Philosophy Now Forum

Alexiev wrote: ↑Sat May 17, 2025 6:50 pm Achilles was selfish, willful, and petty. So was Herakles. Nonetheless, the Greeks considered them "heroes", based on their strength and courage. Having one immortal parent seems to help.

Because "hero" is a positive term, some people (i.e. those posting in this thread) want to alter the meaning to make "heroes" more admirable. But are heroes admirable in every way? Or are they bold, courageous, and honorable -- but, like Achilles, not always self-sacrificing. Are we really go0ing to change the meaning of "hero" to exclude Achilles?

LuckyR wrote: ↑Sat May 17, 2025 9:34 pm

Alexiev wrote: ↑Sat May 17, 2025 6:50 pm Achilles was selfish, willful, and petty. So was Herakles. Nonetheless, the Greeks considered them "heroes", based on their strength and courage. Having one immortal parent seems to help.

Because "hero" is a positive term, some people (i.e. those posting in this thread) want to alter the meaning to make "heroes" more admirable. But are heroes admirable in every way? Or are they bold, courageous, and honorable -- but, like Achilles, not always self-sacrificing. Are we really go0ing to change the meaning of "hero" to exclude Achilles?

An excellent example of the difference between a textbook definition (which may not actually be in much use) and a functional definition, which is actually in widespread use.

BTW having an ancient definition change over time is expected, not a "regrettable" exception.

“But now really, do not you think Udolpho the nicest book in the world?”

“The nicest — by which I suppose you mean the neatest. That must depend upon the binding.”

“Henry,” said Miss Tilney, “you are very impertinent. Miss Morland, he is treating you exactly as he does his sister. He is forever finding fault with me, for some incorrectness of language, and now he is taking the same liberty with you. The word ‘nicest,’ as you used it, did not suit him; and you had better change it as soon as you can, or we shall be overpowered with Johnson and Blair all the rest of the way.”

“I am sure,” cried Catherine, “I did not mean to say anything wrong; but it is a nice book, and why should not I call it so?”

“Very true,” said Henry, “and this is a very nice day, and we are taking a very nice walk, and you are two very nice young ladies. Oh! It is a very nice word indeed! It does for everything. Originally perhaps it was applied only to express neatness, propriety, delicacy, or refinement — people were nice in their dress, in their sentiments, or their choice. But now every commendation on every subject is comprised in that one word.”

“While, in fact,” cried his sister, “it ought only to be applied to you, without any commendation at all. You are more nice than wise. Come, Miss Morland, let us leave him to meditate over our faults in the utmost propriety of diction, while we praise Udolpho in whatever terms we like best. It is a most interesting work. You are fond of that kind of reading?

Alexiev wrote: ↑Sat May 17, 2025 10:18 pm

LuckyR wrote: ↑Sat May 17, 2025 9:34 pm

Alexiev wrote: ↑Sat May 17, 2025 6:50 pm Achilles was selfish, willful, and petty. So was Herakles. Nonetheless, the Greeks considered them "heroes", based on their strength and courage. Having one immortal parent seems to help.

Because "hero" is a positive term, some people (i.e. those posting in this thread) want to alter the meaning to make "heroes" more admirable. But are heroes admirable in every way? Or are they bold, courageous, and honorable -- but, like Achilles, not always self-sacrificing. Are we really go0ing to change the meaning of "hero" to exclude Achilles?

An excellent example of the difference between a textbook definition (which may not actually be in much use) and a functional definition, which is actually in widespread use.

BTW having an ancient definition change over time is expected, not a "regrettable" exception.

Of course definitions change. And I agree that many people use the word "hero" to suggest moral rectitude as well as bravery and strength. However, words -- especially emotionally laden words -- sometimes morph into laudatory generalities that leave us seeking a word to use for the meaning that has been lost. Besides, in modern usage "hero" does NOT apply only to self-sacrificing folks. "Football hero"; "hero of a novel", etc., etc. demonstrate that the word is more general than those posting here suggest -- they (and you) are not describing the general usage but prescribing their own morally preferred usage.

