of characteristics you personally hold (and presumably that other people have also written about) as being heroic traits. You then say the phrase 'for me', completely and unambiguously disagreeing with your earlier point about heroism not being subjective. It is a genuine struggle to take the accompanying

I reject the notion that "heroism" is a subjective matter based on perspective

seriously.

I'm not going to debate whether or not your definition of heroism is sufficient for all cases or even any individual case in fiction, because even beyond merely conflicting with consensus or observation, you yourself provide the best evidence against your definition and thoughts on subjectivity!

Again, I'm not going to debate the Zod 'tragic hero or heinous villain thing', because I don't have to. The debate existing at all disproves your points. I'm not going to debate whether Superman killing Zod is heroic or not, because I don't have to. The debate existing at all disproves your points. Your opinions on subjectivity are noted, but evidentially disproven.

 

[Voidiris]

Again, I'm not going to debate the Zod 'tragic hero or heinous villain thing', because I don't have to. The debate existing at all disproves your points. I'm not going to debate whether Superman killing Zod is heroic or not, because I don't have to. The debate existing at all disproves your points. Your opinions on subjectivity are noted, but evidentially disproven.

This argument is fucking great, because the option exist to debate what is heroic proves heroism is subject.

By the way I kinda misused objectivism in this thread if you ignore the perceptualistic idea of objectivism.

 

[laccoff_mawning]

Since I, too, hate this idea that objectivism doesn't exist, I shall say my bit.

The problem with relativism isn't so much the existence of relativism, but the denial of the existence of objectivisim. Take the three following quotations, which gives a relatively good example of what I mean here:

The debate existing at all disproves your points.

because the option exist to debate what is heroic proves heroism is subject.

I still struggle to understand why you need a objective moral reason to not murder someone

Here's the problem: just because people have differing opinions doesn't mean that there cannot be objective standards to matters. It simply means people aren't in agreement over what that objective standard is.

A person who believes in objectivity is someone who believes there is an actual answer to the question. In contrast, a person who does not believe in objectivity must fall back to the idea that all answers are equal in value, and hence worthless.

Furthermore, relativism without objectivism is self-contradictory. If you say heroism has no objectivity, that becomes an objective statement. Hence we can make objective conclusions on heroism and thus heroism can be veiwed in an objective manner.

In general, I would argue the fact a debate exists on it at all leans more towards proof that something is objective rather than subjective, because it implies the people participating in the debate have some form of reason to do so.

 

[Voidiris]

If you say heroism has no objectivity, that becomes an objective statement.

I believe something can be objectively subjective, with your logic subjective things don't exist wich is kinda true because it's an objective fact that you like certain things.

A person who believes in objectivity is someone who believes there is an actual answer to the question. In contrast, a person who does not believe in objectivity must fall back to the idea that all answers are equal in value, and hence worthless.

But how do you even know that what you say is objective, I only believe that thinks that are proven with the empirical method are true. All answers cannot be equal in value for the same reason a person doesn't treat everyone equally, because every answer is completely different and it would be insanity to say two completely different things are the same, yes it can be said they're the same if you think of them only as answers and ignore what these answers even. Every person values different things, there's overlapping in belief when people are similar.

 

[laccoff_mawning]

I believe something can be objectively subjective, with your logic subjective things don't exist

But how do you even know that what you say is objective

To explain my view on subjective things:

I would agree that everyone sees things through a subjective lens- namely, themself- which I'm assuming you would agree with.

As such, I believe subjective things exist. for example, human observations are subjective.

however, humans observe objective things. Lightning striking a tree is objective. The computer/phone/thing you read this on right now is objective. In a less imediate sense, we can observe the laws of physics. I would argue the laws of physics are objective principles. And I would say the same about virtues and heroism. I would reason they they must be objective, based upon my subjective observations on them.

 

[Voidiris]

As such, I believe subjective things exist. for example, human observations are subjective.

however, humans observe objective things. Lightning striking a tree is objective. The computer/phone/thing you read this on right now is objective. In a less imediate sense, we can observe the laws of physics. I would argue the laws of physics are objective principles. And I would say the same about virtues and heroism. I would reason they they must be objective, based upon my subjective observations on them.

Yes I definitely agree with that as long as we ignore the unlikely case of hallucinations, but how can we observe not physical thing objective, I really don't care about your opinion on heroism, I just dislike seeing people say that they are objective. If you used naturalistic arguments on morality you could've easily convinced me that it's objectively good (for me and society in the sense of the social contract based on the fact that it's beneficial to the majority of humanity) to see them as objective even if they aren't.

 

[Thraben]

Here's the problem: just because people have differing opinions doesn't mean that there cannot be objective standards to matters. It simply means people aren't in agreement over what that objective standard is.

It definitionally does.

At some point, in any determination of what that 'standard' is, you need to make a fundamentally arbitrary decision that if even a single person is capable of disagreeing with, isn't objective.

This is not in any way a bad thing or a problem, it's just a true fact about how objectivity works, since it requires absolutes.

 

[laccoff_mawning]

At some point, in any determination of what that 'standard' is, you need to make a fundamentally arbitrary decision that if even a single person is capable of disagreeing with, isn't objective.

I'm not sure I understand the argument here.

If I say that gravity behaves in some way and someone else disagrees with me, does that make gravity subjective because we need to make a fundamentally arbitary decision on how gravity behaves?

edit: some people disagree with the decision that the world is round. Does that mean the shape of the world is subjective?

 

[Thraben]

I'm not sure I understand the argument here.

If I say that gravity behaves in some way and someone else disagrees with me, does that make gravity subjective because we need to make a fundamentally arbitary decision on how gravity behaves?

edit: some people disagree with the decision that the world is round. Does that mean the shape of the world is subjective?

You're conflating matters of factual reality with matters of literally analysis.

Stop that. The only way to take your statements in good faith is to assume you don't have good enough reading comprehension to participate. In lieu of that, I have to assume you mean this in bad faith, which is it's own type of bad. Stop that. You won't win internet points by refusing to meaningfully engage with a topic intellectually.