How many "cells" make up the average human brain? Got a number? Cells contain energy, right? They live and die, too. Come and go, so to speak.
How does the word "hero" fit into this notion? Since 911 we have used this word hero as if it were as common as "guys" gets used.
How sweetly and with such ease our destruction/reconstruction of words seem to occur!
Watching a female use the word "guys" in talking to a group of mixed genders one minute, then the next making serious comments/demands about "feminine" issues sounds...stupid or ignorant to me.
What constitutes an "heroic" effort?
As opposed to a "brave" effort?
Aren't these really "old questions" that keep getting asked again and again?
Fight or flight? Accept or reject? Good or evil? Guys or gals? Hero or coward? Strong or weak?
Fiction or non-fiction? Alive or dead? Me or thee?
Perhaps the most misunderstood or complicated notion in the world of psychology is narcissism.
Sometimes the real hero knows when NOT to help someone.
The idiots on today's left can't even concieve of such adult inspired thought and compassion.
They are short term finger pointers concerned only with their short term comfort.
I disagree that the policies of the left don't work for them. Working is a question of goals. Its not working for us because our goals are are not their goals. The results they get are exactly what they want or they would not continue doing as they have done for over a century. The words they use are not intended to communicate. They are simply one of their means by which they achieve their goals.
To expand ARH's post -
And their goals is of course grab and hold onto power anyway they can.
Never forget that.
This post again brings to the surface that a working civil society is utterly dependant on "trancendental principles". It won't last, not even 10 years, without said principles.
Which principles ? Take a wild guess which ones.
You left out the part about how we're complaining about our dependence on foriegn sources of oil - besides its price (which is from the lack of supply, in the real world) - while we are literally sitting on one of the biggest treasure of fossil fuels on Earth. Not to mention how we refuse to use more nuclear power, even though we were the ones who actually invented it.
But the same collectivists have conned our population into superstitions that have made it impossible to use our own resources to help ourselves.
Two other things:
1) It's unfair to blame the politicians. Really!! They are who they are because they are exactly what the public demands they be. I thought you guys were supposed to be about people taking responsibility for their actions - well, the public elects these guys, and will simply not elect someone who isn't exactly like them.
2) C'mon ARH! I would have thought you would have had a thing or two to say about these popularist definitions of "hero" by now...
>>They are who they are because they are exactly what the public demands they be.>>
Kind of sounds like "we have seen the enemy and he is us", doesn't it!
Optimizer,
Their word "Hero" is simply one of their means to their ends. They use it in a way so as to destroy the very concept of Hero: one who strives against all odds to achieve his values with honesty, honor, and justice.
A few words about heroes of 9/11.
Almost 7 years ago, I volunteered my time, working at the WTC site. I sat in a makeshift triage center where mainly police, firefighters, and contractors stopped by and washed out their eyes or breathed from an oxygen tank for a few minutes. If anyone had a serious wound, I would irrigate and cover it with gauze, and send them to a clean area outside that zone for treatment. I think they were all heroes, but I cannot characterize them all into the above personality profile. They were helpful and supportive of each other. Most didn't seek publicity shots, but some did: you saw their photos in magazines. Some had supportive and caring families and I saw them calling their loved ones on the cell phones. For others the phones stopped working, and it didn't seem to bother them; maybe they prefered being in a disaster area. Some don't talk much about that time, but others want attention. Obviously since I write here, I chose to talk. If there is a single characteristic that described these people it would be that they all wanted to be there. There were constant threats of these triage sites being closed down, but for 5 days there were no alternatives, and our efforts were needed. When FEMA showed up on 9/16, we had to go home.
BTW, there was a psychiatrist that came by one night proclaiming that we were no longer permitted to offer medical help, but psychiatric assistance was allowed. After making that announcementm, he left suddenly and showed up at 3 am with a large stack of papers detailing how to councel children suffering from stress in disaster areas. Obviously there were no children in that area, but I guess he was a pediatric psychiatrist and also wanted to help. Although his behavior seemed nuts, and this stack of xeroxed pamphlets largely represented a wasted effort, I would also proudly include him into that group of 9/11 heroes.
