A debate rages which I put forth to the good people of Sciforums to ponder.

A scenario:

A man wakes every morning at 5 a.m. He goes to the bathroom. Shits. Showers. Shaves. Puts on his clothes. Makes breakfast. Gets in his car and goes to work. Spends 8 hours in his cubicle. Comes home. Makes a light dinner. Watches some tv. Reads. Masturbates. Goes to bed.

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

Some would claim that this man is a hero.

Would you?

Why or why not?

Note: There is a piece of hidden lore here. Be wary of your response for you see through the glass darkly.

He isn't a hero.

a) he didn't wash his dishes.
b) he masturbated. And to what?

Anyway, he seems to be fitting a continual mold without ever surpassing it. Is that heroism, or cowardice?

Anyway, he seems to be fitting a continual mold without ever surpassing it. Is that heroism, or cowardice?

And if this same man was in a wheelchair?

Hero then?


Nexus:

Playing devil's adv?

didn't you die in a terrorist attack or something? :eek::eek::eek:

Who, simian?

Anyway, would this man be heroic or not?

Geoff,

a) he didn't wash his dishes.

Good eye. But, perhaps he's even more heroic if he has not only the economic wherewithal to hire a maid, but also the ethical fortitude to hire one as heroic as himself.

b) he masturbated. And to what?

Isn't it all the more heroic if he needed no porn to mastubate to? And wait until I tell you the man's secret.

Anyway, he seems to be fitting a continual mold without ever surpassing it.

Like Gendanken said. What then?


Gendanken,

Playing devil's adv?

Perhaps. I'd rather not, but I'll play the role the fates have in store.

Oh. And by the way, welcome back.

There is a context/condition by which this man is a hero. The only question we don't know is whether or not the man has accepted that condition.

A working class hero is something to be.


p.s. GENDYYYYYYYY! COME HERE I WANT TO SMOTHER YOU IN SALIVAAAAA!

GENDYYYYYYYY! COME HERE I WANT TO SMOTHER YOU IN SALIVAAAAA!

Be that as it may, it would be best if you kept that between the two of you.

Taken at face value, there seems to be nothing heroic in this man's daily action; if it were so, then virtually everybody would be a hero merely by living, but you know that!

What is the hidden lore that can change everything? Maybe, as he sits in his cubicle he gets physically or mentally abused, 'for the good of the nation'...I don't know.

Be that as it may, it would be best if you kept that between the two of you.

I would imagine that is the intention.

Like Gendanken said. What then?

Well, without knowing the specifics, it's pointless to speculate further.

There is a context/condition by which this man is a hero. The only question we don't know is whether or not the man has accepted that condition.

What condition would that be?
Given the same labor for income parameters as any working class male.

Perhaps. I'd rather not, but I'll play the role the fates have in store.


I don't think you have to.

Wasn't it you wanting to acknowledge the efforts of a cripple taking a leak?


Whitewolf:

Liven this cadaverish place with some lesbian porn, shall we?

Sniff sniff.......getting close:

Taken at face value, there seems to be nothing heroic in this man's daily action; if it were so, then virtually everybody would be a hero merely by living, but you know that!

What is the hidden lore that can change everything? Maybe, as he sits in his cubicle he gets physically or mentally abused, 'for the good of the nation'...I don't know.

Ah, well now. You're the perfect one to ask then.

What if I told you this was man was paralyzed from the waist down?

I would imagine that is the intention.

No it isn't.

<--------impaled on Whitewolf's fist.

(does this new forum allow the word 'vulva'?)

What condition would that be?

The absurd hero.

Well, my little liberal.

Define 'absurd' outside of Camus.

Alright. Alright. So, I'll talk.

The context is just as Gendanken has stated so prematurely. The man is a cripple. An amputee. A burn victim. Mentally deficient. Bipolar. Extremely hairy. Take your pick.

The man is handicapped in some way, shape, or form. The more handicapped, the better for this discussion. (I would find it amazing that he could masturbate effectively if he were quadraplegic, but heroic?)


Gendanken,

Wasn't it you wanting to acknowledge the efforts of a cripple taking a leak?

Yes. But only insofar as I could see how this could be seen as... not quite heroic... but worthy of respect. The man could quite easily live a life where he just shits all over himself without any blame being laid on him because of his infirmity. However, he strives to make his way in the world on his own merits. I can imagine the difficulty that a double amputee must go through in just making his way across the bedroom floor, let alone the challenges of getting on the toilet.

