Heroes make us bad people

In a normal distribution from heroism to depravity, only a few people will find themselves at the tail ends--Satan at the end of the left tail of depravity, or Hitler, Idi Amin, Pinochet... take your pick, a few hairs down. Jesus, Buddha, or Frodo are on the right tail end of heroic goodness, and further down on the tail, some unusually good contemporary people--Raoul Wallenberg or Dag Hammarskjold, maybe. Or Dorothy Day, the Delai Lama, Mahatma Gandhi... whoever.

Most of the people are in the middle--not very good, not very bad, not very smart, not very stupid. The real differences that ordinary mortals will notice are in the deviations to the right and left of the central section --15%, 9%, and 4% of the population. We're not going to be close to the 1.7%, .5%, or .01%--the elites of good and evil. People like Cruz, Clinton, Sanders, and Trump come from the middle in terms of intelligence, imagination, honesty, and such (meaning, they might not be that smart, might be quite dull, and might be somewhat dishonest -- like most people) but are toward the tail end when it comes to ambition, drive, ruthlessness, and so on. These days being a successful politician of necessity moves one out on at least the low end of depravity's tail (the end closest to the anus).

Rather than heroes or devils discouraging us, mostly we just don't have it in us to be heroically good or hideously depravèd.

I would disagree. The entire human race is intoxicated under this hero-cult godhead, the Individual who conquers Death (our greatest fear and enemy), the Individual whose Ego Triumphs over the forces of nature and Evil. They are our Heroes precisely because they inspire us to continue to live instead of crumbling to the fear of death.

Reply to Bitter Crank

I mean more than normal people are the real heroes, and if we want to inspire heroism, and courageous action then we need to change the way we view heroes, and I suppose perhaps villains as well.

Reply to darthbarracuda

Don't try to tie your fetish into every single topic, have some range.

Reply to Wosret You specifically were talking about heroes, thus I provided my opinion. smh

Quoting Wosret

They inspire misanthropy far more than agape. They arrest heroism far more than inspire it.

Quoting Wosret

They teach us that only a special kind of elite class can be heroic, and we have to be vain, delusional, childish or foolish to think we can be like them.

Quoting Wosret

They make normal people appear less valuable, powerful, competent, and likeable by contrast.

Quoting Wosret

They steal away our power to act righteously, and to assert ourselves when it matters most by elevating such attributes into the level of the superhuman.

Quoting Wosret

They make us want their prestige, the affection and respect they receive, their superpowers and levels of excellence, which ironically makes their goodness, and heroism more appealing, when it is less significant or impressive coming from a superhuman, risking less, and facing inferior opposition, with all but narrative certainty of success.

You are going to have to provide some actual examples of these things occurring in the real world for this to be anything more than ultimately meaningless, self-contained conjecture.

Really? I didn't say superman, Goku, captain planet, Jesus, Buddha, Gandhi, Einstein, Kant, or people like that, but I thought that I was pretty descriptive enough that such examples would easily come to mind. BC seemed to have gotten that quite easily.

Reply to Wosret

I'm not talking about individuals, but specific cases of the things I quoted actually happening. Call me stupid, but I can't bring to mind any examples. You'll have to help me out.

I will try to explain. I think that they make people look shitty by comparison, thus the misanthropy. No one is as good as Jesus, as smart as Einstein (neither of which may not be actually literally true, but that's the rumor). Because they use methods unavailable to people, and are not relatable, even if they inspired heroism, one wouldn't know how to actualize it based on how they did. One can't solve many problems by punching someone in the face like superman.

Just go around telling people that you relate a lot with Jesus, Einstein and superman and see how they react. Suggesting that you're like them is to make an extraordinary claim, that I don't think people would react positively to.

When you present exaggerated human characteristics, they make the real things look less exceptional. Look at all of the photoshopped drugged out, magazine images, which make people in peek physical condition feel self-conscious. Setting the bar too high creates unrealistic expectations, and makes even excellence look shabby.

To mix in superhuman levels of other attributes along with their heroics is to sweeten the deal, as it were. They are more readily idolized for reasons other than the good and moral things they did. I also think that it's clearly less impressive for superman to win a boxing match than an average joe, don't you?

