Out of all those great individuals that you have referred to here, the most sensible choice for me would probably be Albert Camus. Unlike all the others, his revolutionary stance was not one of extremism - in fact this 'moderatism' that he advocated with his Absurd philosophy seems like the safest gamble because it most aptly acknolwedges the continuity of history as a driving force for change. He is also a very good historian for the simple reason that when your read his historical analysis and essays, he is fairly balanced, never plunging into unjustly excoriating contrary views but always striving to be on the side of humanity, whilst still avoiding the brand of communism.
There is this intrinsic sincerity which most attracts me to his persona as well as thoughts, perhaps best evinced in his Nobel Literature Prize speech which illustrates well his personal integrity and showed him not to be just another ressentiment-loving egocentrist, seeking glory. And yet, he still managed to be just as inspiring as anybody.
"In contrast, the romantic heroes are the ones who bridge the gaps between disciplines and arts, acts and intentions: they think to live, not to achieve tenure."
Camus is arguably a sure representative of the type of romantic hero that you describe above.
I will, as always, fall back on my love of strange philosophy. I think our absence of heroes is due to a cultural drift toward narcissism. No one wants a role model like those you mentioned because they are alien figures to most. Politics, philosophy, grand adventures, those are now the stuff of fictional characters. (Yes, I'm pushing this Protagonist archetype of mine as far as I can.)
No one looks up to real human beings anymore, simply because the average man believes that he is the hero. No matter what one does, there is still that unspoken belief that you are the hero of your own tale, and that any minute now bittersweet music will sound as you walk off into the sunset.
At the risk of sounding like a bitter, cantankerous old man, I say that this lack of heroes is due to ignorance brought about by consumerism. With the aid of social networking sites, everyone is the center of the universe. Log on to one and you are immediately told how everyone else is doing, but only in relation to you. Why look to world-traveling literary heroes and revolutionary leaders when you yourself are already the shining, flawless hero?
Camus is indeed my favourite, the least flawed of the characters I listed. He is certainly the greatest writer and thinker among them too. Possibly the last great intellectual who was more than just an intellectual. And of all the people listed, he indeed was the only one who didn't fall prey to extremism. But I think the time period is important too. It was possible to sincerely believe in the positive revolutionary potential of communism (Mayakovsky) or Italian fascism (D'Annunzio) before the 1930s/40s. Post-Stalinists like Sartre however, had no excuse.
I think that people still look to heroes nowadays, they just look for heroes who reaffirm their own narcissism. From MTV to reality TV, the "heroes" are those whose only mission is to achieve fame (or for hip-hop, notoriety) for the purpose of fame. Their fans aspire to be as famous or notorious at least in their small-scale social settings, hence boys dressing like 50 Cent and girls dressing like socialite-prostitutes. The difference is the heroes of old had values, or at least aspired to values beyond themselves. Or they gave their audience enough credit to at least pretend!
Commenting by HaloScan
