How can a young person become a hero/ine?

How can a young person become a hero/ine?

“Not in that he leaves something behind him, but in that he works and enjoys and stirs others to work and enjoyment, does man’s importance lie.” Goethe

A hero (heroine in female), “in Greek mythology and folklore, was originally a demigod, their cult being one of the most distinctive features of ancient Greek religion. Later, hero (male) and heroine (female) came to refer to characters who, in the face of danger and adversity or from a position of weakness, display courage and the will for self sacrifice – that is, heroism – for some greater good, originally of martial courage or excellence but extended to more general moral excellence.”—Quickie from Wiki [with minor modification].

My parents accomplished a heroic task that is often not available to today’s young people because many young people start out with so much more to begin with. It seems to me that in a more comfortable standard of living (America) available today that people so fortunate must develop other means for heroic action. However, we are rapidly approaching a time that may change this situation dramatically and thus challenge the new generation greatly on a more basic level of needs.

I was born in 1934 during the Great Depression. Dad drove a city bus in Amarillo Texas. My family moved to a very small town in Oklahoma before my first birthday; I had four siblings at the time we moved from Texas to Oklahoma to manage a small café and hotel that was then being managed by my uncle who wished to return to farming.

During the next 15 years my family managed that café and hotel. This operation allowed my parents to raise a large family in reasonably comfortable conditions throughout the depression and war years of World War II.

The psychologist Alfred Adler said: “The supreme law [of life] is this: the sense of worth of the self shall not be allowed to be diminished.”

For humanity, and especially for young people, this “supreme law” presents a paradox.

“The key to the creative type is that he is separated out of the common pool of shared meaning”. The creative type finds that for some reason, perhaps it is an unconscious reason, the world as others see it presents a problem. When the creative type perceives the collective solution to the problem is inadequate s/he attempts to fashion an individual solution. In doing so the creative type becomes “a painfully separate person with nothing shared to lean on.”

I claim that our (American) culture is anti-intellectual consumerism. It is anti-intellectual in that any intellectual energy expended on non-money making ventures is considered as a foolish waste of time and energy. Our culture discourages the egg-head, the pointed-head intellectual, and the wonk. Why else would it have such labels?

I claim that the young person can solve this paradox by developing a dual personality. S/he can learn to lead two lives. One life is shown to his or her peers under normal situations and the other life becomes a self-actualizing self-learning experience that is shared only with those few like-minded peers or perhaps adults who are capable of appreciating the distinction.

Unfortunately there aren’t many ways for young people in modern society to become Heroes.

The concept of the true Hero has become a caricature in modern society, a glamorized stereotype conforming to narrower and narrower boundaries. While the characteristics of a Hero are still preserved in modern Heroic symbols and myth (proud individualism, defiant personal honor, principled convictions, sober and serious, action-oriented, physical and emotional strength, contempt for weakness, compassion for children, instinct to be a protector, willingness to sacrifice his life rather than compromise who and what he is), they seem bound to a superficial level much of the time. Most of us see these fantastical displays of the Hero and, understanding the archetypal information regarding this ancient symbol, are of course unable to attain anything approaching Heroic in our daily lives. Modern society has no place for Heroes, other than in fictional literature intended to keep us mystified and glued to fantasy-worlds and thus remain ignorant of the real world around us. Society is in the business of keeping us suspended in a dream-state, and will use any symbols at its disposal to accomplish this, including, when beneficial, the Hero.

Yet on the other hand, the ‘modern hero’ is quite common, a symbol of the average and common, of the mediocre glorified falsely as heroic. Reality TV is the easiest example of this, but we see the modern hero everywhere - compromising, vain, fickle, unserious, hedonistic, intellectually shallow, having a lack of unchanging convictions, obcessed with material possessions, prone to drug and alcohol use, sometimes physically weak but always emotionally weak. This modern hero is somewhat of a reaction to the growing divide between the traditional Hero and the demands of modern society which push the individual consciousness further and further away from its Heroic potential. By glorifying the ordinary as heroic we preserve the feeling of experiencing a heroic potential within us without actually having to be Heroic. We are placated with fictional self-images so we can still live and mesh with common consumer- and conformity-oriented society. The true Hero is at striking odds with modern hero symbols, although it is still quite surprising that the essence of the true Hero remains greatly unchanged even today; it simply gets often drowned out by the constant over-sensationalizing of the modern heroic image (i.e. the common, the anti-Hero).