Quoting Wosret

They arrest heroism far more than inspire it. They teach us that only a special kind of elite class can be heroic, and we have to be vain, delusional, childish or foolish to think we can be like them.

I think that this part is perhaps the part which can most easily be shown to be a hasty generalisation. Do I even need to provide counterexamples? I bet you can do so yourself. X-men, Avatar, and Harry Potter have clear and unmistakable anti-racist themes. This is inspiring stuff, and the message is not that only a special kind of elite class can be like them in that way, nor does it mean that we'd have to be vain, delusional, childish or foolish to think so.

Quoting Wosret

I will try to explain. I think that they make people look shitty by comparison, thus the misanthropy. No one is as good as Jesus, as smart as Einstein (neither of which may not be actually literally true, but that's the rumor). Because they use methods unavailable to people, and are not relatable, even if they inspired heroism, one wouldn't know how to actualize it based on how they did. One can't solve many problems by punching someone in the face like superman.

Just go around telling people that you relate a lot with Jesus, Einstein and superman and see how they react. Suggesting that you're like them is to make an extraordinary claim, that I don't think people would react positively to.

When you present exaggerated human characteristics, they make the real things look less exceptional. Look at all of the photoshopped drugged out, magazine images, which make people in peek physical condition feel self-conscious. Setting the bar too high creates unrealistic expectations, and makes even excellence look shabby.

To mix in superhuman levels of other attributes along with their heroics is to sweeten the deal, as it were. They are more readily idolized for reasons other than the good and moral things they did. I also think that it's clearly less impressive for superman to win a boxing match than an average joe, don't you?

This is complete projection. They do not "make people look shitty by comparison", you perceive anything less than their standards to be shitty by comparison. But you are half right, setting the bar too high does create unrealistic expectations; but that mistake lies with those who make it. Besides, would you rather great people stopped achieving greatness only so the mediocre can look more impressive? Of course not.

Your standards are not set by anything outside of you because they are your standards, they're attributable to you. It is entirely your responsibility and in your control to create your own standards, so ignore magazine covers and romanticised notions of heroism and just do the best of what's in your control. If you want to set standards of beauty, intellect and morality unrealistically high at perfection, go ahead. But to go through life beating yourself up for not being an Einstein or a Jesus is going to cause you all kinds of anxieties and upsets. Dealing with the present and the future in life is very much about managing expectations.

There's a quote by Voltaire which is pertinent here; perfect is the enemy of the good. When you demand nothing less than perfection you miss the more realistic goal of goodness, and you lose out altogether when you almost inevitably fail to achieve perfection - because all things excellent are as difficult as they are rare.

Reply to Sapientia

Just look at the politics of the show. The X-men have to fight for equality and acceptance, but pretty much every single villain views themselves as the next "evolution" of the human race, and a superior race to normal humans. Humans never express a similar sentiment about them, they fear them, but not just because they're different, but because they can explode shit with their minds and junk -- they're powerful and dangerous. On Korra, in republic city, benders are clearly the upper class, ruling the government. Aang took over the fucking world -- and the Avatar is like the most super special Buddha type character they can be.

I don't know anything about Harry Potter, except that he's like the chosen one, or some shit, and born with totes awesome elite magic skills.

If you don't think much of your personally identifying with such characters, it's just because they don't know enough about them, or you're a five year old.

Reply to WhiskeyWhiskers

You're missing the point, I suggested that heroes should be portrayed as more average people, because being super special awesome isn't, and most other traits that heroes may have to make them look more appealing isn't required. There are still great things to achieve, which one may need to be exceptional at in order to achieve them, but heroism isn't really one of them. Only so many people can be the best mathematician in the world, the most beautiful person, or the greatest musician or something, but everyone can be a hero.

