Saturday, August 29, 2009
Question of the Week (8/28/09)
Building on our class discussion, elaborate on what the word “hero” means to you? What value is placed on heroes in our society? Is it someone who puts her life on the line for others? Is it someone who lives with integrity? Or is it someone who simply does more than is expected of her? Is there only one definition of a hero? Explore these questions in writing and don't forget to critique one of your classmates responses.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I hope this is the right place to write this...
ReplyDeleteI feel like the word "hero" holds much less meaning to us now as opposed to in the time of people like Beowulf. Many old stories focus their attention and praise on these god-like heroes, showing them off as having the strength of thirty men and glowing with an inhuman aura. Nowadays, our heroes are much more practical. We may give them a medal or an award, but rarely do we even give them the title of a hero. A hero nowadays is someone who invents a new vaccine, or who saves a family from a fire in their apartment - not someone who roams about the wilderness in mail skirts killing monsters. Why is this? Simply because society has progressed away from the need to have heroes. When the need arises again, we'll have heroes aplenty, just as the Danes had in the old days.
Granted our heroes are now more "human" than the epic heroes of yore, but the fascination with heroes has changed with the popularity of comic book heroes and television heroes. Do you think the reason for this is because there are fewer everyday heroes, yet the need to perpetuate the heroic image is still evident in our society? What do you think?
ReplyDeleteToday a hero is someone who goes above and beyond in one-way or another. Generally, they help people - whether that is pushing someone out of the way of a car or saving someone from a burning building. But being a hero can be much more simple then that. Simply inspiring someone is heroic. But, like Scotty said, heroes are much less well known today. A heroic action is honored by those who it affects - so in some ways it is very much the same as the time of god-like heroes. In those times killing monsters and getting rid of evil did affect everyone, therefore everyone knew about it. But these days, saving someone from a burning building only affects those who are around or know the person. To the family and friends, the person who saved their loved one is just as a much of a hero as Superman.
ReplyDeleteI think that some aspects of the word hero mean different things for some people, and some aspects are the same for everyone. For example, I think that most people would agree that being a hero means doing something good for others. Probably not everyone, though, would agree that being a hero means saving a cat from a tree. I also think that it would be hard for everyone in the world, or even just in the US, to agree on one person who is definitely a hero. This is very different from back in Beowulf's time, when heroes were well known all around, and recognized by everyone. I think that since we live in a world where storytelling has been taken over by TV, being a hero has evolved into something more abstract; people don't have a clear idea of what a hero is, as they did in Beowulf's era. Maybe for people today, being heroic isn't as important as it once was. When Scott says that we rarely give people the title of a hero, couldn't this just be because having the title of a hero means less to us and isn't as important as it once was? A question that came to my mind: in Beowulf's time, would inventing a new medical remedy or saving someone from a fire be considered heroic?
ReplyDeleteTo comment of Scotty's:
ReplyDeleteI disagree that we have progressed beyond the need for heroes. Our lack of real everyday heroes has forced our society to create characters with the same inhuman abilities as Achilles or Hercules. So saying that we have moved beyond this is incorrect. Our heroes may be fake - but they serve the same purpose as those long ago.
I think saving someone from a fire or making a new medical remedy would still have been consider heroic, but maybe on a smaller scale. I guess no one can say for sure.
ReplyDeleteTo me, a hero is someone who isn't afraid to take think for themselves. They have a mind of their own, and aren't afraid to stick by what they believe. Of course to actually be a hero they have to do some sort of good with that individuality. Heroes aren't just average joes, but you don't have to have giant biceps and laser vision to be a hero. I think that the definition of a hero will change from person to person. No two people will have the same definition of a hero because no two people hold exactly the same values or have exactly the same ideas. I think there is enormous pressure placed on heroes in our society because there aren't very many modern day heroes that the public acknowledges as being a "true hero". Everybody wants someone that they can look up to or believe in; the problem is that not many people who aren't fictional characters are stepping up to the plate. My heroes don't wear spandex and don't have superpowers. They are people that go to whatever lengths necessary to bring good into the world in whatever way they can.
ReplyDeleteIn Response:
ReplyDeleteI honestly consider creating a new vaccine and saving a family from a burning building to be on the same level of "heroicness". Even though creating that vaccine didn't put yourself in any danger, you're still potentially saving thousands of people. Also, it kind of makes sense that our version of a hero has gone from a character like Beowulf to Superman. Oral tradition has been replaced with radio, cell phones, television, and movies. All of these require another third party to be the image of the story they're telling. This new face becomes the face of the story, and evolves just like it would in oral tradition; but it evolves with the current trend and time period.
