Heros

This past month in class we talked a lot about heroes and what a hero is.  Several questions were given such as what characteristics a hero must have and where our archetypes for heroes came from.  Personally, I think that most of us have gotten our ideas of what a hero should be from superhero movies and comics. We have all grown up with that kind of media surrounding us and it has just taken hold.  All of these heroes have some sort of super power or quality that puts them above the common people.  They also do good deeds in the community as well as fight the "evil."  Most people think that for there to be a hero, a person must have done some good deeds, have something over others (like a superpower), and be a generally good person.  I feel like there are so many people out there who think that all it takes is a good deed, but I don't agree at all. To see someone as a hero, I think that they also need to have the right motives for what they are doing. Everyone says Beowulf is a great hero all throughout history. However, I don't think we are told enough about Beowulf's personality or mindset to really make this decision.  He may have only ever gone to fight Grendel and the dragon for his personal gain.  After all, during that time period, a goal in life was to have your name remembered in death.  I'm not saying that he wasn't a hero, I just don't think that we should decide from his actions alone.  The storyteller or whoever wrote Beowulf's story may very well have intended him to be a hero, but left out more about his character and motives.  The people of that time would have seen this story as heroism because then, Beowulf's actions were how they perceived it.  A lot of it also deals with perspective.  The people of whom Beowulf ruled over may have seen him as a hero, but Grendel would not have, as well as myself.  It just really bothers me sometimes how so many people are so quick to make someone into a hero.

Individualism in Society Today

During Socratic Seminar for The Fountainhead,  a question was raised about whether or not our society could work with the individualistic philosophy that Ayn Rand showed through Howard Roark. Theoretically, the idea seems as though it would work very well. Every person would be going after what they want to live up to the best they can be rather than having their abilities hindered by others. It all seems well intended and good until you think of human nature. We are a selfish people and there is that instinct to always be better than everyone else, kind of like Peter Keating. He always needed to feel as if he was better than everyone else, especially Roark. I think that that is how most of society feels too.  So if we tried to combine the two, individualism and human nature, society would go nowhere because people would be focusing on everyone else around them, rather than themselves which is what Rand's philosophy details.
In The Fountainhead, this philosophy worked for Roark because he was the only one who followed it. The rest of his society were collectivists who focused on the whole of society instead of themselves. Another reason it worked for him was because Rand made him follow her philosophy strictly. He was "the perfect man" in Rand's eyes and almost seeming inhuman because he didn't follow any of the normal human flaws such as greed and jealousy. But again, humans are not like Roark, so this philosophy could not work.
Right now the 2012 presidential election is going on. Republicans and Democrats each have a sort of stereotype that the other party has linked to them. I feel as though Republicans are affiliated with a more individualistic nature, or at least that is what the stereotype shows. I think they look out for themselves more than anyone else with their big business and tax cuts for the rich. This is just an example of how an individualist society wouldn't work. Republicans are looking out for themselves, or a select few instead of the society s a whole. They may say that what they do benefits society as a whole, but there is little proof to that. The GOP candidates were all big business men who, at a glance, seemed as though they were focusing on themselves to improve society when, if you look deeper, you can see that they are only damaging society with their selfishness and greed. I know all Republicans aren't this way and don't believe in this but this is just how many people, Liberals especially, see them. Like I said before, the human characteristics get in the way of what the philosophy could become.
I do think, however, that certain aspects of this philosophy could be used successfully. For example, everyone should try to be the best that they can be, but I also think that the people around you need to be taken into consideration too. As a society we cannot just ignore those around us who do not have the capability to support themselves, even if they are being the best they can be. It is morally wrong. Imagine how many people with disabilities or mental handicaps there are in this world, and in the US alone. If every single person followed Rand's philosophy, then these people would be left to suffer. It is just not plausible. But if each person tried to be their best, while looking out for others and thinking about society, then we could move forward be so much. I think we would be so much more advanced if everyone just tried their best and did not take advantage of others. But, alas, this will never happen because of how our society has set itself up.