Quoting Wosret

Heroes, the ones people really look up to, are generally superhuman in some respect. They have superpowers, are aliens, son's of gods, or gods themselves. Holy men, eat geniuses, scientists, warriors, philosophers. They inspire misanthropy far more than agape. They arrest heroism far more than inspire it. They teach us that only a special kind of elite class can be heroic, and we have to be vain, delusional, childish or foolish to think we can be like them. They make normal people appear less valuable, powerful, competent, and likeable by contrast. They steal away our power to act righteously, and to assert ourselves when it matters most by elevating such attributes into the level of the superhuman. They make us want their prestige, the affection and respect they receive, their superpowers and levels of excellence, which ironically makes their goodness, and heroism more appealing, when it is less significant or impressive coming from a superhuman, risking less, and facing inferior opposition, with all but narrative certainty of success.

Do you know any heros personally? People who fit or come close to your description or are all the examples you cite learned from reading? Normal people can sometimes transcend their normalcy and perform very heroic actions.

Or perhaps the hero, this superhuman, super competent is a figment of our collective imagination. Icons whose role is idealized, and serve as symbolic ends we ought to strive towards.

I would rather look at a failed/broken/flawed hero, like Hamlet. His supernatural power, talking to a ghost, enables him to see the facts behind his father's death. Yet knowing these facts alone is insufficient to cause him to act. His father (the ghost) commands Hamlet to revenge his death with a clear heart, which is a performative challenge that borders on the supernatural.

"But howsoever thou pursuest this act, Taint not thy mind"

The play is about what it takes for Hamlet to act as a man in good faith with clear conscience, which involves his acting crazy to hide his real craze and to reconcile his actions with his mother.

I find flawed heroes more interesting.

Reply to Cavacava

No, not really. I pretty much modelled myself after the most perfect fictional character I know of. I heard this idea watching a TED talk, so I thought I'd present it here, and see what people thought.

Some flaws are nice though, especially if they're things to overcome in themselves, which humanizes them -- some heroes are flawless though, and it doesn't really subtract from them, I don't think.

Quoting Wosret

Just look at the politics of the show. The X-men have to fight for equality and acceptance, but pretty much every single villain views themselves as the next "evolution" of the human race, and a superior race to normal humans. Humans never express a similar sentiment about them, they fear them, but not just because they're different, but because they can explode shit with their minds and junk -- they're powerful and dangerous.

I have looked at the politics of the X-Men franchise. I too know very little about Harry Potter, but apparently, based on an article I read, there's a clear and unmistakable anti-racist theme there as well. :D

I didn't, however, need the article to obtain this knowledge about X-Men - having been a fan since childhood, having read some of the comics, having seen much of the original television series, and having seen all of the non-animated films. The presence of this theme within Avatar was also pretty clear to me, having seen the film.

I don't really get your reply, to be honest. There are some parallels between their fictional world and our own, and the intended message is positive and allegorical. To focus on the fact that they're powerful and can do things like blow shit up with their minds, and that some of them are dangerous; and to focus on the villains, who always get defeated in the end; and to focus on the misguided, irrational, discriminatory non-mutant populous, is to utterly miss the point.

[quote=Mikhail Lyubansky, Ph.D][The X-Men franchise] draws deliberate parallels between the oppression of mutants and that of other marginalized groups. As long-time X-Men writer Chris Claremont explained back in 1982, "The X-Men are hated, feared, and despised collectively by humanity for no other reason than that they are mutants. So what we have..., intended or not, is a book that is about racism, bigotry, and prejudice." As a result, these important but usually avoided themes have become part of the dialogue - both online and at the kitchen table.

The importance of being comfortable and proud in one's skin is one of several prosocial messages of X-Men First Class, as well as of the original trilogy.

One of the most popular themes in popular fiction's depiction of group prejudice is the drawing of explicit parallels between the plight of the fictional group and real-world historical oppression, most commonly the Holocaust and the legalized segregation in the South under Jim Crow. Although the comics pursued both analogies at length, until X-Men First Class, the films had focused primarily on the latter, drawing a variety of explicit and unmistakable parallels between Xavier's and Magneto's fight for mutant rights and the U.S. Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. On the surface, the parallels seem well-informed. The mob violence and the hateful slogans (e.g., "The only good mutant is a dead mutant") are remarkably familiar, and the anti-mutant hate groups, such as Friends of Humanity and the Church of Humanity, are clearly intended to represent real oppressive forces like the Ku Klux Klan and a variety of other Christian Identity and White Supremacy groups.[/quote]

Mikhail Lyubansky, Ph.D., is a member of the teaching faculty in the Department of Psychology at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, where he teaches Psychology of Race and Ethnicity, Theories of Psychotherapy, and a graduate-level seminar on restorative justice.

