Do heroes exist? (if you spam, please, spam after posting something about it.)

[Luis Antonio]

I've been thinking.

Well, are there heroes today? Who are our heroes?

I mean, ok. We live in a corrupt world where monetary power supresses ethics and morals for, say, 95% of the society, and where almost anything can be bought, from crime freedom to a pack of condoms for safe sex. And as I can see, there are no more heroes.

Ok, you have the fireman who saves the child from the flames. But its his job. He's paid for that.

There's also the policeman who saves the day by finding kidnapped/robbed/stabbed people. Again, he's paid for that.

There's also the doctors. Same.

Also, there are the volunteers, but now it seems to me more something that people do for the Curriculum than to feel well. Young people at my age in Brazil are no longer volunteering to help except if there's something that will help in the curriculum vitae. Its some kind of payment, I feel. I mean, c'mon, you're not hero if you demand payment. You are a hero if you do that from the goodness of your heart and from your exclusive personal powers. Well, that's how I think about it. Volunteering is cool, is a 'demi hero' thing.

Well, many questions in this thread. Anyway, what is a hero for you? Is any of those people I've mentioned a hero for you? Who's your personal hero? Your rolemodel? And, is volunteer work a form of heroism?

Again, please, if you spam, spam inside the limits of the thread, and that'll be spam after you've added something in topic on the same post.

[Bloodstalker]

I don't buy the statement that 95% of the world is corrputed ethically or morally. To me, it's a case of you never hear of anything on the news unless it's sensationalist of a bad event. You'll always hear about the guys who blew up a building, killed several people, raped someone, stole millions etc because those stories are what's considere news. You never hear about the people who work full time jobs and still find the time to volunteer time at homeless shelters, youth programs, coaches little league, or any other type of these activities. Most of these people get no pay or credit for these actions, they simply do them.

As far as getting paid for a job, I don't think that disqualifies someone from anything. You have to earn a living, and anyone who is involved in the law enforecement field I can tell you is not doing it for the money. They just don't make that much as compared to other fields. Just because someone gets paid to do a job doesn't mean that the pay is the primary concern for choosing that vocation.Many of these people make a conscience decision to take on a job that is inherently dangerous, underpaid, and for the most part not looked upon favorably by the community they are serving. It's a requirement to live that you have some source of income, and at any rate, people can't just go around in the vigilante style of doing things because it's illegal.

I've known people who have prevented rape attempts, people who volunteer with local groups to leave the US on a yearly basis for a couple months at a time to travel to underdeveloped countries and do community improvement work. These people go into areas with very bad living conditions and live with the local people while they are there, so comfort is not something that's involved. I've known people who told me they lived in attic space that barely had a roof and had to deal with bats, rats, and the weather conditions since the attic did not sufficiently provide shelter from the elements. Many of these p[eople have gone multiple times, and recieve no compensation for the effort either monitarily or as college credit. They just do it.

To me, the term hero has nothing to do with whether or not they recieve pay for their job. All of the people who fought in WW2, which many in the US look back on as a very heroic thing, recieved pay for their time in the military. The politicians at that time were all paid. Sure, many of them entered into service as a direct result of Pearl Harbor, but it's not any different than someone who decided to become a police officer because he sees things wrong in his community that he wants to have a role in trying to change. The pay is not the deciding factor, but without the pay, it's not possible for someone to spend that much time doing something that they genuinly feel is a public service to better the world they live in.

For me, a hero is simply a person who's put into a bad situation and does the right thing. For the most part, the most beloved figures of history are simply a product of the times that they lived in. People who have a trying situation thrust upon them, whether it be on a national scale like Lincoln and the American Civil War, or a local scale such as someone who comes upon a lost child and takes the time to help, and simply does the best they can with the situation and resolves the problem.

oh, and my role model is me

[Magrus]

Well, because of my health conditions, I have an extremely hard time doing a lot of things, including work, for more than an hour or two at a time. I don't work, because of the pain it involves of doing just about anything that is considered "work" that is available.