A hero? No. I'd not go so far, but I do find it respectable.


Tiassa,

The absurd hero.

A modern-day Sissiphus?
But, in that case, wouldn't your judgement of his heroism be valueless? Sissiphus is a hero, according to existentialsim, because of his own judgements. Not yours.

Well, I agree with your conclusion, invert, as regarding an amputee or othersuch differently abled person.

The hairy one would be harder to respect on its own merits. Say if he had a gas stove or something. Although that could also just be foolhardy.

What if I told you this was man was paralyzed from the waist down?





That's not heroic, just doggedness.

What if in his cubicle he is progressing towards the cure for cancer by unheard-of leaps?

Do you know how hard it is to carry on the same routine for ages?

Do you know how hard it is to roll off the bed before 7 a.m.?

Yes, this man is a hero merely because he does his part. He rises to the challenge every morning. Blame me for pulling Social Realism Soviet-style if you want. I don't see why this man needs to be a cripple in this scenario; he can be in perfect health and still be a hero. Recall classical heroes: they were in perfect health and possessed good strength; they even had small penises.

The hairy one would be harder to respect on its own merits. Say if he had a gas stove or something. Although that could also just be foolhardy.

And Mexican?
And smelly? (Little bit.)

Well, I agree with your conclusion, invert, as regarding an amputee or othersuch differently abled person.

Pushover. Where are the forum bleeding hearts when you need them, damnit.

they even had small penises.

Made of marble.

there are no heros. just heroic deeds.

And Mexican?
And smelly? (Little bit.)

I find your synthesis that Mexican-Americans are more flammable than other-Americans highly offensive. However, I am not trained by our common education system to be judgemental in any way. Instead, I will harrumph and look out the window, frowning vaguely.

Pushover. Where are the forum bleeding hearts when you need them, damnit.

Hiding in the corner. That's what we pushovers do. We don't get pushed over as much, you see. Comfortable chelonian conditioning.

there are no heros. just heroic deeds.

Deeds are performed by, whom?

Deeds are performed by, whom?

mostly vertebrates.

Haven't seen many heroic plants or fungi for instance.

So then, by your standard, is Superman a hero? After all, he can't really be hurt except by dumb green rocks.

Clark Kent was way more heroic.

So then, by your standard, is Superman a hero? After all, he can't really be hurt except by dumb green rocks.

hope you aren't talking to me. cuz i said there are no heroes, just heroic deeds.

cuz every deed is judged no matter what happened before on its on heroic merits.

fuck up once and you stop being a hero.

Bruce Wayne...Now he was a hero.

You can't have a travelling mean of heroism?

Yes. But only insofar as I could see how this could be seen as... not quite heroic... but worthy of respect. The man could quite easily live a life where he just shits all over himself without any blame being laid on him because of his infirmity. However, he strives to make his way in the world on his own merits.


That's just it- why the acknowldgement?
Perfectly able men and women the world over slave through the day to put food on the table, each and every one of them a simple choice away from
surrendering.

The exhuastion involved in survival is marginalized when the person is capable of fullfilling his duty, yet praised- in your case acknowldged- when the person is incapable of wiping his own asshole.

Why respect one man for achieving the same goals required of both?

CHRIST, I can't type for shit.

A modern-day Sissiphus?
But, in that case, wouldn't your judgement of his heroism be valueless? Sissiphus is a hero, according to existentialsim, because of his own judgements. Not yours.

And a star is a star because of its properties and behavior, not because we humans observe it.

• • •

All great deeds and all great thoughts have a ridiculous beginning. Great works are often born on a streetcorner or in a restaurant's revolving door. So it is with absurdity. The absurd world more than othres derives its nobility from that abject birth. In certain situations, replying "nothing" when asked what one is thinking about may be pretense in a man. Those who are loved are well aware of this. But if that reply is sincere, if it symbolizes that odd state of soul in which the void becomes eloquent, in which the chain of daily gestures is broken, in which the heart vainly seeks the link that will connect it again, then it is as it were the first sign of absurdity.

