Tina Turner, you are wrong! The future does need another hero!!
Future generations, like present and past generations, will need heroes. Firstly, a definition of a hero needs to be established. A hero is someone who is preeminently great, yet not perfect. This person also must be someone who is essentially like us, someone we can relate to. This person must be virtuous and idealized by society for their outstanding achievements and noble qualities. Because a hero is a human being, they must have flaws, just like everyone else, yet are overshadows by their qualities. Moreover, these flaws only help in making what we consider heroes more relatable or attainable. In watching how heroes deal with their failures, we learn how to deal with our own failings.
Past generations have looked to heroes as examples of what excellence is. Heroes are people who perform their function as best as they possibly can. They are viewed as spokespeople for those who suffer from injustice and are less fortunate. Some examples from past generations include Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. People such as them have served as examples for society.
Even today we have heroes among us- no, not like the Incredibles and Superman, but like Lance Armstrong and Paul Farmer. Take Lance Armstrong, for instance; although there are things we may disagree on about him, such as his relationship with Sheryl Crowe, overall, he serves as an example for society. May it be through his discipline and athletic ability or through his work against cancer, he is a role model for society. Similarly, Paul Farmer demonstrates his discipline through his medical work in Haiti. Both heroes do outstanding work in society and go beyond the norm to reach excellence.
Society is always in a dynamic state, constantly changing in trends and opinions. Therefore, we will always need an updated modern hero that matches our current viewpoints. Although, heroes will change, the virtue, nobility, and justice that attract us to these people remain the same. For example, the principles that Gandhi upheld have not lost relevance in today’s society.
Aristotle says we need laws as role models to live our lives. These days with the subjectivity of society, heroes function as a parallel to Aristotle’s idea of laws; we need them as examples for our lives.
So, we are sorry Tina Turner, but it’s time to get out of your depressive mood and face that fact that you picked the wrong guy. Society really does need heroes and will always be in the need of them in the future.
8 comments:
According to Olech, our future does need another hero, and i completely agree. I think every point in time there needs to be someone who can make a change in the world and make a step to be the influence for others for change to occur. Although they're may be a definition in the dictionary that states a hero is "a person, typically a man, who is admired or idealized for courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities," this does not mean you can't be a hero without one of these qualities. I think that the people from our past as stated such as Ghandi or Martin Luther King they are heros and are legends that will live on forever, and it will only give others the courage to stand up for their rights which will make them have hero qualities as well. Maybe you dont have to create something or be well known, you could be a hero to a sibling, so that is why there is no true definition because a hero can be looked at in all different directions. When Aristotle says we need law as a role model, that definitely is a true fact for that being our stem people can bloom from all different ways, but there has to be that permanent block for people to live by. People become who they are from the law that is how we grow and establish our feelings of what is just or unjust. Although as Olech said, we do need heros as examples in our lives that is very true; law is our stepping stone and so are the people that we are influenced by and no matter who they are they can be a hero. Heros will only make more change in the world and create better people.
I think one of the main misconceptions of heros in today's society is that they will fix our problems for us, while we simply sit back and cheer. Take President Obama for instance many saw his election as the end of all their problems, like all he had to do was be elected and everything would become insyantly better. However, this has not been the case, and in my opinion it is not solely the presidents fault. A hero does good things, but hero must also be retroactive, and inspire other people to do good things, and get them involved. A hero is not the change we seek, but the catalyst for it. So, yes i feel we do need heroes. However, the idea of a hero is also connected to ones idea of justice. Is this hero an agent of change for the resolution of the unjustice you face? Society as a whole can not have a universal hero in the present, for we do not have a universal society. With time and reflection, it is possible to see who the heros of a generation are, but at the moment so long as their are opposing views of justice, there shall be opossing views of what a hero is.
Sean brings up some excellent points regarding what a hero is. As he said, a hero must be a model of justice as well as an exemplification of virtue. I’d like to further enhance this definition by adding that the type of hero our society needs must be a social/political figure. Gandhi and MLK are heroes because through their efforts they revolutionized their societies on political as well as moral levels. On the other hand, Lance Armstrong won a few bike races. He certainly epitomized the virtues of courage and discipline; however, he did so on a personal level. The wellbeing of our society does not need depend on athletes or celebrities. We need a hero who can inspire unity and peace on a national level.
