Why has the glorification of heroism completely disappeared from contemporary society, and what effects do you think this will have for leftists?
I often times hear right-wingers make the argument that heroism has all but disappeared from society today. We no longer champion bravery, courage, conviction, determination, moral integrity, the ability to push through the tide even when the odds are stacked against you. These are all traits that should be greatly admired. As a kid, I remember watching films from the 90s like Schindler's List, Dances With Wolves, or even The Lion King which all emphasized this type of heroism. When I look at contemporary literature and film from the past 10 years I see none of this.
I often wonder to what extent a large part of this has to do with cancel culture, the #metoo movement, and now the Epstein files and their subsequent revelations. People who were once seen as heroic in some form or another are revealed to have been abusers, rapists, oppressors, etc. Think about how Noam Chomsky, one of the most beloved figures on the American left for the past 55 years, had his entire reputation destroyed after his Emails to Epstein were made public (I think back to how Norman Finkelstein said the first thing former leftists do when they become right-wing is attack Chomsky, because Chomsky is the epitome of a moral leftist or something). It's like we take it for granted that the people we love and revere are actually monsters behind closed doors. So the "answer" to this becomes simply: don't put anyone on a pedestal, don't admire anyone, "kill your heroes" lest your heroes be exposed as bad people.
I'm not trying to invoke the Great Man of History bullshit, but I thought this was an interesting topic to talk about. Does the death of heroism or "heroes" have any effect on the left? How are the left supposed to build morale if we reject heroism?
>>2751458because for heroism you need heroes. And to get heroes you need exceptional adversity and sacrifice, so war and ultra violent repression typically, not mild lib shit. You also need a group that can latch on the story, repeat and celebrate it, and imbue the whole thing with symbolism
the closest we got recently is celebration of adventurism ala luigi, and the sacrifice part is kinda lacking.
>>2751458>I often wonder to what extent a large part of this has to do with cancel culture, the #metoo movement, and now the Epstein files and their subsequent revelationsThat shit happened to celebrities and business owners, no heroes.
>>2751458yahya sinwar was the last legitimate hero. he literally fought against a cyberpunk regime. reactionaries will never understand heroism because we are the heroes and we will win because we are fighting against endless conformity and because we will fight against endless conformity.
today if you go to war you get your legs blown off by a drone, meanwhile another dude who didn't go to war gets all the benefits.
war lost its heroism when it became illegal to loot the spoils of it.
Hesiod describes the "age of heroes" occuring between the bronze and iron age, where a "hero" was a demi-god; a superhuman. Such examples are Hercules and Achilles, who in their journeys, where nothing more than homocidal maniacs, and in the case of the Trojan War, pitiless imperialists. Similarly, warfare is seen as the ground of heroism, which then worships class warfare from above against those below (e.g. war is the battle of the rich using the poor). With Christ, we get a new martyrdom and heroism, of dying for faith. This is somewhat transmuted in the islamic notion of "jihad", which is an internal battle against sin. So then, what is a hero? What is strength? Conquering enemies, or conquering oneself? Punishing foes, or forgiving them?
>>2751668you're not wrong anon
early hero - God/stories
middle hero - martyrs/saints
late hero - jihadis/adventurists/icons
do you think we'll loop forward over and over?
i think
>>2751553 described it well, you need to represent someone and some cause, che for example
>>2751679the creation of the "superhero" in the early 20th century is actually an analog for jewish identity:
https://nbrehmer.medium.com/hope-allegory-and-embracing-the-jewish-roots-of-superman-29cf54fdd872we see many of our superheroes being created by jewish americans, for the cause of the common good, while appropriating the pagan aesthetic of the demi-god. so i could see that we live in an age of judaism spliced with paganism, which offers a new vision of how to be a hero. in any case, heroism certainly has its mythological and religious inherence, rather than secularism - in fact, many villains are seen to be "scientific" and materialist, while it is the heroic spirit which defeats them.
>>2751691>the creation of the "superhero" in the early 20th century is actually an analog for jewish identityanon WHAT
>>2751698Superman is an allegory for the tale of Moses, often falsely related as a story of Christ. Superman's first foes were the nazis. Captain America was also created by Jews to fight the nazis. The context is interesting, since the nazis aspired to the ubermensch (superman) themselves, but were met with the liberal counterpart. Stan Lee later created spider-man, hulk, iron man and all the rest. Its a Jewish venture which subverts the pagan instinct of conan the barbarian (est. 1932), for example. The power is inward, but expressed outward for good purposes, not selfish desires.
>>2751458https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWcASV2sey0&list=RDbWcASV2sey0&start_radio=1>>2751668Adding specificity here, Demigods are the offspring of an immortal and a Mortal. Heroes are defined by their acts rather than their pedigree. Most heroes are Demigods but some are mortals. And the majority of demigods are just as heroic as the gods (read: not at all).
It goes Protogenoi→Titans (ruled over the Golden Age)→Gods (rule over the silver age-current age) →Demigods→Heroes-→Mortals
Gods and Titans are both immortal and are functionally the same. Titans aren't elemental monsters like in Hercules, they are just one generation removed from the Olympians and have the same sort of abilities.
>>2751458It's just liberal/bourgeois values. Heroes don't fit in with late capitalist ideology.
