Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Well some of you know what studies I'm doing: I won't repeat it here, that would be too long. Among the subjects we have, there is a thing called "General knowledge". In my school it is divided in 2 subjects : French and Philosophy. As it is not a formal philosophical course, I have to deal with concepts that I hold as very interesting. I'd start with this one :

Heroism

Our work is basically to define the word and to find something paradoxical to start our reflection. I don't think that would be necessary here.


So... to start with, the hero was originally an intermediate state between man and god. He (it ?) draws this particularity from the energy he (it?) develop to achieve a goal or to go in some direction. Hence he could be driven by passion.

I was wondering if heroism wasn't after all the virtue of failure, for an act is heroic only if it is almost certainly impossible to achieve. So if the "hero" succeed, one can say it's luck, and if he fails, people would say that it is normal...

If he fails is a tragic hero like Macbeth

What is considered heroism depends on a society' s values.

our troops are true heros. now that heroism

It would be cool to die as a hero.Most army man are doing that we speak!JM

soldiers from both sides or......?

Soldiers fall on the category of Warriors and not neccesary Heroes. A hero is willing to sacrifice him/her self for the greater good not just for his people. Just go watch Jet Li in Hero....great movie

so sacrifice youself for your people is not for the greater good?..........we are talking real life here not bloddy movies

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know you were taking this TOO seriously.

...

Basically if a guy wants to sacrifice himself for his people it isn't very heroic. If the will of his people is to conquer and kill other people's lands it is not really the greater good. If the guy wants to unite all people for a greater good then that's really heroic. At least that's how I see it.

not everyone fights an offensive war, defending the people and sacrificing your life doing it is heroic

^That I can agree with. To sacrifice your life to protect your own people is indeed heroic. But to engage in war because you have to conquer? Nah!

Norwegian constitution dont allow for Norwegian forces to be any other things than a defensive military forces (the name covering all the different military brances is DEFENCE), the fact that Norwegian special forces are deployed both in Afghanistan and Iraq is actually a violation of the Norwegian constitution, but what dont we do to suck up to the yanks

Wow. Finti is user number 13. Useless fact over.

huh?????

Hover your cursor over your name. for finti you get http://www.killermovies.com/forums/member.php?s=&action=getinfo&userid=13. From the getinfo&userid=13, I can tell you are the 13th member to join KMC.

I disagree.

I believe heroism is giving of yourself to benefit others.......completely unselfishly. I would take a bullet for my wife......not to gain anything from it.......simply because I would never want her to be in pain. If I did so, I believe that would make me a hero to her as I gave of myself purely to benefit her.

Most soldiers do not give of themselves purely to benefit others. There are many reasons they become soldiers. The same can be said about police officers and fireman.

- many people become soldiers/police/fireman because they lack direction and believe these jobs will hold them over until they find a direction....provide them with money...provide them with experience........helping people is not the sole reason.

- many people become soldiers out of their own feeling of discontent. I myself know a person who enlisted in the army so he could go to Iraq and fight Saddam Hussein...........liberating the people of Iraq was not his main concern, although it was a bi-product.

I don't believe anything you are paid to do can be considered heroism. If it is part of your job........it is not heroic. Noble.......yes........but heroic no, as you are also gaining something.

^good post but one more thing, there is no true heroism if you define it as being unselfish at any time. I belive ther is no unselfish deed everything someone does is selfish and he does it only for himself (kind of like Nietzsche if you know who that is)
So heroes in this definition do not exist.
And heroes in the old Greek definition as in people that did amazing deeds that are impossible to most humans, well I guess there arew some even though I can't think of any right now.

yes I know who he is......but I do not agree with that.

I believe there are many unselfish deeds we all do daily.......some mundane and every now and again one great enough to be considered heroic.

Something as small as changing your plans to make your wife happy is unselfish. If my wife loves to go to the theater (which she does).....and I despise it (which I do).........by saying, "ok honey, we'll go watch this play tonight" I am doing something completely unselfish.......something purely for her benefit. There is no reward for me........but I am giving something of myself (me time, my presence) for the sole reason of bringing her enjoyment. While not being heroic........the same would apply to larger situations, like my bullet analogy earlier.

It doesn't even need to be out of love. I've given money to homeless people before.......just so they can eat. This family used to hang out in front of Walmart......man, woman and two kids.........when I see those people and their children and give them a $20 to go to the McDonalds across the street it is completely unselfish. I didn't do it to make myself feel good........I actually didn't feel good about the situation at all. I couldn't pat myself on the back thinking I had done a good deed........all I could think about was those kids standing in the cold, not knowing when the last time they had eaten.....which saddened me. It was not done out of love.........more out of concern for other human beings and their well being.

