Tuesday, January 20, 2015
My second hw post on heroism, heroes are identified by action
Star Wars is an action film. Superheroes and other fictional examples of heroes are predominantly characterized by physically apparent activity, such as lightsaber battles, rescue missions, noble sacrifice, standing up for beliefs, etc. The focus on combat in Star Wars feels like a saturation of the idea that action is intrinsic to heroism. Not everyone who has a strong moral compass is considered a hero, and a thought with heroic intentions is effectively irrelevant without follow through. Rather, the integrity of the moral compass must persevere or grow through a challenging situation that forces it to manifest in a hero's response. This leads to a question: is a hero is defined more internally or externally-- by their personal sense of right, or by what wrong they come up against? The two undeniably influence each other, but I find that recognition of a hero seems to necessitate the latter in order to reveal the first. What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that having strong morals and a strong sense of right is really important and something that is necessary to be considered a hero, but one can't be considered a hero while keeping those things internalized. One doesn't need to do anything drastic or something that would necessarily be in an action film, but it's how a hero's actions reflect their strong morals that separates them from a normal person who knows right from wrong.
ReplyDeleteInteresting idea. I agree with Emily that heroes should have a strong moral compass and a clear sense of right and wrong. As we see in many examples of different heroes, this sense of right and wrong often gets disrupted and the hero later has to redeem themselves for this, but most of the heroes we see in modern stories tend to have a good moral compass to guide them through their endeavors.
ReplyDeleteGood points throughout Talia. I definitely feel this is most apparent throughout my childhood where, growing up around all of these superhero films, I believed that being a hero meant you had to do courageous things or have superhuman strength. However, only as I got older did I begin to realize that the everyday people around me, or my family members could be considered heroes as well and that it is not necessarily what a person accomplishes through their strength or witt, which defines them as a hero, rather, what values they hold and how they defend those values which they hold so true to themselves.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that a person needs a strong sense of right and wrong, I also believe that what turns a person with a strong moral compass into a hero is standing up for what they believe in even when it may not be easy or the popular thing to do. An example of this would be Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. While many people at the time held values similar to his, we view him as a hero today due to the fact that he stood up for what he believed in even though it endangered not only his life but the lives of those around him. This was not easy for him to do, but he sacrificed and did it anyway. The action he took to defend his beliefs coupled with his mental fortitude and self sacrifice is why we view him as a hero today.
ReplyDeleteYou make some good points Talia. I believe a hero is defined more internally. No doubt the external enviroment has an affect on who and how the hero reacts, but I think its the heroes internal sense of right and wrong, good and bad, good vs. evil, or whatever it is. They are defined by their morals internally. A good example of this is someone like a firefighter, who puts himself in danger to ensure the safety of common people.
ReplyDeleteEveryone in this class probably has some experience in this topic after writing our essays. This question goes back to the question as to whether heroes or born or made. With fictional superheroes such as Luke and Batman, it is easy to create a tragic story in creating a hero, but in the real world, are heroes born or created?
ReplyDelete