He does also point out some perceived flaws with the message they send, but he acknowledges the good, which is the point that I'm emphasising, contrary to your one-sided take on the topic.

Yeah, but there is a problem with that, in that the x-men are almost exclusively white dudes, I don't see it being held up by oppressed minorities as totes understanding their plights, and, like I said, the x-men are painted as a superior race, that are oppressed by a fear of their power, by an inferior majority. All of the mutant villains want to suppress, or kill all normal humans, because they're an inferior race. This is never paralleled by human villains, which are just afraid of mutants, and often hide mutant family members, or have personal investments, and often also repent and see the error of their ways just after initiating events that are out of their control.

Apocalypse isn't going to be that way, I promise.

It may be meant to parallel the plights of black people and stuff, but it really doesn't. The efforts and fears of normal people are often warranted, they grow, and accept them, change their ways, and all of that. The villainous mutants are always the actual racists, and they never fucking repent.

Quoting Wosret

You're missing the point. I suggested that heroes should be portrayed as more average people, because being super special awesome isn't, and most other traits that heroes may have to make them look more appealing isn't required.

There already are plenty of examples of a more down-to-earth heroism to be found in film, TV, literature, and other artistic media. It would be boring if it was all the same sort of thing, rather than there being a variety. Superman and others are very entertaining. Clark Kent is no where near as entertaining as his alter ego.

Reply to Sapientia

Have you seen Superman V Batman? He isn't entertaining recently.

Reply to Wosret No, I haven't seen it, but my personal opinion is irrelevant. I was making a general point. I still find (or at least did at one point) the Superman films entertaining, but he's not my fave. I reckon I'd find Superman V Batman entertaining, but I'm looking forward to the new X-Men film a lot more.

Goku is way better, though not lately either, unfortunately. Sure, he has universal destructive capabilities now, but it's also implied that you could just knife him in his sleep as well, if he isn't ready...

I also am looking forward to the X men movie, Marvel makes some damn good movies.

Reply to Wosret I find the whole Dragon Ball franchise pretty ridiculous. Just not to my taste. Naruto's where it's at.

Reply to Sapientia

I'm not into bromances. Goku pwns all of the faces.

Reply to Wosret They have silly vegetable-related names, they look silly (big, muscular, colourful aliens), and they make silly noises (lengthy, increasingly loud and exaggerated cries when in battle).

Yeah, it doesn't take itself too seriously, and powering up is super hard!

You may want to look at the April 6 comic Black Panther (Marvel Hero), which was written by Ta-Nehisi Coates, a writer for the Atlantic Mag & 2015 National Book Award winner. Here for interview with Ta-Nehisi re the comic: http://www.vice.com/read/ta-nehisi-coates-talks-about-black-panther-and-writing-from-a-black-experience

Reply to Cavacava

I'm not saying that it can't be done, just that x-men doesn't do it. I think that a better argument can be made that the x-men are actually communists, and not a different race. They look like everyone else, and blend right in at all levels of public life, but keep a dirty commie secret.

Quoting Wosret

Heroes, the ones people really look up to, are generally superhuman in some respect. They have superpowers, are aliens, son's of gods, or gods themselves. Holy men, great geniuses, scientists, warriors, philosophers. They inspire misanthropy far more than agape. They arrest heroism far more than inspire it. They teach us that only a special kind of elite class can be heroic, and we have to be vain, delusional, childish or foolish to think we can be like them. They make normal people appear less valuable, powerful, competent, and likeable by contrast. They steal away our power to act righteously, and to assert ourselves when it matters most by elevating such attributes into the level of the superhuman. They make us want their prestige, the affection and respect they receive, their superpowers and levels of excellence, which ironically makes their goodness, and heroism more appealing, when it is less significant or impressive coming from a superhuman, risking less, and facing inferior opposition, with all but narrative certainty of success.