"Self esteem" means never having to deny the corpse a feeding.
"Self esteem" means never having to deny the corpse a feeding.
Katina
But, strangely, they just never seem to grow very much, but instead only multiply "progressively".
Thanks, ARH! I feel better now! 
And I can only applaud the past efforts of vinny and the other 9/11 heroes he mentions. (Great job, guys!) For a second there, I thought this was going to be another case where anybody who was a victim of that event was going to be called a "hero" (I guess this is done as some sort of "survivor's guilt" thing), and I was glad you didn't go that route.
I'm inclined to disagree about the psychiatrist being put into that category, though. His efforts were counterproductive, interfering with actual heroes doing their thing. He just sounds like a narcissistic jerk, to me. It all had to be about him, even though he had nothing to contribute, and like any typical Leftist, the idea of "ordinary" people doing extraordinary things (without some elitist running the show) was unacceptable to him, and he tried to put a stop to it.
This does not bode well. Democracies tend to pander, but as Jefferson said, while democracy may not be the wisest form of government, it is the safest. I suppose we can "safely" drive ourselves to perdition looking for scapegoats instead of solutions.
Very depressing, but at least now I understand why Hegel said that art, religion, and philosophy stand closer to the full explication of truth than do the operations of the state.
C'mon guys (and gals), admit it.
We all WANT a Hollywood fairytale ending on everything in a neat 45 min episode (or less), don't we?
Sorta like the nextel commercial with firefighters all voting for "Clean Water. We need clean water". We all raise our hands and say Aiyee. Then THE messiah comes along, waving his hands, and voila, we have clean water.
Miracles! Can't be any simpler.
AAAiiiyyyyeeee!
"A hero, on the other hand, is only heroic to the extent that he risks life and limb for something transcending himself. Since transcendence doesn’t exist for the secularist, the hero must therefore be an idiot or a manipulative liar"
I really don't agree with this. I don't think there is anything necessarily religious about heroism. While I am not sure how "transcendence" is being used in this context, I would tend to look at heroism as either giving up or risking something (including one's life) for moral or ethical reasons.
Count to 10,
"Trancendence" is simply a bullshit word having no real world content. Its intent is to smear those striving to achive objective values. It is a package deal which says if there is anything in it for you, such as achieving your values, its immoral. The bottom line is that its destructive of both values and valuing.
this is an interesting debate on defining hero. I think most would agree that Irena Sendler is a hero. Optimizer, I also had to think twice about calling that psychiatrist a hero. Initially I just wanted to call him a nut, but here are my reasons for describing him as a hero:
He showed up and tried to help. He was poorly prepared to help those working at that site. However, if one of these men was in contact with a child that was traumatized by this event and read that brochure, perhaps his efforts did some good. The triage site was at the American Express building. This was right next to the pile of debris and there were huge glass windows that were rumored to collapse at any moment. People did become injured there, and the danger he walked into twice was real.
> They don't want to change their behavior, they want a pill to make themselves feel better so they can keep on doing what they have always been doing no matter how destructive or irresponsible or counterproductive it is.
You put me in mind of a news special many, many years ago about a teacher and her classes who collected monies with the goal of buying the freedom of a few of the victims of the modern slave trade in Africa.
Now, Supply and Demand, those evil attorneys of natural law, kicked in their two cents... the purchases made by the teacher's funds -- gasp! -- represented increased demand.
Yes -- right: they did not "free" someone who was enslaved, they "freed" an additional someone who was enslaved solely so that the teacher and her students could "free" them.
This is what we call The Law of Unintended Consequences.
This fact was shown to the teacher, who agreed that it was, in fact, the result of her efforts.