Because of that, I'm stuck on government aid, and have a ton of free time on my hands. Personally, it's my view the government allowed people to make the mistakes which were made to put me in this spot, so every penny the get is a small consolation to that and rightfully mine. That's beyond the point though. The point is, I have a lot of time to do what I can on my own.

Ever since I can remember though, I've been that person who helps everyone with their problems. I'm the person in my "group" everyone comes to for advice, a loan, help with problems, whatever. I'm essentially the group unlicensed therapist thats on-call 24/7, the body guard, and substitute father/older brother. To many of them, I'm the closest thing to a hero they believe in. I've been the one they run to when there's a problem and they say "fix it" and I do my best to do just that. I've saved some lives, 2 more than once, and to those people, I'm like their own personal guardian angel.

As much as such comments from the people I help feed my ego and make me feel good and what not, I don't all that much like it. I expect anyone else to do that same kinds of things. It gets on my nerves that more people don't. Like I've mentioned in other threads, I've no hesitation to jump into a dangerous situation and risk my personal safety in order to help someone in trouble. I don't consider myself a "hero" or anyone's "guardian angel". If it makes them feel warm and fuzzy, I'm not going to tell them to be quiet and think differently though.

It's the same as faith, people need something to believe in that is above and beyond what is the "normal", day-to-day activities they endure. Something that makes them feel safe.

As far as my hero? Truly? I don't have one. I did consider Bobcat Goldthwait my hero when I was younger though. Make of that what you will. I realized at a young age that no one was willing to help me take care of myself when things got to be truly dangerous. I decided to do what it took to see I was safe, on my own.

If we go into people I truly admire for who they are, I'd have to say my younger brother. Frankly, if it wasn't for him when I was groing up, I believe I'd be dead by now, and vice versa. For a majority of the first 12 years of my life, he was all I had to see to it no one shot me or beat me into the ground and the same in reverse. He's risked his own personal safety for me on numerous occasions and I'm simply eternally grateful for that. I can honestly say, there's at least one or two situations if he had not have gotten involved in what was going on I would have died as a child.

I suppose that would be my "hero" though, wouldn't it? Someone who sacrifices themself for the good of another, and isn't afraid to be themself, no matter what happens. One who isn't afraid to do what they need to do and take responsibility for their actions as well.

[QUOTE=Luis Antonio]I mean, ok. We live in a corrupt world where monetary power supresses ethics and morals for, say, 95% of the society, and where almost anything can be bought, from crime freedom to a pack of condoms for safe sex. And as I can see, there are no more heroes.[/QUOTE]

My personal views on society and the human race aren't something I should probably bring up. They've gotten me into trouble before. However, the reality of the situation is, money is "god" on this planet to this species. You truly can buy just about anything, or anyone. Sad isn't it?

[Hill-Shatar]

Ok, you said that people who get paid shouldnt be considered as heroes, but I tend to disagree on some parts. There are any people who do wonderful and fulfilling jobs for almost no money at all. I have a friend whos been working in Cancer Research for over 25 years now. Another for over 30. They make less than the garbage men who come to pick up diapers once a week. They paid and went to university and entered the field, and they knew that they would be recieving only enough compensation to pay for water, electricty, food and meager shelter if you had a family...(we lived off my mothers income for 10 years.... not fun), but the fact that they continued on through the nedless hours of toil and endless piles of work to further the human race really inspires people.

Fireman save people everyday. That does NOT make them heroes. Many times people the firemen save go on to start a fire elsewhere, or get themelves or other illed very quickly. The fact that they pulled a child from a building about to collapse is not heroic. If they firmen didnt stop people from going in, they would most likely go in and save a person themselves. Every single person has the abiltity to be heroic, at any time, if they have a chance to be. If I saw someone who was about to be run over, yes, I would run out onto the street and tackle them. It is not a fact that I am heroic, it is the fact that I was there at the right time. I see my cousin drowning, I am the only one around the pool, I run over and pull him out, because I was there. If anyone else had been there they would have done the same thing.