The literary and psychological-archetypal conflicts between the Hero and anti-Hero can be understood as the parallel for the conflict between the individual and society - between strength and weakness, independence and docility. The strong stand alone, because they CAN stand alone, because it is in their nature to face reality head-on with only their wits and abilities at their disposal, proud of their strength in life; the weak gather together and glorify the group, as they need others to protect them because they cannot protect themselves. These two archetypes have been in conflict forever, and this battle is encoded not just in our literary and cultural past but also in our genetic history as well. We instinctively recognize these symbols and the conflicting relationship between them, and this is no more apparent than in modern society where conformity and the need for easy comfort and pleasure springs from the further weakening of the individual. As a result of complex modern technological society we lose our ability to survive on our own, and must give up more and more independence as time goes on. Thus the Hero must give way to the anti-Hero, out of cultural necessity. Yet our nature is such that we still strive, some of us, for the truly Heroic in man, the High and the Noble that defines the pride and essence of what it means to be a man - to produce, create, think and act with independence of mind and conviction, bending nature to our will and winning our survival by mastery of this world that we find ourselves in.

The Hero originated because he was necessary for our survival, and he is still deeply ingrained in our collective psyche. . . and even as modern society changes the survival needs of man and continued to mold our social consciousnesses more and more, the Hero nonetheless survives in the hearts and minds of mankind. Thus the conflict between the old and the new - between the Hero and the anti-Hero - will continue to go on, even now as anti-Heroic symbols increasingly dominate cultural life. Yet it is clear that as society glorifies the common, the average, weak and mediocre in man the truly Heroic in man still remains untouched, surviving even in its increasingly confined and limited symbols of expression. I would wager that no matter what humanity comes to in the future, no matter how degraded, demeaned, weakened and comformed we become, enslaved to a society we neither understand nor control, that the archetypal Hero will still survive deep in the psyche of man - forever a proud part of our genetic lineage, our cultural history and of what it means to be a human being.

This may sound flippant but I think throwing shoes at George Bush is heroic and that guy is my idol, seriously, what better than a size nine to make your point, except of course for a size 16 clown shoe obviously. If you want to be a hero do something that matters even if it is just to one rather angry and bitter individual in a far flung part of the world or your kid or somit.

then don’t be surprised when the evil capitalist republicans throw bombs and bullets back…

death to socialist tyrants!

-Imp

All people should learn before they think, and think before they act, and act before they die…

:unamused:

No wonder everyone hates the US. You’re a walking cliché!

I don’t hate the US & I’ve never seen a cliche walk …

Try a mirror…

Isn’t a hero someone who transcends conforming boundaries? I don’t know that there is any hero who conforms to any pre existing idea about what a hero should be. That kind of person would maybe enjoy a few moments in the spotlights but would be forgotten immediately.

If these boundaries you speak of grow narrower it should actually become easier to become a hero, because people will sooner transcend them. I think actually the opposite might be happening. More and more is accepted, so less and less is noticed. to be a hero now would almost mean to be completely prudent, honest and unnoticed by the public. Maybe there are tons of people like that around, just heroically staying home.

The Hero concept is an archetype, and so a traditional Hero conforms to that archetype - in that we recognize him as a Hero. Modern concepts of hero can lie outside of this archetype, so in a way they may be seen as nonconformist. But modern concepts of hero typically still conform, if not to archetypes than to social cultural molds. We can believe that nonconformity is a good thing, and thus should be a trait of a Hero, but this is just an arbitrary value judgment on our part. In reality the entire heroic concept is a conformity to one concept or another, depending on the nature of the Hero himself. True nonconformity is almost impossible.

Perhaps the intent at nonconformity, or at least aconformity could be thought a necessary trait of a Hero - but then again this is just another value judgment. A person might model themselves after some prior Hero of history, conforming to that image and concept, and they might still be a genuine Hero.