The hero dares you: be great! Alexander the Great dares you - be great as I was great. So yes - the hero absolutely mocks you, because he knows that inside you lies something more powerful than you think - and to accede to that, you must have the folly to drop your weakness, and take the leap!

Hum... may I complete this?

Wosret:Heroes, the ones people really lookup, are generally superhuman in some respect. They have superpowers, are aliens, son's of gods, or gods themselves. Holy men, great geniuses, sicentists, warriors, philosophers.

I dont like that, I want to be seen as a superstar too, even though I serve fish an chips, and I'm not "holy" at all.

Wosret:They inspire misanthropy far more than agape. They arrest heroism far more than inspire it. They teach us that only a special kind of elite class can be heroic, and we have to be vain, delusional, childish or foolish to think we can be like them.

Specially Roschach. Also Monkey D Luffy. It's more than evident that thestory is teaching mysantrhopy and to be dellusional.

Wosret:They make normal people appear less valuable, powerful, competent, and likeable by contrast.

My fish and chips are as valuable as batman fortune, as powerful as thor hammer, as competent as Stark industries, as likeable as Hume books. It's all heros fault.

Wosret:They steal away our power to act righteously, and to assert ourselves when it matters most by elevating such attributes into the level of the superhuman.

Even though all they do is saving us most of times. Somehow I can't be good if they are.

Wosret:They make us want their prestige, the affection and respect they receive, their superpowers and levels of excellence, which ironically makes their goodness, and heroism more appealing, when it is less significant or impressive coming from a superhuman, risking less, and facing inferior opposition, with all but narrative certainty of success

Yeah, all we want is prestige, there is no other reason to be a hero. And all heros have allways a easy life, in all stories.



Life is like it is, we like some people more than other, nobody told us to do so. Nah, maybe you are right, Lets talk about football, about porn, the true "heroes" of the people. They teach us to be more kindly. They spread pure filantrophy.

The Dune series has a running theme about the dangers of hero worship.

Quoting Wosret

They teach us that only a special kind of elite class can be heroic, and we have to be vain, delusional, childish or foolish to think we can be like them.

Come back to the light-side, Luke. The first Superman comic came out the same year Seabiscuit beat War Admiral. It means that there's something Super that's latent in every regular everybody.

Quoting Mongrel

The first Superman comic came out the same year Seabiscuit beat War Admiral. It means that there's something Super that's latent in every regular everybody.

This.

But I think @Wosret's picked up on something in the air. If heroes give every regular everybody something to live up to, then some will fail, and isn't the experience of failure now seen in some quarters as something that people need to be protected from? I'm thinking of the notion that seems to be popular in education and parenting, that in a kids' athletics race, for example, everyone's a winner just for taking part, and you're amazing just for being you, and so on.

Reply to jamalrob Have you noticed that one drop at a time, you're turning into a conservative? The saying advises that this happens to everybody who isn't an idiot.... but still, it's weird to see it. It happened to my little brother when his first child came along.

I think the bleeding-heart liberal response is: "Life brings us all to our knees sooner or later. There's no need to worry that a liberal agenda is going to annihilate all hardship and rob the next generation of the stress that nature requires for the creation of strength and flexibility. What we liberals are on guard against is rationalization of carelessness or malice, which may give rise to billionaires, but also creates cynicism amongst millions.

Uh... I just lost my train of thought.

Reply to Bitter Crank That was wonderful.

Sorry this didn't have anything else to contribute but praise... But I can't make that better.

Reply to Wosret Your sentiment is echoed in one of my favorite band's song "Kill your idols"

"Cosmetic photogenic
This pain is fleeting, ring out
Mechanical the passion
Your head is bleeding, slow down

Can't keep doing this
What you want me to
Marching sheep herd said
See my broken head

Live your own life
I got myself
Out of my sight
Kill your idols

It's ugly, you see
I don't care what you think now
Forgive me, forget
Don't take the easy way out

Can't keep doing this
What you want me to
Marching sheep herd said
See my broken head

Live your own life
I got myself
Out of my sight
Kill your idols"

He seems to indicate that if you're not your own hero you can't live your own life to its fullest. By giving into the mechanical passions we get from society to worship heroes we are left weak when injured, and we are left seeking out the hero, begging them "see my broken head." So if you want to be like the heroes, you've got to "kill your idols" which I suppose to mean, critique them and surpass them and you know, not ACTUALLY murder them.