Heroism is something that is too easily attained these days, through acts of saving people who purposly get themselves in trouble or are victims to the whims of others. The idea that one person can be a hero is not right, no matter how you look at it. I save a a person from a burning building, I do not expect to be rewarded, but to accept the fact that I was able to find a solution to the situation and was willing to take the risks faster than the other bystanders.

If there was a hero, mine would be any person who is continuing the advancement of the human race, and our understanding of the universe around us. we would not be gere talking about this now if someone hadnt created the internet for scientific purposes. No one would be saved from a burning highrise if the firetruck had not been invented to get the invented extendable ladder here in time, or a helecopter. We would not be here if many people from many countries had not died in wars in the far past, and the not to distance past, like WWII. I would not be here now if the Americans had been able to take the vastly overwhelmed bristsh city of York, and instead burned it to the ground and left. Our heroes are the ones who made it possible for us to be here, to exist, at this moment, right now. Without them, then there would be not pissibility for a hero, by any description or definition, to exist.

[Chimaera182]

On my MySpace account, where they asked me if I had any heroes, I said, "Once I learned that heroes weren't as selfless as we make them out to be, I found it impossible to ever raise one up to that pedastal." And it's as true today as it was when I made my profile... two months ago.

You're spot on about those people who we generally like to think of as heroes, because it is their job and they do get something out of it. And people who volunteer to help do it for their own self-aggrandizement. Once I came to that conclusion, I realized that there was no such thing as the romanticized version of hero that we all looked up to like we might when we were kids. In fact, over the last several years, as my cynical streak deepend, I began examining all kinds of people and divining selfish motives for everything. Maybe to you it's wrong to think of people this way, but I can no longer feel any person does any thing without thinking--even subconsciously--about themselves first. Some people do something and expect a reward to be given, whereas some people do something because they feel as though they have to. But in the latter case, if the people who feel like they have to do something don't, then they'll feel bad that they didn't try. In that instance, the fear of feeling guilty for not helping someone out is now selfish motivation. The desire to look good in the eyes of others is another selfish motivation; companies may donate to charities simply because it's good public relations, and that's good for business. Some people think that doing good deeds in this life may guarantee their chances of making it into Heaven when they die. When you think of it like that, who, exactly can possibly fill the shoes of the romanticized version of heroes? No one. Beowulf: a man of super-human strength who travelled to Hrothgar's kingdom (I think it was Hrothgar, it's been a few months since I read this one) and saved the kingdom from Grendel and then his mother. He did it for fame? Maybe. He did it for reward? Possibly. He did it for honor? Almost certainly. Now, think of this: in those times, it was custom for someone who has had a relative killed for that someone to kill the murderer. Enter Grendel's mother: the begrieved monster attacks Hrothgar's kingdom and takes her just revenge, but only on one soldier is killed in her attack. She flees, and Beowulf tracks her down and kills her. Since she was justified by their own code of honor, it was completely unheroic of Beowulf to kill her, yet he does anyway.

So to answer your questions, I have to say this:

Anyway, what is a hero for you? Hero is a romanticized concept, no such person exists in real life, nor has there probably ever been one; people make heroes, heroes are not just made (someone else will mention 9/11, but I wanted to but could not justify attacking the heroes that catastrophe generated without coming off like a schmuck or someone of bad taste).
Is any of those people I've mentioned a hero for you? No.
Who's your personal hero? Your role model? Like I said, I don't believe in the concept, so I can't really have a hero. Role model, though, and probably my closest version of hero, would be Grand Admiral Thrawn (a science fiction character from Star Wars books). I always admired him as a supreme genius, and he was the kind of evil that wasn't cliché ("I'm going to destroy the world at midnight tonight! Muwhahaha!" the laugh is necessary since it's also cliché evil). He wanted to unite the galaxy, which was a worthy goal.
Is volunteer work a form of heroism? No. For reasons I've already went over.