Response:
ReplyDeleteI really agree with Megan when she said that being a hero is going above and beyond in one way or another, but I would add that it is important to go above and beyond to help others, not for self gratification or aiming to help yourself. I believe this is a very important aspect of being a hero.
When I read the question I thought about the CHAD half marathon run that happened yesterday and the fact that it was called the CHAD Hero run. It was smart to add the hero part, because the fundraiser is all about heroes: the young patients for which money is being raised are heroes for coping with the challenges brought on by cancer and more, the doctors and parents are heroes for doing everything in their power to help the children, and the participants in the run are heroes for raising money and showing their concern and enthusiasm to help. I do think that you can use the word "hero" in many situations, because frankly I believe anyone who lives from day to day with a little integrity and kindness is a hero. I know that might take away from people who work exceptionally hard do a lot to help society, but that's just how I feel today, I guess. I'll end with the following sentence posted on the 2009 CHAD half marathon and relay website today: "You were inspiring – You made History – You are TRULY Heroes!"
ReplyDeleteResponse: I agree with Megan that often a hero goes above and beyond in one way or another, but s/he is sometimes a hero just by choosing to not do the wrong thing, because there are temptations and opportunities where the easier or more obvious thing is not the right thing, and if someone makes the choice/effort (not necessarily above-and beyond) that is positive or constructive, I think they may be considered a hero.
ReplyDeleteI like what everyone is saying about how a hero can have a different meaning for each individual. I think that the way we envision heroes depends on how we are brought up. This depends largely on our values and belief system. If our parents/ guardians tell us that being extremely strong and powerful is what a hero is, than that is what we are going to believe as we progress through our lives. If we are told that a hero is a wise person and that they care greatly for other people, that will become an inherent part of our belief system. I think the former was something that was practiced more around the time of Beowulf, and was focused primarily on strong males. As our society has become more tolerant and humane, I think that this has changed and the latter has been what people see as a hero. Many movies and comic books glorify the violent things that “heroes” may do, but this is mainly done for entertainment. Some people may find these things to be heroic, but that depends on what we think is important. I see a hero as someone that an individual sees epitomizing their belief system in a courageous fashion. For some people this could be a particular action hero or comic book character. For others, it could be someone as close to them as their parents.
ReplyDeleteIn response to what Sasha said, I agree with her that a hero must be able to think for his or herself. If a hero is not able to be a leader and make good decisions, people will not look up to him or her. They will not see the person as anyone special, they will view them as an “average joe.” Heroes are people that take initiative and do not wait around to see what will happen. They make clear what they want, but also are respectful of what other people want. With more people like this, our society will become more and more humane, as well as responsible.
I agree with Sasha, a hero is able to help people in indirect ways. I think we all can agree that the physical strength of an individual simply falls short when defining a hero. Appearance has also been put on the top of checklist when defining a hero. As long as they have self-respect in their appreance, and stick to the needs of their individuality they can still get by as being a hero. A hero is some one who using whatever skills they have impliments action for the common good. This can be witnessed on a large scale, such involving major public figures as in the Dali Lama. However, after subsequently reading "No Man is an Island" by John Donne in Geopolitics, the sense of connectedness is a valid point when discussing heroes on a “smaller scale” (smaller as in less known). A teacher in a rural part of Vermont who goes out of their way to inspire their students is just as much a hero as the politician who signs legislatures benefiting millions. We are all connected and one act by a human being to lift another one up benefits us all. When considering heroes, I think we also need to remember imperfection. Over the centuries we have fantasized up immortal “superhumans”, but when dealing with humans we all have our strengths and weaknesses, such that we all can affect at least one other human being using our strenghts. I believe that we all have the potential to be a hero for at least one other human being. As for leading a life of integrity, I think that also is a characteristic of (some) heroes; for example, when a child says “my mommy” or “my daddy is my hero”, they usually see their parents as heros just as they have simply nurtured them. The act of caring for a child from day to day is heroic.
ReplyDeleteModesty is a major part of being a hero. It is not about the reward or acknowledgement of their “good deeds”. Heros don't have to be un moved by horrifying things, they can be fearful or downright scared, but what makes them a hero is going through with a task regardless of whether they have fears of success. The person who runs into a burning building is a clear example of courage, self-sacrificing willpower. I do agree with Scott's point, that people feel the need to latch on to a hero, and depending on what time period, that hero may be wearing tights or a business suit.