I think there's a difference between having heroes and worshiping them though. Having hero worship for your favorite actor might limit your ability to be a good actor. Having a hero-worship for Aristotle may mean you'll never surpass his ideas. But I do see Socrates as a heroic and inspiring figure so I see him "heroically" and I am inspired by that heroism. I don't worship him and disagree with him on many levels, and like Wayne Static I seek to "kill my idols" by surpassing their wisdom in philosophy.

The song, I like the lyrics.

Isn't the 'Idol' for sheep a goat.


A Judas goat was used to herd sheep, to bring them to slaughter at the slaughter house, where they would take a sledge hammer and crack them in the head stunning them. a fleeting pain, before killing them.

The hero is different in kind from the herd of humanity that follows it, from pasture to pasture, or to the slaughter house. Passion becomes mechanical, following culture's lead regardless of its direction. This is the "easy way out", no thought needed, we are all marching along in life with a " broken head", stunned.

The ugly part is in the following, it is ugly because it is blind/stunned adherence to an Ideal, a Hero, an Idol, which may lead to our own destruction. The lyric suggest that one can stop, escape. It implores us to "Live your own life", beyond the herd of humanity.

Socrates, I think, would deny being anyone's hero, but he certainly did go his own way, with his own followers and he was killed for that. The herd does not like wanderers, it goes against their mechanical " Cosmetic photogenic" values.

We can aspire to be heroic, even if we will never be a hero. A hero is made not born, I think, from someone preforming heroic acts. A demigod that is inactive is but a potential hero.

Quoting Wosret

They teach us that only a special kind of elite class can be heroic, and we have to be vain, delusional, childish or foolish to think we can be like them.

You don't read any Marvel comics do you?

Nearly every "hero" in the Marvel world is a very flawed person, who became a hero due to an accident, a mutation or somehow being talked into taking up that role. The line between "hero" and "villian" is a very narrow one and often they cross back and forth between the roles.

Deadpool... a hero? (or a postmodern philosophical perspective of "just fuck it")

X-Men... heros? (or people who by no fault or choice of their own had a mutating gene that caused them to be different than the norm... they are both hero and villian inspired by the discrimination they've had to endure, as well as the fear of being different)

The Guardians of the Galaxy... heros? (or simply some people (crooks, bounty hunters, murderers, freaks) who ended up together and happen to band together to fight off a psychopath... with the original intention to get money... units... lots of units!)

The beauty in Marvel comics is that the heros are just a flawed and are outcasts as the readers often felt themselves to be; thus have an uplifing quality about them, as well as a realistic feel to the fantasy.

Michel de Montaigne stated: "Kings and philosophers shit, and so do ladies."

You can add heros to that list as well, but if you are wearing a latex body suit that can be quite a difficult and potentially messy thing.

Meow!

GREG

I agree with JR. Women are the real heroes

Reply to Mayor of Simpleton

You make some good points, tied into Marvel's inception was the notion that it would be unlike DC, and have flawed characters.

I haven't read any comics, no, but watched some cartoons as a kid, and the movies and stuff. I do think that they're just more fun, and relatable than DC heroes, and other heroes. They still solve 100% of their problems with violence though, which isn't instructive.

Quoting Wosret

I haven't read any comics, no, but watched some cartoons as a kid, and the movies and stuff. I do think that they're just more fun, and relatable than DC heroes, and other heroes. They still solve 100% of their problems with violence though, which isn't instructive.

Well, Professor X (Charles Xavier) of the X-Men is just the opposite, as he solves things via reasoning with the people. Now... he does have a psychic connection to people and can enter their minds and some might call this activity violent. It depends on the application of anything one wishes to mention or isolate as a skills/action and it is valued relative to the standard of measure one holds for what is violent.