[ik911]

Why is it a hero has to be someone who doesn't get a reward what so ever?

The way Chimaera182 describes it, no-one can ever be called a hero, because having the title 'hero' is a great honour and therefor a reward for one's efforts.

Heroes are all about doing the right thing. I think all heroes live in a place called 'Utopia'. They are some sort of (preferably unreachable) goal we all want to achieve. Heroes and Utopia are there for inspiration. That's why I think any inspiring person can be a hero. Saving people for no reward (like Superman or Magrus ) can be inspiring or taking the right decisions at the right time with great insight (like King Arthur or Salomon) or being the greatest on the battlefield (Achilles or Vassili Zaitsev, a Soviet Sniper in WWII) or being the wisest (Merlin or Jesus).

Most heroes have never existed or their stories are exaggerated a whole lot. I think the best answer to the question 'do heroes exist?' should be: Yes, but not in your back yard.

As for modern day heroes, I'd say Ghandi is one of them. I'll probably never be like him, yet the peace and wisdom he seems to embody inspires me.

If you see no more heroes, then you're either not looking good enough or you don't need a hero-character to inspire you.

[Magrus]

Saving people for no reward (like Superman or Magrus ) can be inspiring or taking the right decisions at the right time with great insight (like King Arthur or Salomon) or being the greatest on the battlefield (Achilles or Vassili Zaitsev, a Soviet Sniper in WWII) or being the wisest (Merlin or Jesus).

Ha, my brother and his friends have nick-named me "Jesus" too.

I don't like the "hero" concept. Put simply, I went through horrible things in my life, and I do my best to see other people don't have to go through similar things alone. I'm not trying to be a hero, I just enjoy helping others. I simply consider that to be a "good person". I don't do so for any reward, or religious beliefs, it's my own person way of thinking. I've yet to understand with others don't feel that way to be honset.

[Fiona]

This thread seems a little confused to me. We seem to be talking about different things when we use the word hero, and some of the posts really relate to the possibility of altruism. Archetypal or literary heroes don't often show altruistic traits (eg Achilles; Beowolf) and historical people who have been so described don't either (eg Nelson). The concept is not fixed, but each of these examples rests on personal courage and fighting ability. None of them was acting for the greater good or for the benefit of others,imo, and that is not an essential part of heroism. Selfishness might be, though.

@Chimaera182. You make a sustained attack on the possibility of altruism, which I think is a different topic, though it was included in Luis Antonio's original post. I cannot agree with your conclusions. It is easier to see the existence of altruism in small things. You must have had the experience of doing something very annoying and inconvenient just because it was the right thing to do. For example picking up a drunk stranger on the street and wasting ages trying to find out where they live and arranging to get them there. There is no warm glow attached to such actions, they are just a nuisance; but they have to be done. I don't see the pay off and I do not believe there is one. People are altruistic at least as often as they are selfish. I think.


@IK911. You seem to be talking about role models, which is yet another topic, I think. It is true that one might be inspired by a traditional hero such as Achilles, and be moved to emulate him. It is also true that one could choose a very different type of character, and you mentioned Ghandi. There are many very admirable traits or takes on life and any one might influence a person's life and outlook. Since they have little in common I do not think these are all heroes in any meaningful sense and that is why I believe this is a separate topic. A role model need not be famous, and that is surely one necessary ingredient for heroism as traditionally conceived.

HG Wells said that grown men don't need leaders. I don't think they need heroes either. There are very few female heroes, and I think that also tells us something about the subject

[Luis Antonio]

@Fiona, that's what I want to hear, a wide open discussion about what a hero is, what a hero should be, and what I think heroes should be. I still hadnt the time to read every one's opinion carefully, but I'll do it tonight.

Why is it a hero has to be someone who doesn't get a reward what so ever?