There is this older homeless woman who rides around town on her bike (well did, havn't seen her in a long time). About three years ago I found her asleep on the bench outside of my work.........without shoes. I knew the shoes I was wearing at the time weren't that great (just old tennis shoes I throw on to drive to work in, where I change into my work shoes) but figured she would appreciate them much more than I. I sat them down on the bench next to her bag she was using as a pillow. I figured sure, they may be too big for her but they'd keep her feet alot warmer than those socks she was wearing.....and I have many shoes at home. Again, it wasn't to make myself feel good.......it's impossible to feel good at all when you see someone like that.......but it was giving something purely for someone else's benefit, I gained nothing.

I do understand what you're saying.......I just don't agree. I know alot of people just walk around minding their own business but I can't help but to help someone a little when I see the chance. I'm not really a great humanitarian.......I donate to one charity and that's it....but when you see a real person in a bad situation and you can help, you do it...even if you can only help a little. If every person did so that homeless woman wouldn't need to be so worried about being cold......and her shoes wearing out....or her clothes getting holes in them. I may be in the minority (judging by others at work laughing at me) but people seem to look past others and not see them as human beings..............whereas I thinks it crap that I have 6 pair of shoes I wear regularly, a couple pair of boots, shoes I wear strictly to mow the lawn in, shoes I wear strictly to work and a pile of old shoes in the closet that I don't even wear anymore........and this woman is sleeping in the cold with no shoes at all.

I don't want to derail the topic with this comment, but in reality giving money to a homeless guy in the street isn't really an act of heroism. If you want to go philosophical it could be a bad thing. Because what you're doing is making those people more dependant of others. They will never get out of their problems and they will always depent from help of others. Life is about getting on your own two feet and fight to survive. This is a Dog eat Dog world and helping someone is a good thing, but the problem is that is just makes them dependent and that's really not an act of heroism. People have to be independent and pull their own weight and suck it up and live.

As for Nietzsche...I wouldn't pay too much attention to him. Great writer and superb pessamist but his philosophy is base on Master and slavery and that for me is rather old fashion. Besides he was a nut and die in an assylum so I don't trust his works. I go with Jean-Paule Sartre rather than Nietzche.

I won't say anything to your first part since it wasn't aimed at me
but for Nietzsche I agree
HE is not the best philosopher I think though he got some good points
and Jean-Paul Satre I have to admit i am not familiar with his works so maybe you could say what he had to say about morals and especially altruism

I think Evil Dead has said something I wanted to say about Heroism, which is "benefit". There are few key points to accept to make one a hero, which is "how you feel", "how other people think", and "the benefit of living things (some may call it nature)". There is a good example of heroism, which is "the people of Iraq see Osama Bin Laden as a hero".

WindDancer has some points about letting people being independant... that's why I added some key points to heroism..."how you feel", "how other people think".. everyone has their own oppinion... there is always a debate on this things, so I wouldn't want to decide who is right, because I won't want to be wrong... XD

I don't think there are any unselfish deeds. If you join your wife at the theatre, even though you hate it, it is not because you are unselfish, it is because you know she is going to make your life a living hell for the next month because "you don't love me, and we never do things together, and we always do what you want to do, blah. blah. blah."

If you give your shoes (your very old, worn out shoes that you were planning to get rid of anyway) to a bag lady, it is not because you are unselfish, it is because you were raised in a society that encourages charity and because in chuch you were taught if you don't help the needy, you are going to hell.

For every unselfish act you care to name, I could show you how it is actually in your own interest, even if you don't consciously realise it. Sometime it is long-term reward for short-term loss, but it is always for your own benefit, even if it is only to soothe your conscience (which is a social construct, by the way).

I think you are all missing the point, however. Heroism has nothing to do with charity or unselfishness. In fact, many heroes were glory-seekers, seeking fame and fortune. Again, that is besides the point. The point is, heroism is about fear.

You are a hero when you can conquer your fear. When you jump into a raging river to save a child, even though you are scared you might drown, you are a hero. If you are a Navy SEAL, with years of training and specialised equipment and stacks of experience, it is just another job, and you are probably thinking to yourself "oh God, another freaking idiot I have to save."

It is only when you are so scared you can taste the fear, you wanna pee in your pants and you would run away but your legs are shaking too much, that the question of courage or heroism comes up. Heroism is about conquering your fear, doing what you know is the right thing to do even though you are so scared you are nearly paralysed. A man who climbs a mountain for fun and rescues trapped travellers is certainly doing a good deed. But a man who has a fear of heights and climbs a little old tree to save a cat is a hero.