In addition to this, I notice that more often than one cares to notice the concept of epiphany is often the means with which super heroes in the Marvel Universe end conflicts. It is not really a "black and white world" of moral polarities. As I said before, all Marvel characters, heroes and villains, are flawed people and indeed find themselves being tossed back and forth between being hero and villian.

One thing I really like about Marvel is that no one is perfect and no one has the perfect answer. Indeed they have to kill ass and break stuff now and then, as they are responding to an aggressive force that isn't open for reason (usually representing a totalitarian rule - Stan Lee is very anti-totalitarian), but I find in Marvel there is a realism in the moral dilemmas. Marvel questions all authority and very much questions blind faith.

Anyway...

... have you seen the X-Men Trilogy?

If not, I'd encourage it.

OK... the special effects and bombastic fight sequences tend to be what many come to see and unfortunately that is all they take away. What I have from this trilogy is a question... what are we as a human species? What is fair? What is justice? What is a monster?

The monster issue runs big in the whole Marvel Universe.

This seems to be everywhere:

He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. - Freddi N

I could go into a lot of specific and deal with the person struggles of the characters within the Marvel Universe (and get this... I'm not really a big time geek in this scene), but I would not really sell heroes short in that they exclusively use violence for every answer to every problem. In fact, I find that the vast majoirty of key questions are answered via non-violent reasoning. The violence is just an illustration of the unwillingness of people to respond to reason; thus the violence is not as glorified as it seems.

Maybe I'm a bit biased here, as I view Stan Lee to be one of the greatest figures in philosophical literature.

Meow!

GREG

I mentioned earlier in the thread that I was more just playing devil's advocate, and don't really think that heroes are bad, but saw a ted talk that was saying that, and thought I'd bring it up here. I actually think that there is certainly no link between violent video games, movies, tv shows and such and real world violence, unless the demographic is five. Everyone else understands metaphor, sublimation of violent energies into games or fantasy is distinguishing it, and separation it from everyday life, and giving it an outlet. Furthermore, I think that pumping people up, motivating them getting them interested, engaged and in positive moods, without giving them specific rules, principles, or mores to live by is probably better. People need to think for themselves, develop their own discernment feel powerful, and direct that into their lives.

Also yeah, I don't think that there's anything wrong with setting the ideal with the excellent rather than the mediocre. Some people suck, get over it, sorry for them. Not really important, as all you have to do is be sufferable, and you're lovable, but being excellent makes you more respected, and treated better. Being great at this or that doesn't make you better over all, or more valuable, but people behave as if it does, and the inclination to protect people from the abuses of those that treat others as less valuable because of perceived inferiority, incompetence or lack of skillz seems just. We definitely shouldn't protect anyone from failure, but we shouldn't treat people like failures either.

So, whose your favorite marvel hero? I liked spider-man because he was funny, I used to watch his cartoon in middle school.

I think that there is an important distinction to make in this discussion, just for clarification purposes. I think that really 2 questions about heroism are being mashed into something slightly messy (although messy is quite fun). I think there is one strain asking the question: is the innate supremacy of many heroes discouraging for people who do not feel innately superior? And there is another vein along the lines of: is the existence of truly skilled and admirable people socially desirable?

To me, by separating the questions, each answer seems almost trivially simple. In essence: Yes and No. Heroes that are elevated by prophecy, by divine descent, by unbelievable ability (I make no claims about how strongly they dominate, or don't, literature and culture), are markedly "distinct". I can never beat Achilles regardless of my skill as a warrior because I am not a descendant of Zeus. Of course, the question becomes more complex when we consider the illusion of choice in character. We decide who and what we are, but those decisions are always based on factors which are not to are deciding–things such as previous mental states, genetics, and foreign influences. Is it unhealthy, then, to pursue stories in which the heroes are perhaps unbelievably kind, or have an intense passion for some goal? It seems that generally, there are forces that societally we consider achievable and not achievable. For example, we seem to think that we can instill passion, it is something everyone can have, and likewise, that intelligence is either present at birth or never to be had. I think neither of these case are realistic, that most of the time, most traits are dynamic and intelligence, for example is a combination of a striving (which we are, through a recursive definition of our selves which bottoms out somewhere outside our abilities of influence) and innate talent. The next question to ask is about the realism of heroes being different or special. I know that on a personal level, I have a bit of a hero complex, and I particularly try to make myself stand out in the ways which heroes are typically perceived to, as if that might somehow increase my chances of my self being a hero rather than someone else. But on a greater level, is it a realistic message to suggest that everyone can be hero? Or that heroic actions performed by different people are equal in their ability to improve society? Clearly, one's power is not of no consequence in this matter. Someone with the ability to save the world is in more of a position to be hero. It is easier for people like presidents and policemen to be heroes (just as it is easier for them to be villains). Nonetheless, I think that instilling in the general populace the belief that they can be heroes propagates the ordinary towards heroism. And maybe the ordinary Joe, maybe I, for example, am not well equipped to be a hero; democratizing heroism means that I am more likely to try–it means I am more likely to do my best to do what I think is important and correct.