>>2751781we are charlie kirk we carry the flames
>>2751734the glorification of mortals comes later from what i perceive, since in the homeric canon (800-700 BCE), all men simply descend into hades after death, without reward in the elysium fields. achilles, for example, appears to odysseus in the land of shades (basically, as a ghost) and tells him that all glory in hades is worthless compared to hard labour on earth - this sequel to the iliad then dispells the illusions of status over the warmth of simple living. achilles' gambit from the prophecies of his mother are repudiated. so then, the greatest hero has the same terminus as the worst fiend. this is the same belief as "sheol" in judaism. there is a contrary notion in homer though, such as ganymede, who is chosen to be the cup bearer of zeus for the sake of the virtue of his beauty - so then, of one's qualities are ideal, we can say they are close to the gods and are heroic. the immortalisation of heroes seems like a conceptual addition in later generations, which theoretically begins in plato (early 5th century BCE), who sees that those who are good will achieve a place in heaven, even if it is conditional upon a later reincarnation. julius caesar was famously immortalised as a hero (apotheosis) by the comet "Sidus Iulium" being present at his funeral games.
so, would you say that a hero's immortal qualities must be in their essential continuity through favour of the gods? thats how we currently understand the immortality of the soul, which continues into death.
>>2751813yes I would say that.
It's important to note that there is no "canon" to Greek Mythology as there is with modern religions.
Homer, Hesiod, and Ovid (Roman, skeptical about gods) are major sources, and they all conflict with each other as well as with actual religious hymns that have survived.
This site is a fantastic resource for anyone interested in classical mythology.
https://www.theoi.com/Kosmos/Haides.html >>2752064Apparently, the elysian fields are said to be the dwelling place of the virtuous by Pindar in the 5th century BCE; the same time that Plato crafts his quasi-Homeric beliefs in an afterlife. So, we can see a shift from the earlier "materialism" of the presocratics (as spoken of by Plato and Aristotle) to the belief in a rewarding afterlife during this period. Similarly, if we read the oldest extant myth in human history, the "epic of gilgamesh" (~2000 BCE), we see that gilgamesh (even though he is 2/3 immortal) terribly fears death and has no hope for an afterlife. Regardless, the archetypal "Noah" of the story had favour from the gods and was granted immortality, the same as Gilgamesh is promised by condition of eating a fruit (from the tree of life?) which is stolen by a serpent. In the old testament, we also get Enoch, who is taken by God, and so who is presumably immortalised. The belief in conditional immortality then persisted, but it did not belong to the potency of one's own soul (which back then, bore greater relationship to the physical body - which is why burial rites were so important). So, I would say generally that a belief in heaven begins around 500 BCE, while previous ideas of immortality were based in gaining extraordinary favour from the gods.
>>2751691Honestly, early superman was kind of based. The first comic has him dangling a MIC war profiteer in the air.
>>2751609sinwar certainly has the potential for heroism, but not in the west and I dunno if his story is being used enough in the pro palestinian ME circles. Havent seen much of it in any case
>>2751458because we stopped believing in spooks like the afterlife and heaven and therefore we don't want to die for a bunch of people who wouldn't do the same for us
>>2752083This is also evinced by deaths of mortals during the golden age, when they became daimones (like a nature spirit) and didn't descend into the afterlife until after the Titanomachy. So the afterlife is created by the gods, not an inherent quality of the soul itself.
It's also interesting that early christians saw heaven as a pagan belief, as they believed in the resurrection of the physical body as an "afterlife" and persecuted many heretics and gnostics for believing that a human could sublimate to a purely spiritual realm without the physical body.
But yes, Enoch and Elijah were both transformed into Angels which are fundamentally different beings than humans. Enoch became Metatron.
>>2751591Normies consider them heros
>>2751668heroism is getting money, driving fast cars, smoking trees and fucking the baddest hoes.
thus, heroism still exists today, hood uyghas carry the torch of achilles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eucfjeUZqz8&list=RDeucfjeUZqz8&start_radio=1 >>2751458There are heroes but their good deeds don't get advertised for obvious reasons and you basically only hear about them in niche dissident circles. Also a lot of Westerners don't pay attention to what happens in the periphery so they don't hear about people leading guerrilla movements or resisting exploitive lumber and mining interests or defending the oppressed in court or the environmentalists who got get murdered.
For normies I guess heroes would Snowden, Assange, and Manning. There was that lady journalist who helped release the Panama Papers? Or some other papers. I know there were a few. I think one got shot down by a guy on a moped, and the other died in a car bombing.
>>2751789Except Don Quixote isn't bitching about the loss of Heroism, it's a satire of established tropes of novels that were popular at the time.
>>2754911Don Quixote is mocking people bitching about chivalry being lost, also it’s the first novel, so it can’t be satirizing novels
>>2754911Don Quixote in the modern world would be someone who joins the communist militia in Myanmar and realizes that they're just selling drugs
>>2755284Judas and the Black Messiah is a great film that deals with political cynicism versus authenticity
>>2755304I'll watch it thanks anon
>>2754923>Don Quixote is mocking people bitching about chivalry being lostNo, it’s not. It directly satirizes works that were popular at the time, chiefly the book Amadís de Gaula.
>also it’s the first novel, so it can’t be satirizing novelsAgain, It's targeting established literary traditions, and it’s considered the first European novel partly because it was fortunate enough to be published closer to the advent of the printing press.
Unique IPs: 27