The battle over "nice" has long been lost -- but apparently was current in Jane Austen's time. Here Henry Tilney lectures his beloved Catherine Morland on the change. Catherine is speaking first:

“But now really, do not you think Udolpho the nicest book in the world?”

“The nicest — by which I suppose you mean the neatest. That must depend upon the binding.”

“Henry,” said Miss Tilney, “you are very impertinent. Miss Morland, he is treating you exactly as he does his sister. He is forever finding fault with me, for some incorrectness of language, and now he is taking the same liberty with you. The word ‘nicest,’ as you used it, did not suit him; and you had better change it as soon as you can, or we shall be overpowered with Johnson and Blair all the rest of the way.”

“I am sure,” cried Catherine, “I did not mean to say anything wrong; but it is a nice book, and why should not I call it so?”

“Very true,” said Henry, “and this is a very nice day, and we are taking a very nice walk, and you are two very nice young ladies. Oh! It is a very nice word indeed! It does for everything. Originally perhaps it was applied only to express neatness, propriety, delicacy, or refinement — people were nice in their dress, in their sentiments, or their choice. But now every commendation on every subject is comprised in that one word.”

“While, in fact,” cried his sister, “it ought only to be applied to you, without any commendation at all. You are more nice than wise. Come, Miss Morland, let us leave him to meditate over our faults in the utmost propriety of diction, while we praise Udolpho in whatever terms we like best. It is a most interesting work. You are fond of that kind of reading?

”

Nice writing, Miss Austen!

FrankGSterleJr wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2024 5:09 am The New Oxford Dictionary of English defines “hero” as, “a person, typically a man, who is admired or idealized for their courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities: a war hero.”

Of course such a definition fits like a snug glove on the concept of a war soldier diving onto a live grenade to spare fellow soldiers in close proximity serious injury or a bloody death; world wars instantly come to mind, especially when Remembrance Day comes around.

To me, however, more contemporary concepts of heroism and heroic acts are also warranted.

‘Heroism’ consists of a selfless act, which one is afraid to carry out or simply does not feel like carrying out, but one does so nonetheless. However, nowadays, ‘heroism’ is loosely assigned, such as if one helps an elderly and infirm or disabled person cross a busy street, the kind act can be branded as something special, noble or perhaps even ‘heroic’.

A true ‘hero’ would, for example, be a UN technician who seeks out concealed or buried explosive devices in foreign territory and defuses or safely detonates them, regardless of the danger involved. He could be afraid of inadvertently triggering off an explosive device and killing himself, yet he does it anyways, to perhaps spare some child’s life or limb.

A good example on film is the 2010 Oscar-winning action/drama The Hurt Locker, which is an excellent expose of true bravery and heroism by U.S. soldiers who seek out incendiary explosive devices (perhaps minus the odd plain adrenalin junkie IED disarmer, like the “let’s-rock-and-roll” character played by actor Jeremy Renner) in populated areas and defuse them to hopefully save the lives of almost-always Iraqi or Afghani civilians.

In an alternative form of motive for heroism, the 1992 movie The Accidental Hero (a.k.a. Hero) has Geena Davis play the ambitious award-winning TV reporter Gale Gayley who’s also a hurt passenger on a burning crash-landed DC-10 jetliner about to explode. She and other injured passengers get individually rescued by the film’s imposed-upon unintentional hero, Bernie Laplante, a pickpocketing petty criminal well-played by Dustin Hoffman.

However, this hero entered the burning plane in order to steal some of the passengers’ purses and wallets but then realized to his great displeasure that wounded people also required being carted off of the flaming wreckage.

Bernie then gets a ride into town by the nomadic John Bubber (played by Andy Garcia), who easily learns from him enough facts about the incident to later fraudulently take credit for the act and the million bucks.

Before learning that by coming forward he can make an easy million dollars (offered to the real but still anonymous hero by the popular television station for which Gale reports), Bernie, the lone soul in the immediate vicinity at the time, is totally uninterested in stepping into the spotlight to take credit for his heroic act, as he’d been arrested for selling credit cards he’d stole from people he’d rescued.

Even the blatant fraud Bubber has an idea what a true hero means: “Sometimes you don’t know how brave you are; and sometimes you don’t know you can do something until you ... until you surprise yourself and do it.”