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).
Funny. I had this same discussion with a friend two days ago. We mostly argued about whether the death of the hero necessarily strengthened a narrative and that thus the strongest narratives must kill the hero. I argued that it was the case, my friend disagreed. In the course of this we needed to agree on the definition of a hero. My friend tried to argue that heroes are defined by their morality and that the best narrative is the one that is the most educational or entertaining. My definition of a hero follows below, and I argued that the best narrative is the one with the most memetic staying power, prevalence and influence.
Now, here's the definition of hero that I came up with:
The hero must have a key quality that elevates him above common people or characters. Whether this quality is intrinsic or not does not matter; dedication to a cause counts as well a great intelligence or courage.
The hero must develop this quality to the greatest degree possible. This needs to be an active pursuit, a hero who is merely granted such powers by others is of lesser quality.
The hero will only prove to have truly given everything in pursuit of that quality by dying in that pursuit. An accidental or unrelated death disqualifies, as does dying of old age.
It's a little circular in the context of the debate mentioned above, but I think it bears out. Perhaps characters can be heroic who do not fulfill these three points, but they will always be lesser heroes next to those who do. We applied these metrics to a large number of known fictional and historical figures and the following are some of the results:
Achilles: Prototypic hero, full match.
Hector: Same.
Ajax: Killed himself when he lost a bet, nope.
Diomedes: His powers were externally granted. He survived. Nope.
Odysseus: Too lazy. Survived. Nope.
Herakles: A cheap, lower class of hero, partial match at best.
Alexander the Great: Mostly heroic in life, certainly heroic in later narratives.
Hannibal: Sort of, depends a lot on unknown details.
Caesar: Depends entirely on the narrative.
Emperor Frederick Barbarossa: Neither in life nor in narrative.
Hitler: Depends on how you evaluate his suicide.
Darth Vader: Probably a hero.
Superman: Not a hero.
Harry Flashman: Not a hero.
Rick Deckard: Possibly heroic, but also possibly just doing his job. Dangerous job though. Actual dedication is hard to determine.
Roy Batty: More heroic than Deckard.
Gordon Freeman: Not a hero.
We didn't discuss the War in the Ukraine, but if I were to attempt to apply these metrics without the tempering effects of someone who disagrees:
Selenski: Did not abandon his post, did not sell out his country to the enemy, but it's entirely unclear whether he is doing so out of actual heroic qualities or simply out of fear of the consequences or out of hopes for some reward. It will probably depend on far he will go, and how he is to die, and what dirty secrets about him we know or will know.
Putin: Actually started the war himself, seemingly to pursue his stated goals, which earns him points. Withstands the vilifications of the western world and is seemingly unswayed by adversity. Unclear whether it really is all by his design or just a comedy of errors. There is heroic potential, but the man is still alive and there is much that may spoil it.
I'm realizing that I made a mistake using the verb form. Everyone seems to be seeing "Hero" as an identity, a lifelong one in your case. You simply can't be a hero without being a hero all of the time. I find that rather unrealistic. I probably should have used language more like "acting heroically" or "capable of heroism."
Probably, yeah. But then again, I probably would've used any phrasing as an excuse to write down my recent thoughts.
To come back to your original question, I think the apple of discord here is that it's too easy to see Selenski as someone who's merely putting on an act since he's an actor or as someone acting out of base motives because he's president of a famously corrupt country or out of a greed for glory and recognition that's mostly regarded as outmoded. Perhaps none of those are true and he's really doing it for his country, maybe all of those are true and he's also doing it for his country while he's at it, it's just potentially very complicated and people generally like their heroes spotless, shiny and clean.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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
I think that an important aspect of heroism is that it needs to be extraordinary. For example, I disagree with the popular sentiment that firemen are heroes. What they do would probably be heroic if someone else did it, but for a fireman that's his job. Your ordinary and expected job duties don't qualify as heroics, in my opinion, no matter how hazardous they may be to your person.
More options
Context Copy link
In addition to earlier objections: it is not, in fact, expected of a national leader to run away in case of his nation suffering a (survivable) attack.
Russians wanted to force Zelensky into this Ghani role of an opportunistic Western puppet (the way Yanukovych turned out to be, with sides reversed), Westerners seemed ready to accept that, but he was a normal president doing his duty.
And heroes are those who do the exceptional.
Is it unexpected because it's not common, or just because inductive reasoning is tricky? You mention Ghani but Wikipedia lists a couple dozen more living examples among the hundreds of historical examples.
This time it was literally expected, if not by everyone then at least by the President of the USA. "I need ammunition, not a ride!" is not how one phrases the expected polite refusal of a pro forma offer.
There's no such thing as a known survivable attack, before the fact. There's only a fog of war, in which you can never be sure whether any risk you take will be seen as a heroic turning point or as a stupid doomed suicide in the name of a lost cause. "That tank convoy twenty klicks away can't get me!" is not something you can ever claim with confidence. You could even rationalize fleeing as the dutiful option, to ensure that morale isn't broken by your capture and execution of course. Performative leadership from the front used to be a sine qua non of military leadership, but at some point during the gunpowder era that changed. (maybe John Sedgewick was the last straw? "I am ashamed of you. They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..." are the sort of last words that make one reconsider what tactics are shameful)
The same is true of any "man runs into burning building to save a family member" story, but I'd still be comfortable with the word "hero" in those. I'm happy even using the word for a firefighter in a similar situation, despite "this is your duty" being even more explicit when you're handed bunker gear and an axe rather than a wedding band. Even in such a clearly-defined case there's still a difference between "you might someday have to take a large risk of death for an unknown uncertain possibility of saving others" and "it's now or never".
More options
Context Copy link
I split this off particularly to get away from nitpicking Zelensky/Putin/Ukraine, and talk about heroism more broadly.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link