Now, up to this point, you can just write it all off to the good intentions of the dunderheaded teacher -- who, like many, forgot the paving material on the proverbial Road To Hell.
The woman earned her own special spot in Hell, however. When subsequently asked, after the result was shown to her, whether she was going to stop doing it, she indicated she would not because it made the children feel good about themselves.
I will openly state: I would happily -- gleefully, even -- operate the trap door to send this self-centered, self-righteous *bitch* straight down to Hell.
>:-(
Just tell me which button to push.
.
BTW -- I don't have any problem with a hero enjoying the spotlight, as long as the act was not done for that purpose alone. I'm put in mind about the biblical proscriptions about fasting and looking like you're fasting (It's in Matthew 5,6,7). You're not fasting to be close to God, you're doing it for the immediate reward of people thinking you're so "devout".
I think the scripture in this case can similarly be applied here -- you're not a "hero", because you're not doing it for the benefit of others, selflessly. You're doing it for the reward of notoriety. That's more of a business transaction (which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it's not an expressly admirable quality -- everyone does things for that reason) Mainly, you yourself know what reason you have for "heroic" acts. You know if what you have done is heroic or not, even if no one else on Earth does.
One example that comes to mind is Lenny Skutnik. In 1982, an Air Florida jet failed takeoff from the DC airport and fell into the icy Potomac. Skutnik jumped into the freezing water to help survivors, while dozens of others stood by "helplessly".
He quietly faded from attention because he really, really did not want the limelight. He didn't jump into the freezing water because he wanted people to think well of him, he did it because those people needed help and he was there, able to provide it.
OBH,
Lenny Skutnik's actions also had unintended consequences--in a good way. His dive into the partially-frozen Potomac spurred the "professionals" who were already on the scene--and standing around with their thumbs up where the sun don't shine--into doing what they were trained to do (and what Lenny wasn't). Only, what, 5 or 6 people survived that plane crash, and Lenny didn't actually rescue any of them, but he got the rescuers moving. Sometimes, all it takes is a little inspiration.
OK, we've diagnosed the problem.
How do we sell people on the diagnosis and the cure?
ARH said:
Count to 10,
"Trancendence" is simply a bullshit word having no real world content. Its intent is to smear those striving to achive objective values. It is a package deal which says if there is anything in it for you, such as achieving your values, its immoral. The bottom line is that its destructive of both values and valuing.
Sir, are you so sure that your objectivity grinds "transcendence" in all the etymological meanings of the word (across scaling [as in climbing a ladder]) into a pile of manure? The "objective values" of which you speak, are they static entities standing _sub specie aeternitatis_ with no alteration as individuals humans, becoming more educated, fill out their understanding of concepts? If so, they themselves seem to be transcendent in so far as they rise above the world of change; but if this should be your conception, do they not suffer the defect of Spinoza's abstract monistic thinking, the confused exaltaton of substnce over subject? One could never describe how these eternals find application the the phenomenal world we all obverse in its mutability.
If, on the other hand, this objectivity is contained solely within the "right here" non transcendent world of contingency, what is it about this objectivity that abides and is therefore normative?
This is not to say that objective value, values "out there" that are conceived as noumena to the phenomena of consciousness, do not exist, but I suspect that your ontology cannot discern how they become manifest in the world of change or how such lofty objectivities, absent the notion of transcendence, can mean anything to living humans.
If we cannot say that something valuable does not abide, does not transcend the vicissitudes of contingency, how can we talk coherently about evaluation at all?
But perhaps you have a more specific notion in mind that you match with the concept of transcendence, and this is what stimulates your animus. No?
Perhaps if we curb our indignation regarding "package deals," we might find that ontology is richly laden with concepts that repay a more charitable regard for their complexities.
In any event, calling a notion "bullshit" is not a rational critique. Rather the usage signals that its advocate has substituted emotion for cognition.
Regards,
4 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan.com