I think you are wrong, because I'm pretty sure that fear is not a key point in heroism.... When you save someone, sometimes you don't even care about the consequences, or what you fear, because it will look as a challenge to you, at some point, when you think about the consequences, then you are left with not much choice, because time is limited... after all the rubbish I have typed, I still think that fear is not a key point in heroism.....

Dreampanther is saying exactly that what I was trying to say in my posts, there are no real unselfish deeds so you can't define heroism based on that.
I personally thingk there are two definitions though of heroism
1st a human that acomplishs great almost super-human deeds which are seen as good by society, thats a rather old definition like Achilles or Ulysses
2nd the definition by dreampanther is rather good. It describes very well what we see as heroes nowadays.

ahh!!! now I see what you mean... Unselfish deeds do EXIST...first I have to explain that selfish and unselfish deeds, has a hierarchy linked to how you grow up and taught in you past... and that is just 1 factor, there are still other factor to that, such as what you believe in...

As I have said, heroism are based on those key terms I have mentioned earlier, but I believe I can't see everything yet, because I'm not that familiar to this subject yet... so I think there are more to it...

like what is an unselfishj deed then?

a pure heart.... basicly... people who don't look so highly of oneself, and help others....

you never taught that existed do you? but I must say it exist....

Of course I got taught that that existed, it just doesn't..
There is no pure heart, everything you do you only do because you think all other possibilities would be worse.
Really I was brought up with all that christian BS and I know what you think is an unselfish deed, but if you look at it its noit re3ally one, there are deeds I think highly of and that I appreciate but saying they are unselfish is just not true.

it is true....100% garauntee... it is always true... this is a good time to explain it anyway since it is chrismas... imagine santa exist.. and he does good deeds because he likes to see the happiness of children WITHOUT thinking of what he can gain in return... that I recognize as love... and of the pure heart... happy imagining!!!!

A. Santa is imaginary, I can invent an imaginary person that would do unselfish deeds.
B. If Santa really existed and would actually do what he is said to do he would probably be some pedophile sicko, who surely would do deeds I think are goos but not for any unselfish reasons.

lol? is this some kind of joke? are you abused somehow when you are in your childhood? that you can't believe in unselfish deeds? I believe you know what I mean, because unselfish deeds does exist....

I believe I know what you mean, but they don't. Good deeds exist (in a society) but no unselfish ones, no one does what he doesn'T want to. Insane people excluded I guess.

(insane people) ahahah nice one.... but ask a kid... if he/she wants something in return if he/she helped his/her little sibling if he/she is in need....

That doesn'T matter if a kid says it does or if it really does are two different things. Of course he has a selfish reason to do what he is doing. If it is to life better with his sister or to be proud of it, or tell someone aboot it or if it just thinks it could get something in return

the problem here is he does it without thinking!!!!! don't you get it???

Did you ever here of the freudian instance model, you know id, ego superego, not everything we do comes because we decide it. Its more of a subconcious thing sometimes, and there it can never be unselfish.

maybe I am too young for this, but I really can't imagine there is NEVER a case where people do things unselfishly....

Well I am not saying that there can'T be, but most are selfish and I couldn'T ever think of one that isn'T

I agree that humans are selfish most of the time... because I am selfish too most of the time without realising it.. but you said that "and there it can never be unselfish".... you used never...

well I belive in science though, with never I mean very very very very very improbable, maybe in 20 billion years once and even then I doubt it.

okok... let's put it this way, what if a person never realises the importance of oneself... ;I come from a more tradisional place, and I am exposed to the "unselfish deeds" of the people there, because we "help our neighbour as ourselves", so as to say if one never realises the importance of oneself, then that is hard for him/her to be selfish then can't it?

No than he lives according to what he was brought up to if he wouldn't he would feel bad and therefore it is selfish again

HOW CAN ONE BE SELFISH IF ONE IS NOT THINKING OF THE BENEFITS ONE CAN GET?

MAN THIS IS GETTING SERIOUS i AM STARTING TO USE CAPPITAL LETTERS.... lol

wait a second... you are saying that feeling is selfish??

hmm.. that's new to me..

got another important key point from our conversation... lol

No I didn'T say feeling is selfish wanting a certain feeling and doing something to get it is selfish, and I just said there is probably no case where someone does something ot to benefit from it.

I certainly don't believe in freudian instance model..... because I don't believe that if you do something subconsciously, you can still be selfish... because selfish I thought can only be accuired if one is still conscious of the decision....

well that is just plain wrong, you are most certainly especially selfish subconciously

I think maybe you are right... I still have much more to learn about... still not familiar with subconscious mind part yet... there is no point for me to talk about something I am not familiar about...

Oh I do it too, I just state my opinion