Whether famous or anonymous, man or woman, heroism reflects humans concious choice to use their strenghts to benefit humankind.
I think heros are fundamentally fictional characters. (That's not to say that real people who save people's lives, &c. aren't doing useful and admirable things.) While real people may be called heros, I think this is simply an allusion to the "heroic canon". Under this framework, a hero might be a fictional character who demonstrates exaggerated exemplary traits in a story. That said, different interpretations of the word "exemplary" in the previous definition can produce different definitions of hero. Different cultures may have different ideas of exemplary traits. Definitions of exemplary traits may change with time as well. Different people certainly would choose different sets of traits to be "exemplary". This offers an explanation for the diversity of heros in fiction: Theseus, Beowulf, and Spiderman are all very different heros defined by the different traits thought to be exemplary to different cultures.
ReplyDeleteResponse to Brittany:
ReplyDeleteI like how your definition is completely scaleable. This view has a nice kind of egalitarian ring to it. However, there has to be some sort of limit on what merits hero-ness. For instance, a teacher who inspires their children for only one day is probably less of a hero than someone who inspires their children constantly. Maybe a level of consistency is required in heroic acts?
I think that a hero is someone who is selfless, always looking out for others even if they put themselves in danger. However, as we don't live in warlike times anymore when you needed heroes to survive, the definition of a hero has become extremely diluted. For example, kids these days, when asked who their hero's are, oftentimes list off professional sports players and entertainers. These people are not even close to being heros, as while they may be famous, they didn't do any of it for others; they became what they are because it would be benefit to themselves. However, one doesn't need to put themselves in danger to protect others to be a hero. A person who spends countless hours to produce a vaccine against a deadly disease is a hero in my mind, because they devoted their lives toward the creation of something thats helps others. There are still heros today, but the definition of a hero in society has changed, because we don't live in such barbaric times as in Beowulf.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Aaron:
ReplyDeleteI disagree with you saying that heros are only based on fictional characters. While one may dub someone a hero based on criteria established by mythical heros, there are still living heros, people who live to help others without regard for their own lives. There is nothing fictional about a soldier that sacrifices their life so the rest of their squad may live, or the scientist who dedicates their life to curing cancer.
I really like that everyone's definition of a hero is a little different or expands on someone else's.
ReplyDeletePart of the reason why my response is so late in the day is because I'm having a hard time figuring out what exactly I think a hero is. There are so many different people that I look up to or admire it's hard to pin down common traits. I feel like in the myths and stories that we'll be reading, the hero is more of a complete package. They have the respect of society, super-human strength, and ageless wisdom all rolled into one. However, the motley group of people that I see as heroes hardly ever have everything. Acting selflessly (even if not obvious at first) jumps out as a common thread between the various people upon more thought.
In response the Aaron's second post, which was in response to Brittany's, I think that many things are regarding as heroic acts, but to be a true hero one must act as such consistently. But then again, there are a few singular deeds that are so immense in their own right that the person who did them is remembered forever. And that I think is the test; To be a hero you must be remembered in history. Some men, such as Abe Lincoln, are remembered in the history books for their long years in office and their numerous widely praised policies. Others, like Jesse Owens, are remembered for what they did in one specific event (or in his case, four).
Heroism is characterized in countless ways in many different mediums as well as person to person and between cultures, but a few attributes are universal, like their ability to inspire and sacrifice for their cause. While Beowulf is a hero because he helped the Dane king, and fits alot of the characteristics, he is only one type. Heroes may also be peaceful, or--at least non-violent--in nature, but sacrifice just as much, and work towards a good cause: Gandhi, MLK Jr., and Desmond Tutu to name a few.
ReplyDeleteI think that in society today the word "hero" is thrown around too casually. We have blurred the line between simply acting in a decent human way and true heroism.
ReplyDeleteThe reason that the word "hero" has lost it's significance comes from the social context in which it is uttered. In the Eight Century when Beowulf was recorded, people lived in small sheltered communities. They often would not leave the area they could see from their house. In this environment where everyone knows everyone else and people depend on each other, some human decency is expected.
With the advent of new technologies that allow us to comunicate virtually, and the loss of sense of community brought on by large communities we have defamiliarized ourselves with our neighbors. We are surprised and pleased when someone just helps or inspires us now . This is not heroism. That's just what humans should do for one another.
When the word "hero" is tossed around so lightly we all lose out. If your coach is a hero, what was Oskar Schindler or Jean Moulin or Harriet Tubman. Hero is one of the strongest words we have. We must reinfuse it with meaning.