There's always the clichê: The shiny armour knight who gets the lady. The fireman who wins a medal. The dog who will be far better fed because he saved his owner. That's what I mean. Also, in my opinion, being paid to do it does not allowyou to be a hero - you are an outstanding worker, but not a hero.

[Chimaera182]

Well, to be fair, someone mentioned this but people like policemen and firemen don't exactly get the best pay in the world. But my reasoning on the subject still stands. Perhaps the fireperson wants to pull off some heroic deed and people will respect them. Perhaps the police officer hopes to make some money on the side doing some side deals with criminals.

Altruism and self-sacrifice, the ability to perform truly self-less acts, make up the "hero" we're looking for, which is why I seem to be attacking altruism.

[Magrus]

[QUOTE=Chimaera182]Perhaps the police officer hopes to make some money on the side doing some side deals with criminals.[/QUOTE]

Oh no, that never happens. That'd be the ruination of the justice system.

A friends father sells cars, and he dealt with the sheriff of the county seat around here. Man walked in and bought a $100,000 car, cash. I wonder where he got all of that money from on a police officer's salary, hmm? That town and two of those around it are loaded with crack-heads, coke-heads, pot-heads, dealers and thieves. You get fined for spitting in town, but apparently it's ok to smoke rock on the corner.

[CM]

Hero? The average solider. Of course that is my personal opinion. A man who is ready to put his or her life on the line for their country earns a special level of respect in my eyes. I am not talking about the army reserve or the guys that join up for a year or two and then get paid. Serve their time and go off to college as seems to be a system in the US (yes i just saw a US army commercial on TV). I am refering to the man that joins the armed forces, any nation for the simple reason he is ready to put down his life for what he believes in. There are very few people who will be willing to set down their lives for what they believe in and protecting their nationals and citiziens. Though this can be turned its head. Because the true facists or nazis in the second world war joined the army to defend what they believed in. Well i guess they joined to enforce what they believed in.

Oddly enough A Few Good Men is about to start on TV. I haven't seen it myself but i bet it covers something along these lines. The idea of a Hero is not someone who fulfills the stereotypical idea of the one like Neo. To use comics to illustrate my point Spawn is a hero. Batman could be a hero if he wasn't so uber. A hero in my opinion is someone who gives up all he has or wants to do something for others. The last to leave Galipoli in Turkey during World War 1 are heros in my eyes. They stood back to help the entire ANZAC division retreat while they returned fire under extremely dangerous situations.

Volunteers are not heros. To attain the title of a hero it requires selflessness. A fireman is a paid position you can choose. So is a police man. So is being in the army. But their is a finite difference. Your average solider joins up for the pay but also out of a sense of duty, honor and the desire to protect. A hero is stereotypically defined as a man or woman with the words.

Duty
Honor
Respected
Moral
Good
Lawful
Just
Selfless

You get the idea? They have all the qualities that stand them apart from the average person. Saving a person from a from a car accident is a heroic deed but that doesn't make you a hero. Putting yourself in the line of fire day after day and with the idea that to protect your family and nation not to mention the man or woman next you will have to willingly give up your life. Now that is heroic. That is something very few are willing to do.

[Siberys]

In all honesty, I believe a hero is not someone that was provoked to do something in anyway shape or form and what I mean by this, is they weren't bribed, tempted, or paid to do something lest it truly be from there inner being. Let's take the Anti Tobacco people (as there are plenty); some of them, actually, most, depend on money to make a good cause. They depend on the money to advertise there commercial during a program. They depend on money to get there message across with the flashiest of banners which in today's society, in my honest opinion, is dependant and rather conformed to using those instead of an HONEST message. Sure, a crayon drawn "Smoking is bad for you" sign everywhere you go isn't the best of things to get a message across, but blame society for having too high standards these days. I don't use a darn thing to advertise to not smoke other than my birth given voice. I see a person smoking a ciggarrete, I tell him/her that it really is bad for you and you'd wish you could have stopped a long time ago if not now, then leave it be. A hero is a hero, but you cannot force heroism upon people. So, to sum this all up, if a person just randomly see's something out of place and takes the initiative to do something about it, whether it be picking up litter on the street or convincing and helping a person to stop smoking, that my friends, is my opinion of a hero. Someone who takes the time out of his/her busy day just to do something good for the planet and for the life forms of the planet, NOT someone who spends 1200 dollars on 100 signs to post around the city that have "color" to make people "want" to read it.

