About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Thursday, April 10 - 11:13amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
This is a classic tale of human heroism. It seems straight out of a Traditional Morality "uplifting" children's book. But I have a few doubts about it. The fact that "Bush's lip trembled and tears streamed down his cheeks," as the nation's highest military award was presented to the fallen man's parents, makes me especially suspicious.

Firstly, true heroes and great men are those who are loyal to themself and their own life, happiness, values, and convictions. Those who face steep challenges in their personal life and then triumph against long odds are the real heroes -- not so much those who self-sacrifice themselves for others. Especially not if they do so in a foolish, vain, and depraved cause -- such as dieing to support the current Iraqi dictatorship.

And why didn't this Navy SEAL yell "Grenade!" at the top of his lungs and then dive out of the way? Perhaps he could have grabbed people, pointed wildly, and/or dragged some of the others away with him. He also might have tried to carefully kick the grenade away -- an act of possibly equal or superior celerity and effectiveness. He also might have ripped off his helmet in a flash, placed it on top of the grenade, and then held it down forcefully with his (soon to be lost) foot. This also might have been faster and more effective. Certainly I think alternative behaviors of this kind constitute a higher and better moral standard than the dreadful, proverbial "throw your body on top of it" standard. 

This whole story is also too vague, with too few details and too many holes in it for me. And it's such an altruistic cliche. I wouldn't be surprised if later on it turns out to be a fraud. I'd love for somebody to interview the people saved, several years down the road, to find out what really happened. I truly doubt we have the full story here.

Individuals who are loyal to their own vision and ideals at great cost and with great success are the real heroes in life. Less so him. This story could easily have been planted by evil people to advance a false notion of heroism, as well as today's dominant, false, evil, self-destroying moral code.




Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Thursday, April 10 - 11:42amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Well, he didn't have time to think--or thought he didn't. He acted by first impulse. I am not normally physically brave, but I could imagine myself doing the same. You act on your deepest values in such moments. And this is not self-sacrifice.



Post 2

Thursday, April 10 - 5:39pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
I slightly knew somebody in high school who did this in Vietnam in 1967. Jedh Barker, Marine, CMH.

--Brant




Post 3

Thursday, April 10 - 9:01pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
"Firstly, true heroes and great men are those who are loyal to themself and their own life, happiness, values, and convictions. Those who face steep challenges in their personal life and then triumph against long odds are the real heroes -- not so much those who self-sacrifice themselves for others."

Well, you're preaching to the choir here. But it's a good opportunity to review why. Rand's own usage of the term, though never specifically defined in her works, goes counter to the etymology of hero. Landon Erp and I are looking at this issue as it pertains to superheroes in a yet-to-be-titled graphic novel. Updates on its progress can be seen here. It's our form of "activism" on this matter. :)

Rand had heroes like Roark, who fit Kyrel's profile, but they didn't consider themselves heroes. Somewhere, Rand wrote that it was alien for Roark to even think of serving himself. You have characters like Dagny looking at Galt with "hero-worship." But Rand inverted this, because Galt was not Dagny's protector, not directly; he was working to "destroy her!". It's probably best summarize by the character who says "thank you" because he doesn't have to.

For those who want to explore the etymology further:

hero
1387, "man of superhuman strength or courage," from L. heros "hero," from Gk. heros "demi-god" (a variant singular of which was heroe), originally "defender, protector," from PIE base *ser- "to watch over, protect" (cf. L. servare "to save, deliver, preserve, protect"). Sense of "chief male character in a play, story, etc." first recorded 1697. Fem. form heroine first attested 1659, from L. heroina, from Gk. heroine. First record of hero-worship is from 1774.

From wiki: "A hero (from Greek ἥρως hērōs), in Greek mythology and folklore, was originally a demigod, the offspring of a mortal and a deity,[1] their cult being one of the most distinctive features of ancient Greek religion.
Later, hero (male) and heroine (female) came to refer to characters that, in the face of danger and adversity or from a position of weakness, display courage and the will for self-sacrifice, that is, heroism, for some greater good, originally of martial courage or excellence but extended to more general moral excellence."

The literal meaning of the word is "protector", "defender" or "guardian"[citation needed] and etymologically it is thought to be cognate with the name of the goddess Hera, the guardian of marriage; the postulated original forms of these words being *ἥρFως, hērwōs, and *ἭρFα, Hērwā, respectively. It is also thought to be a cognate of the Latin verb servo (original meaning: to preserve whole) and of the Avestan verb haurvaiti (to keep vigil over), although the original Proto-Indoeuropean root is unclear."

(Edited by Joe Maurone on 4/10, 9:17pm)




Post 4

Friday, April 11 - 5:59amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
That would seem to back up claims of the earliest civilixations as being matriarchal, since the first form is feminine, from Hera....



Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Post 5

Saturday, April 12 - 2:35pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit

Already Dead

If you are close enough to throw yourself on a [triggered] grenade, you are already dead. The point of throwing yourself on it is to muffle the blast and perhaps thereby save the lives of your comrades, whom you presumably value.

Soldiers don't go around looking for grenades to throw themselves upon. That's more along the line of certain jihadists, and they use their own grenades.

Leave it to certain characters here to confuse the heroic last act of a doomed man with altruism. Speaking of already dead...

(Edited by Ted Keer on 4/12, 4:15pm)




Post to this thread
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.