Response to Keegan:
ReplyDeleteThough advancements in technology have diminished the role of the wartime hero in modern times, there are plenty of contemporary heroes, though sometimes they aren't portrayed as such, in part because of the public's accessibility to more and more of their private lives, and consequently the aspects thereof that make them more human, which, I imagine, was not the case with Beowulf, Lou Gehrig, or Hercules.
In Response to Brittany:
ReplyDeleteBrittany and others have said that a hero uses a unique skill to help millions or just a few. One must not have a unique skill to be a hero, you must find one. Many times heroes are simply the ones who have the courage to do what others shrunk away from. Bravery is the one trait all heroes share.
I would also disagree that helping one or a million is equivalent. You can help one person everyday with no self sacrifice or courage. The greatness of a hero is how he/she goes above what a decent human does and lifts many people up at a time.
Being a hero is difficult, most people are not or never will be one. Many people help a plethora of individual people during their life. I disagree that this makes them a hero. As Megan said, a hero goes above and beyond. That means many people, with lots of courage and self sacrifice.
In response to Eva:
ReplyDeleteEva, I really like how you found an example of an event in which the people involved were considered "heroes". Reading what Megan said, I agree I may have aired in saying that we no longer have a need for heroes in society. Maybe to amend my paragraph I would say that the type of hero that we need has drastically changed. I slightly disagree with you about how anyone who has integrity can be considered a hero - I think they need a little something extra to achieve true "hero status". However, in general I think you're right in saying that many participants in the CHAD run as well as some patients having to cope with illness could be considered modern day heroes. That's the thing about the word "hero": it means so many different things to so many different people that I think it would be almost impossible to come up with a standard definition without displeasing some people.
In response to Keegan:
ReplyDeleteYou're completely right. I meant what I said very literally- that "hero" is a literary term. There are certainly real people (like medical scientists or soldiers as you said) who perform acts that are comparable to or even exceed the acts of fictional heros.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLots of different types of people could be called heros. In my mind people who stand up for what they believe in, despite opposition to their actions are heros. So are people who risk their lives for others, or take on self sacrifice for no reason other than the good of the community. Often people who are trying to define the word Hero will rule out groups of people who they do not believe are worthy of the title. Some people say that sports heros are not in fact heros at all, and that kids should turn to other places to find their role models. I dont think this blanket statement is valid. Athletes embody hard work and commitment to goals. They strive all the time to improve themselves and achieve their dreams. To me that is a description of someone anyone could admire.
ReplyDeleteTo comment on scotts last post:
ReplyDeleteI would agree 100% that we still have and need heros in our society. But I would not say that the definition has changed at all. When we look at Beowulf we see someone who has risked much to keep other people safe. To the people he has helped he is a Hero, because he has done for them something that they could not do themselves, and by doing it, drastically improved their living conditions. I think some people may be thrown off by Beowulfs boasting about his past exploits when he meets Hrothgar. They might think that this means that in olden days, to be a hero meant to be a braggard, and a loudmouthed strongman. But as we learned in the Intro, this bragging is not necessarily what it seems. In this context, these feats that Beowulf claims to have performed are meant not as a challenge, but as a commitment. He is swearing that he has done these things, and he will now slay this monster that looms before them. He is putting his honor on the line for the good of the town and Hrothgar's people. This is no different than a modern day hero who swears an oath to his country before being sent off to war. I think that though our society may be different than it was, but our heros are the same.
And to comment of Nicks post:
ReplyDeleteI dont know that I disagree with you Nick, but to be frank, none of those people ever knew me, and I didnt know any of them. Sure their achievements were on a much grander scale than anyone who I would call a personal hero, but why is that? Were they really all around better people than the ones I know? Were they stronger, braver, smarter and wiser? or did circumstance place them in the view of the whole world while they did their lives work? I can say from experience that often those who you hold in highest esteem will let you down the hardest if you actually meet them, and I would bet that all of the heros that you mentioned are just as flawed and normal as you and me. What's more I bet they would be among the first to admit it. So really, do we have to pick and choose our heros more carefully? or do we need to look for heros in the people who inspire us every day, in the real world right now.
The line between being a hero and simply being a good person is, in my opinion, a surprising thin one. For example, both categories of people think of others before their own interests, contribute in a positive way to society, and have strong, unwavering, morals.