It rather irritates me to see that people now these days have too high standards. You've got DSL and Dial-Up. DSL people are STILL complaining about the slowness of the internet, but for pete's sake, be HAPPY that you have the internet in the first place. Makes no sense to go as fast as possible just to get something done. Take your time. It's not like the computer is going anywhere.


Meh, my perspective is all.

[Magrus]

[QUOTE=CM]Hero? The average solider.[/QUOTE]

I have to disagree there. I can think of a lot of people in the US army whom I'd consider to be scum not worthy of breathing the air on this planet for their beliefs. Just because someone is willing to kill and die for their beliefs doesn't make their beliefs "noble" or "good" or "just". Do you have any idea of how many people in this country have joined up in the army just to "shoot us some towel-heads"? They're scum, not heroes.

[Chimaera182]

I wanted to join the army or navy and go career military when I was in high school; I was denied since I'm asthmatic. I had no visions of serving my nation or anything like that. And maybe there are some people who join the military not for the pay or for the college deal. But is it truly because they want to serve their country? Is it because they want to protect their countrymen? Or is it because they seek adventure and excitement? Do they want to travel the world, see different things? And not to diminish the achievements of the ANZAC, but they were ordered to remain behind in order to cover for the retreat. Some of them possibly wanted to remain behind and sacrifice their own lives, but some of them almost certainly did not.

And Magrus did make a good point. The people who joined the army after 9/11--and this can also be said of the ones who joined the army after Pearl Harbor was bombed--may have done so out of little more than revenge. That almost certainly is not a "heroic" motive. And I mentioned Beowulf, who was almost certainly considered a hero; the story Beowulf is a heroic epic, after all. Beowulf was also a soldier, but even his motivation was not entirely pure. And when he killed Grendel's mother, it was very similar, in fact, to the motivational drive that Magrus pointed out.

People just don't have it in them to be truly, 100% altruistic; it doesn't exist, it just doesn't. The second you feel good for doing a good or heroic deed, that's when the deed you performed is just no longer completely unselfish. If you donate to the poor or help out someone in need or you are a soldier in the army and dedicated to the preservation of your nation and your beliefs, the good feeling you get for doing it is selfish in itself. It may not have been your primary reason for doing it, but you feel good for doing it and you might feel bad if you didn't.

[Magrus]

[QUOTE=Chimaera182]People just don't have it in them to be truly, 100% altruistic; it doesn't exist, it just doesn't. The second you feel good for doing a good or heroic deed, that's when the deed you performed is just no longer completely unselfish. If you donate to the poor or help out someone in need or you are a soldier in the army and dedicated to the preservation of your nation and your beliefs, the good feeling you get for doing it is selfish in itself. It may not have been your primary reason for doing it, but you feel good for doing it and you might feel bad if you didn't.[/QUOTE]

*nods* Which is why I don't appreciate people titling me the way they have for the deeds I've done. I do the things I do to help others yes, but also because I cannot bear the thought of allowing someone else to go through some of the things I've had to deal with myself, or hear about. While that might not seem anything selfish, frankly it is. It drives me crazy thinking about people being victimized and hurt, and I want it to stop, so I act. Unless the person is someone I know and love, frankly, I don't care about most humans. I'd be more pleased if they (we) were all dead and extinct. Still, I can't bear the thought of a creature being hurt for a malicious reason.

I hate the thought of someone being attacked or raped, or abused, or whatever. I act, and risk myself to see to it it isn't happening, anywhere I can make it stop.