On the issue of the flawless hero, I see no flaw. First, I do not believe that flawlessness is something that can objectively exist. It is very much a matter of what one considers flaws. For example, I think Superman looks stupid; it's a pretty insignificant flaw, but still an example. Some people might consider that fact that he ever resorts to violence–fighting fire with fire-is a flaw. Others might claim that lack of initiative in political or social matters is a flaw. Whatbeit, flaws are determined by a diverse set of morals and opinions. Now, ignoring everything I just said, a flawless hero present a paragon of society to strive towards. This is particularly useful if the hero is relatable–someone that came from origins that make many of us think "this could be me". This train of thought brings Ozymandias from Watchmen (a masterpiece of a comic) to mind; he has a self-help lesson thing claiming that anyone can be hero–it is merely a matter of determination and knowing the right steps (which he provides). This kind of hero is evolutionary–he suggests that heroes are, as they say, formed and not born. More, that they are formed not by the legendary waters of the Styx, but by tools that everyone has at their disposal. These kinds of heroes, ultimately, I think, are the kind that encourage similar behavior.

Quoting Wosret

So, whose your favorite marvel hero?

This is off-topic, but it's your thread and we know each other, so a bit of fun...

Guardians of the Galaxy... the whole group...



especially Rocket Racoon:



also...

I quite like The HULK... just smash! (Remind me of 180 Proof in the Philosophy of Religion section)



and the ultimate post-modernist anti-hero DEADPOOL!!!



counting bullets... "bad Deadpool... good Deadpool... I'm touching myself tonight!"



This craps keeps me sort of less insane than usual. ;)

Meow!

GREG

Reply to Mayor of Simpleton

Those were great. Marvel makes some damn good movies. I liked pretty much all of them, even the ones that are considered terrible I think were alright, lol.

Perhaps the idea of the Superhero is based on the concept of family, as in the human family. The fight to protect humanity from the evils that arise, similar to the way a father & mother protect their children from harm. I mean wasn't the Fantastic 4 the 1st family?

Quoting Cavacava

I mean wasn't the Fantastic 4 the 1st family?

I have to give credit where it's due...

... the "family concept" goes back to Fawcett Comics (Whiz Comics), purchased later by DC Comics, with the Marvel Family (1942), also known as Shazam (a bit ironic as this has nothing to do with Marvel comics). This was about 19 years before the Fantastic Four Family (1961) hit the scene.



Actually the concept of "family" is one that comes up frequently in comics, but they are usually not "blood relatives".

I have more the feeling that such "families" were there to replace one's own family, as the concepts of "the misfit" or "outcast" are even more present in comics... much more so in Marvel than DC, who was more about having a "darkside"... and Whiz, who had a very squeeky clean feel to them.

Funny thing is what has endured the most has been Marvel.

One thing about Marvel...

... the Marvel world set a lot of things in NYC and not in mythical Gotham or Metropolis.

Also, the crossovers were more logical... like if Spiderman needed a lawyer he'd contact Matt Murdock (Daredevil).

I'll stop... as you can tell I'm much more a fan of Marvel, but appreciate DC.

The two worlds creators copied and stole from one another on a regular basis. Indeed they are rivials, but at the same time the biggest fanboys out of all.

Meow!

GREG