ReplyDeleteI agree that saving a life, or better yet, saving multiple lives, is an automatic ticket to becoming a hero. However, after this point it becomes a very fuzzy distinction between good deeds and heroic acts, good people and heroes, and for the most part begins to comes down to perspective. For example, I saw the CHAD walk as a good deed, while someone whose family member's life has just been saved by the money that was raised, like Eva said, would see it as the very epitome of a heroic act.
In response to Scott's first post:
I agree that heroes have become more practical.
It also seems that overtime, more emphasis has been placed on real-life heroes being people that save lives, and do good peacefully, as oppose to those who have to slay others in order to do so.
The world was a more violent place back in those days. Perhaps we are not a kinder people, but more subtle. The taking of lives was not the same then as now.
ReplyDeleteWhen i think of a hero i immediatly think of a muscualr brave man flying around they city in a patriotic skin tight leotard. After i put some thought into it however i realize that that is the opposite of what a hero should be. A hero doesnt need to be strong or brave or good at karate. A hero in my mind simply needs 3 basic attributes, they must have integrity, they must be honest, and they must be willing to sacrafice themselves for others. They must have integrity because heros cannot ever slip up or have a low point they must always be fair and understanding. A hero must be honest because they are seen as role models and if a role modle lies, people can get the idea that lying is okay. And above all a hero must be able to sacrafice themselves to save others. This is the most important becasue it shows a level of commitment almost un heard of these days. In conclusion it is very important for a hero to embodie all of these attributes and embrace them.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading many responses I have found that Keegan and I agree on most attributes of a hero. Above all we agree on the idea that a hero must be self sacrificing. This is essential because a hero must be willing to endanger or embarrass themselves in order to get another person out of a sticky situation. We also agree that a hero doesn't necessarily need to put themselves in danger to be heroic. A hero can be completely peaceful but still achieve a goal or even a dream, one good example of this is Mother Teresa. Hero's come in all shapes sizes and colors and it is important for us to recognize them any way they come.
ReplyDeleteI think that heroes are definitely defined and looked upon much differently now than they were in the time when kings and queens and knights roamed the lands. I agree with Scotty on this one. I think that now people can look at people like Bill Gates and see him as a hero because of the charity he created and the lives he has saved through his charity. I also think that to be considered a hero hundreds of years ago you would have to most likely kill someone and risk your life to save some other person
ReplyDeleteAs a response to Cole's writing, I think that the three attributes he mentioned are very important ("they must have integrity, they must be honest, and they must be willing to sacrifice themselves for others"). I must focus on one piece that he wrote, specifically that heroes must not "slip up" or have a "low point". It coincides some other pieces that bring up consistency. I agree that heroes should be relatively consistent in their good deeds, yet if heroes are unable to "slip up" how can the they be human? People make mistakes! I also believe that a role model does not only need to uphold the truth to inspire and encourage others, but also carry out live out their daily lives with the utmost integrity.
ReplyDeleteA hero has a lot of qualities. They must be leaders who has strong morals. He must use his skills only for good and helps and inspires everyone. He trusts and respects people and is loyal and keeps his promises. He is willing to sacrifice himself for the greater good. They always persevere. They only support good and just causes. Heroes are generally also powerful and are role models for people everywhere. There can be heroes in real life, though they are flawed, unlike most fictional heroes. They don't necessarily have every single characteristic, since they're human and therefore flawed. In real life they don't look like your typical image of a hero. A hero is anyone who stands up for what's right even if most people are against them. Again, I agree with Brittany in that they should not only perform one heroic action but live their lives according to their morals.
ReplyDeleteI tend to be very critical of the term ‘hero’ in general, perhaps because it tends to be much more of a cultural ideology then an actual set of particular values and traits. For instance, a common saying goes that ‘one’s man terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. In the context of this particular question, one man’s hero is another man’s villain. And as our own cultural values change, so do our heroes. Take the Soviet Red Army for instance. During World War Two, when the Fascists were at war with the world, the Red Army was seen as full of heroes in the West, struggling valiantly to defend the values of civilization against the Nazi horde. After the war, however, when the political values of the world changed so that the Soviet Union and the West say each other as enemies, there was no more need for the West to see the average Soviet soldier as a hero (actually, it’d be completely counterproductive, as they were considered to be the enemy). So, to me, a hero is nothing more than a person that society glorifies due to a certain aspect they have that others want people to emulate. Due to this, there will always be heroes, since society has a need for them. Due to the internet and other globalizing forces, heroes become rarer since they need to fit into multiple cultural viewpoints, but I believe that it still can be done.
ReplyDelete