I would have to dust off some books to say with certainty, but I presume heroes of days past to be Gods, demi-gods, or other wise immortal…Human heroes who are not diefied by society, like Washington, or Lincoln, are not heroes at all; but anti heroes… As in times past, they are criminals like Orestes, Oedipus, or Caesar… The reason is that human activity is always thought (0pinion) to bring on the scrutiny of the gods… What does it take to force through progress with drive and purpose??? And what does that do but give to mankind the power of gods??? On the one hand we see the power of fate, and the nature of man is to challenge fate, and the order philosophy has always recognized and tried to unravel is threatened by the challenge…Look at our heroes today…Have they always been outlaws???.Even if by chance they should be the likes of a M. L. King, or a Ghandi; they were no strangers to prison walls…The Al Capones, the Dillengers, the Billly the Kids and have a lot in common with the Jesus’s of this world, and what was he but a criminal??? When Dylan hymned as a saint John W. Harding who was a stone killer it could not have been without a strain of irony… And; even there, the Iron is a type of anti hero, noted for some weakness or physical defect, and these have always been put outside of the company of humanity as much as the criminal…I would say that as humanity has grown and changed its self preception from one of such and such a group, representative, to one of individual and isolated selves, our heroes have changed from heroes who sacrificed all for their socieites to individuals who dared all for self expression…
To be heroic one must sacrifice for society, though this may put one at odds with the powers that reign… If you dare to be good outside of a church, or outside of the influence of a church you are likely to draw their ire…It is no secret that some Baptists do not even see other Christians as Christians… I could agree that no Christians are Christians before I could agree with them… In any event, to act heroicly does not mean one will be acclaimed a hero…More likely they will be thrown in the clink…

This is all very abstract. Of course there is no such thing as absolute nonconformity, we all have a heart that pumps blood through our brain. But who is a hero to you? For all I know you might be thinking of sports or popstars. But even in those cases, their unique (nonconformist) qualities, not merely their place in a tradition, will determine their legacy.

My point is just that the recognizing of the Heroic is an ancient archetype within consciousness. We can debate over the nature of this archetype and what it is to be a Hero, there are many ideas and concepts contained within this archetype and it is by no means clear-cut or easy to define absolutely.

I understand Hero in this concext, as I mentioned earlier here, as “the characteristics of a Hero are still preserved in modern Heroic symbols and myth (proud individualism, defiant personal honor, principled convictions, sober and serious, action-oriented, physical and emotional strength, contempt for weakness, compassion for children, instinct to be a protector, willingness to sacrifice his life rather than compromise who and what he is)”. . . these are not an all-inclusive list, nor are these all going to be present within every Hero. It is just a general idea of the characteristics of a Hero.

I am not thinking of any specific Hero. We look up to sports figures as heroes because of their physical strength and stamina, hard work and focus, accomplishment and overcoming of odds. The protagonist in many movies is a Hero, because he will embody the above, or other related, Heroic characteristics. Why do these characteristics automatically make a fictional person in a movie or story a Hero? Because these are for the most part ingrained in the human psyche, as an archetype dating back into antiquity. We can definitely trade the roots of the Hero to Greece and the Gods, but I would argue that they go even further back than this - the Greeks consolidated this concept to the highest extent at the time, and elevated it in literature, art and metaphysics. Perhaps our modern concepts of a Hero did begin at this point - but that psychological part of us, within our minds, which needs a Hero exists regardless of the specific heroic traditions of our culture. There is a demand for heroes, it is just a part of what it means to be a human being.

