Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Split from my prior comment in the CW thread to consolidate among the people I want to ask this question: What is a hero? How do we define heroism?
Particularly, asking @minotaur @daseindustriesltd @octopus_eats_platypus @sliders1234 who all seemed to object something like "Zelensky was maybe brave but not heroic because..."
Merriam Webster gives us:
Heroic: : of or relating to courageous people or the mythological or legendary figures of antiquity : of, relating to, resembling, or suggesting heroes especially of antiquity
2a: exhibiting or marked by courage and daring
b: supremely noble or self-sacrificing
Heroism: heroic conduct especially as exhibited in fulfilling a high purpose or attaining a noble end
I'd define heroism as "Extraordinary bravery in service of a goal or cause, without undue thought to the risk of personal loss or death." It does not matter if the goal or cause is moral, or beneficial to humanity as a whole in the observer's view, the goal merely has to be noble to the hero. Even if, as @minotaur hilariously claims, Zelensky was doing it for the pussy that would still be heroic! How many other men have done that much at risk to life and limb just to get laid?
Or perhaps Hemingway describing his self-insert in For Whom the Bell Tolls says it better:
That is heroism to me, taking the risks and consequences of one's actions as mere facts, unworthy of being invested with emotional weight. It is irrelevant that the mission they are on (blowing the bridge) ultimately was in service to a cause (Communist forces in Spain) that I might not agree with, or even that it was ultimately pointless (because the attack the mission was in support of was doomed to failure).
The bravery Zelensky shows is less than the bravery of every normal Russian and Ukrainian soldier. The nobility of Zelensky's actions is less than the nobility of their actions. The self-sacrificial aspect is wholly absent in Zelensky's case, but ample in the soldiers.
Now, you want bravery, we have Vladimir Putin bravely resisting the combined might of the western world rising in defense of an anti-democratic and highly corrupt government defying the will of no small portion of its people, despite the immense cost it's exacting on his people and the stability of his regime.
You want nobility, we have a man striving to recreate a golden empire of old, of striking down an anti-Semitic enemy of old, of reuniting a separated people. Such nobility!
All that applies doubly so for heroism -- what high purpose Putin seeks! All Zelensky wants to do, in comparison, is maintain the unimpressive sovereignty of the Ukraine.
Now, I don't think Putin is brave, noble, or a hero. I also don't think Zelensky is. I could be swayed on the average soldier. But I do insist we be fair and even in our evaluation -- if Zelensky is a hero, then by all measures Putin is.
Also don't be a prick and misquote me. I didn't say Zelensky did it for the pussy. I included that as a perk, but my actual claim is that Zelensky is capitalizing on a tragedy to consolidate political power, purge domestic rivals, and set himself up for a long and illustrious career as either honorary President-for-life or local hero coasting on speaking fees and global patronage.
Man I haven't seen someone that offended I said their joke was funny in a while.
Yes. He is. Putin is highly heroic. My dad constantly wonders why Putin doesn't just choose to retire to China/Venzuela/Switzerland with his money and his women and leave the whole mess behind. That's heroism, dedication to a cause. Which points to some of the problems with heroic leadership, versus a "nation of shopkeepers" where your leaders aren't constantly getting mixed up in bullshit. But that's not really all that interesting, Putin is expected to act heroically, he was invading countries while NATO wrung their hands about it when Zelensky was still singing songs on Russian late night TV. He's an ex KGB officer whose been a militaristic president for decades, you aren't confused when he acts like one, it's Tom Brady playing well in a big game versus Nick Foles outplaying him in the big game. And yes, ordinary soldiers do engage in acts of heroism, the difference being that their acts are individually less consequential, and their freedom of action is smaller.
But you have yet to offer any definition or example of heroism of your own, which was the question asked, once again.
Well, if you're going to fairly call basically everyone involved heroes, fair enough.
My definition of a hero is someone who goes above and beyond the expectations of their station to achieve some pro-social outcome even if the cost to them is likely to be catastrophically high. This would put the glory of heroism firmly on the people, not the leadership, which aligns with my moral intuitions.
Some examples of heroes:
Medal of Honor and similar "super-soldiery" commendations, but not the average voluntary soldier;
Non-firemen who rush into burning buildings to help people;
A good Samaritan who confronts an active shooter, especially one who successfully kills them;
A whistleblower who exposes corruption even if it destroys their own career prospects;
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link