[CopperWater]

What do you mean heroes dont exist? The world is full of heros, like George W Bush. That man brought freedom and peace to Iraq, and he aint stopping till the middle east is an American Utopia.

[Magrus]

[QUOTE=CopperWater]What do you mean heroes dont exist? The world is full of heros, like George W Bush. That man brought freedom and peace to Iraq, and he aint stopping till the middle east is an American Utopia.[/QUOTE]

I need alcohol. Lots of it.

[ik911]

[QUOTE=Fiona] @IK911. You seem to be talking about role models, which is yet another topic, I think. It is true that one might be inspired by a traditional hero such as Achilles, and be moved to emulate him. It is also true that one could choose a very different type of character, and you mentioned Ghandi. There are many very admirable traits or takes on life and any one might influence a person's life and outlook. Since they have little in common I do not think these are all heroes in any meaningful sense and that is why I believe this is a separate topic. A role model need not be famous, and that is surely one necessary ingredient for heroism as traditionally conceived. [/QUOTE]

As I view it, I think one can best put it this way: All heroes are rolemodels, but not all rolemodels are heroes. Duty, Honor, Respected, Moral, Good, Lawful, Just, Selfless are words everyone would like to be. A hero has it, a person wants it.
I think every hero has such desirable traits. CM admires the soldiers for traits that he does not have like courage, strength, honor, respect, a sense of duty and just, clothes, food, a haircut, manners,...

@CM: Those words (Duty, Honor, etc.) can describe policemen and firefighters just as well as soldiers. And if it describes soldiers, it also describes paramedics, teachers, judges, ministers and basically any honest person working for a government branch.

[Chimaera182]

Anyway, one person's hero is another person's villain. Hitler was once considered a hero. Stalin was once considered a hero. Both brought their nations up from ruination; Hitler turned Nazi Germany into a powerhouse in Europe, which became a nearly-unstoppable war machine, whereas Stalin turned the Soviet Union into a superpower, which Russia was not before the fall of the Romanov's. Stalin's reforms turned Russia into an industrial nation; if he hadn't had the foresight to do this, Russia would have collapsed utterly under the Nazi attack in 1941. We see them differently, of course.

When I said there was no such thing as a hero, that's really only my opinion. But because I grew up with the notion that a hero is someone who performs deeds unselfishly, and because I grew up into a very cynical person who knows there's no such thing as a 100% selfless act, I can't come up with any heroes. But it's different for everyone, and events can always shape new heroes. A war-torn nation, beaten, weary, and flat broke, suffered under the threat of total bankruptcy and Bolshevism in the 1920s. In 1933, a man who promised the people change, became a national hero, and he took control of the country. He overcame the Great Depression, he bolstered the country's defenses in case of attack, he strengthened their depleted armies. He was heralded as a hero by his people, and wouldn't you agree with that assessment? He brought a country from near-collapse and turned it into a powerhouse. Then he went and attacked Poland, and now Hitler is vilified, even by his own people. Events are what shape heroes, and that's what matters. When something tragic or disastrous happens, a hero or two will be born. It's only because I don't believe in truly unselfish acts that I do not see them as heroes. The firemen and policemen who died evacuating the twin towers, most people see that as heroic; while I agree it could be heroic, I don't see them as heroes. The people who overpowered the terrorists in the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania that same day, they were more heroic; they heard after calling loved ones what happened with the other 3 planes, and overpowered the terrorists to prevent their plane being used to kill who knew how many more people. That is heroic... but it's entirely possible they thought the plane would be brought under their control and everyone would survive the ordeal. And I've hesitated bringing up this example because I know people are not going to like my opinion on it, but the notion that they might have thought they would survive the hijacking is selfish; it's now self-preservation. Yes, they saved the lives of whoever the plane was intended for, but was it because they knew the plane would be used to kill hundreds of people or because they wanted to save themselves? Because the terrorists realized they lost control and crashed the plane rather than let everyone live, these people are heroes to some, and though I think they deserve it, I can't bring myself to call them that.