It has not been so long ago that I read some on this subject but most of my reading is long passed…I will say that to be heoric one must be a God or at least inspired by God…It is easy to see Promaethius as heroic or Jesus as heroic… The new world also had creator Gods who sacrificed for humanity, which accounts for their easy transition to Christianity… What humans, are divorced from myth, is anti-heroes… It makes no sense to show an unbending will to society at the cost of life, as Socrates did… It may be that he had the last laugh in giving up something of little value for a measure of immortality, but what is that to the dead??? What is any thing to the dead???..In this respect, especially as regards Socrates, he was an anti hero…He had some redeaming qualities, and did not deserve his fate, and he faced his fate and did not try to evade it…But he was also a criminal, and his influence on a lot of people who may only have grasped a fraction of what he was saying was obvious…To be heroic, I think, means to be God like…It is not a normal state…If one is brave, intelligent, perservering, self sacrificing, and determined it is possible to be a hero… It is not such people that make all people better… When humanity could look at Socrates, or Orestes, or Oedipus, and say they did not deserve their fate they were improved, because when we can forgive them, we can forgive ourselves, and this puts the past behind us so we can be made new… No person watching comedies of the lowest Genre, which are clearly tragedies turned inside out, where the villian is destroyed from a minimum of three camera angles and in slow motion- is ever improved…No matter how deserving of death a criminal is shown to be…No matter how many dogs he kicks on screen, his death gives us no relief… First of all, we are likely to identify with him; but more likely to recognize the desire for death as an abcess on our souls… If we are at all introspective, when we wish death for others, we justify death for ourselves because we are all in this life together, and when we wish suffering for another we justify suffering all that comes from life, and so we get no relief…We want the criminal to be without, that is literally, outside of society, and find the criminal within…

The God archetype and the Hero archetype are distinct concepts. Of course there is some overlap, as likely both archetypes derive from a similar or identical psychological source. Also the social history of religion and myth have intertwined to a large extent. But there is no necessary correspondence between one archetype and the other, once they became fully fleshed out.

I would say that line is clearly blurred…I do think you do not grasp the notion of archetype… The cross is an achetype, or rather, it has reference to two archetypes…One is the tree of death, which in paradice bore apples…But it is more like an older idea yet, the tree of life which once bore humanity… We did once believe we grew like plants, you know…I do not think it is possible for humans to be archetypes, since symbols are somthing that brings an idea to mind… Like a skull and cross bones, or red on a stop sign…It is possible to build up a story with signs, but humans are too complex to mean anything…We know from our own experience that we are incomplete, and not easily sumerized…Even the worst of people may have some redeeming qualities…

Sure, I do not claim to be an expert on archetypes. I realise there are many deeper historical significances behind common images which are not easily traceable, without serious study. Likely there is a lot of ‘blurring of the lines’. My point is just that, as they are now, paradigms such as Hero or God are distinct, in the way that they have differing symbols and real effects in the human world. Sure they are part of an interconnected and complex evolving system of archetypal communal knowledge and symbols, where in reality probably no single archetype can be distinguished from the others in any real sense. But in exploring the Hero concept here I think it is relevant to stay on target and see what HERO means to modern and recent man. We can get a good understanding of what it means to be a Hero, and why the Hero concept is necessary psychologically and socially, without diving into other related archetypes - but certainly it is useful and informative to explore the origins and connections to other ideas.

If heroes today are not gods it is only because we do not believe in gods even while we take our heroes as god like… I wonder which god Tiger was trying to emulate…Must have been one with a knob for Aphrodite…

Actually, in Greek myth, the God archetype was very clearly distinct from the God archetype. Even if a hero, such as Achilles, was a demigod, his fate, and in extension to that his soul, stood in stark contrast with the Gods. A hero is conflicted, has to sacrifice to be a hero, a God is born a God and actually has no heroic qualities.

The myth of Jesus can be seen to reconcile the hero with God, but to see it that way is an error, as at the moment of the making of his myth (which is what determines a hero, whether or not his life is as evocative the stuff of myth), he asks God why he has abandoned him. When the man Jesus is separated most clearly from his divine father, his fate and soul is penetrates the hearts of the humans around him.

Embodied by Bruce Willis in the Last Boyscout.

I agree to a large extent that this is what often heroes are made of, but not always. For example, I consider Nietzsche to be one of the greatest heroes in history. But he had no physical strength, and certainly no instinct to be a protector, not at least a protector of the ‘good and just’. Then there is Osho, who I also consider very heroic, and he is not sober and serious at all, always mocking, and also certainly not a protector, rather someone who likes to create discomfort. Achilles, a hero of another time, was not a protector at all, just a fanatical killer. And what of Alcibiades or Caesar? Heroes to many, but only out for their own benefit.

What these five people do have in common is that they were excentric, bizarre in many ways, with nothing but contempt for the common man and his common sense.