In this discussion, I feel like everyone has a different idea of what a hero is. I agree with John, heroes cannot be celebrities/athletes because the wellbeing of our society cannot depend on them. Prior to this Thanksgiving, Tiger Woods might also have been considered a hero because of his great athletic achievements. He outraged many fans and lost his sponsors as a result of his choices in his personal life. Society placed Tiger on a pedestal, and he inevitably let them down. The media portrayed Tiger unrealistically as a super human capable of no wrong. In reality, Tiger was just a playboy who was really good at golf. So, I really haven't been convinced so far in this discussion that society needs a hero. In Greek discussions of this topic, Plato asked "Who watches the watchmen?" The "Watchmen" being heroes appointed to watch over and protect the city. (It's actually where the comic and movie derive their title from). While Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. are examples of virtuous people in society, they were political/social advocates of civil disobediance. I think Nelson Mandela also falls into this category. These men all appeared at times of political chaos in history and nobly rose to the occasion. But I think the course of history recognizes their achievements after the fact and then establishes these men as heroes. Even at the time of his presidency, Abraham Lincoln had many dissenters and he is now heralded as one of best presidents of the United States. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated and Nelson Mandela was jailed for a large portion of his lifetime. If society needs heroes, they do not seem to appreciate them in the present as much as they should. Or maybe the criteria/definition of hero could be tweaked to account for these variations.
You're right Elizabeth, everyone does have a different idea of what a hero is. That's why everyone has their own hero for their own personal reasons. As Team A said, a hero isn't perfect, a hero is human. Tiger Woods isn't perfect. Yeah society put him on a high pedestal and he has let us down but the way he dealt with all the stories that have been made public shows that he does care and he knows he's let us down. He could of not apologized to society and just simply make no comments about what had happened, but he didn't. I'm not trying to say Tiger Woods did nothing wrong but the way he dealt with the situation showed us that he knew he was a hero to some people. Not all hero's are famous, someone's mother or father can be their hero. I feel like people might have the idea that hero's can only be famous or have a political role in society but that's not what a hero is really about. A hero should be someone that has made a significant impact on your life, not someone who is constantly on TV or in newspapers.
I feel like people are discrediting these examples of heroes simply based on their own situations. Lance Armstrong isn't a hero because he can ride a bike fast for long periods of time, but rather because he was faced with a difficult challenge (cancer) and fought to overcome it in an extremely admirable way.
Martin Luther King Jr., Ghandi, and even mythical super heroes can be thought of in the same light. We all face challenges in our life and without our heroes, what is there to help us decide how to face them? If we can't admit that we need help at the most difficult times of our lives, our problems might never go away. While the need for a hero might simply be seeing how a friend faces their midterms calmly, the need is surely existent.
In today's world of turmoil, I also believe that it is necessary to have heroes or role models, whether it is your parent or a celebrity it is necessary to have someone to follow. These heroes give us someone to model ourselves after. As was stated, even when our heroes fail it simply opens our eyes to the possible wrongdoings and how to handle those wrongdoings in today's world. For example Tiger Woods's recent exploits show how far a hero can fall and maybe in the future he will show us how to respond to these problems even if he has yet to repond to them well.
I agree with Elizabeth. Everyone has his or her own idea of what a hero is, but I think we’re jumbling a couple closely related terms into one. As we discussed in class today, there are “models” and there are “heroes”. But, before we consider their relationship, we should make a certain distinction (and this is something I couldn’t put my finger on until after class was dismissed). There is the “Aristotelian model”, which is someone we shape ourselves after to gain knowledge of virtue and pursue activity in virtue, which Aristotle would say leads to happiness. Then, there is something I call a “modern model”, which is not necessarily virtuous, but instead pertains to our unique individual aspirations, whether they are temporary or perpetual (immediate wants vs. lifelong goals). The modern model embodies specific characteristics we associate with our ideal selves, an abstraction that’s subject to change in nature over time. For example, in the event that I spontaneously decide I want to drop out of school and volunteer in Haiti, Paul Farmer might become a temporary model of mine. Or, if I decide I want to party more often I might emulate Snooki from the Jersey Shore. Think of modern models as you would think of a Halloween celebration or costume party: you can be anyone you want; nothing is taboo. A hero, on the other hand, is a special type of model, a certain variety of model. But they’re not interchangeable terms. To define a hero in accordance with Carl Jung and his views on the hero archetype (something briefly mentioned in the debate today), a hero is a force of good that combats an opposing force of negativity. In this definition, a hero cannot be a positive force alone. By specifying the interaction between opposing forces we can see how the hero type fits the modern model (which emphasizes the importance of the “particular” situation rather than the “universal”). Furthermore, if you view the “force of good” as a synonym for a virtuous person in activity of virtue, we can see how a hero might be considered a particular kind of model within context of Aristotle’s logic. In conclusion, although I respect and recognize the inclusion of athletes, personal role models, pop culture figures and others in the category of “hero”, I’m not sure if they fit the model (pun intended).
Post a Comment