It happens that hte stage sets collapse. Rising, streetcar, four hours in the office or the factory, meal, streetcar, four hours of work, meal, sleep, and Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday and Saturday according to the same rhythm--this path is easily followed most of the time. But one day the "why" arises and everything begins in that weariness tinged with amazement. "Begins"--this is important. Weariness comes at the end of the acts of a mechanical life, but at the same time it inaugurates the impules of consciousness. It awakens consciousness and provokes what follows. What follows is the gradual return into the chain or it is the definitive awakening. At the end of the awakening comes, in time, the consequence: suicide or recovery. In itself weariness has something sickening about it. Here, I must conclude that it is good. For everything begins with consciousness and nothing is worth anything except through it. There is nothing original about these remarks. But they are obvious; that is enough for a while, during a sketchy reconnaissance in the origins of the absurd. Mere "anxiety", as Heidegger says, is at the source of everything.

Likewise and during every day of an unillustrious life, time carries us. But a moment always comes when we have to carry it. We live on the future: "tomorrow", "later on", "when you have made your way", "you will understand when you are old enough". Such irrelevancies are wonderful, for, after all, it's a matter of dying. Yet a day comes when a man notices or says that he is thirty. Thus he asserts his youth. But simultaneously he situates himself in relation to time. He takes his place in it. He admits that he stands at a certain point on a curve that he acknowledges having to travel to its end. He belongs to time, and by the horror that seizes him, he recognizes his own worst enemy. Tomorrow, he was longing for tomorrow, wheras everything in him ought to reject it. That revolt of the flesh is the absurd.°
____________________
° But not in the proper sense. This is not a definition, but rather an enumeration of the feelings that may admit of the absurd. Still, the enumeration finished, the absurd has nevertheless not been exhausted.

(Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus)
____________________

Notes:

Camus, Albert. The Myth of Sisyphus & Other Essays. Trans. Justin O'Brien. New York: Vintage, 1955. (pp. 10-11)

See Also:

Excerpt: The Myth of Sisyphus. See http://bdhilling.wordpress.com/2007/08/10/the-canon-camus-myth-of-sisyphus/

I guess my rules of heroic and a bit more strict. That man has done nothing heroic. He sounds like an average very day man.

...The context is just as Gendanken has stated so prematurely. The man is a cripple. An amputee. A burn victim. Mentally deficient. Bipolar. Extremely hairy. Take your pick.....

so, how doesn't being handicapped make a person heroic? He may be a burn victim because his meth lab exploded.

No that man is not a hero imo despite any handicaps he may have. That's is a horrible life to have to live and if anything, I pity the person described in the OP.

Tessie:
That was not me you are quoting, illetirato.
I wouldn't misspell Sysyphus.


Do you know how hard it is to carry on the same routine for ages?

Do you know how hard it is to roll off the bed before 7 a.m.?

Yes, this man is a hero merely because he does his part. He rises to the challenge every morning. Blame me for pulling Social Realism Soviet-style if you want. I don't see why this man needs to be a cripple in this scenario; he can be in perfect health and still be a hero.

Because, my little Babushka, a handicap is that greasy patina of artificial gold we humans spray on mediocrity.

And you're exactly right- what's harder than knowing the second you finally walk in the door, half frozen and starved, that in 10 or so hours you have no choice but to repeat it?
Yet we go on living out endless cycles of mindnumbing labor and for what? To meet the same, cold obejctives imposed on a man who's lost both his legs: Survive.

Yet he's the one with the 2 minute soundbyte on Connie Chung or Geraldo, the same man you have to move aside for at a concert when they roll him through on a wheelchair towards the front.

Tessie:
That was not me you are quoting, illetirato.

D'oh! Sorry, princess. Didn't mean to miss on that one.

I wouldn't misspell Sysyphus.

Exartly.

tablariddim:

That's not heroic, just doggedness.

And on everyone else its "expected". Geddit?

God, you all suck.
Way to break free of your stereotypes. You knew I was trying to trap you, didn't you?

Ok.
So, let's stop and reconnoiter a moment, shall we?
First. Let's have the definition of hero. That seems a good place to begin.

he·ro (heer-oh)
–noun, plural -roes; for 5 also -ros.
1. a man of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities.
2. a person who, in the opinion of others, has heroic qualities or has performed a heroic act and is regarded as a model or ideal: He was a local hero when he saved the drowning child.
3. the principal male character in a story, play, film, etc.
4. Classical Mythology.
a. a being of godlike prowess and beneficence who often came to be honored as a divinity.
b. (in the Homeric period) a warrior-chieftain of special strength, courage, or ability.
c. (in later antiquity) an immortal being; demigod.
5. hero sandwich.
6. the bread or roll used in making a hero sandwich.
[Origin: 1605–15; back formation from ME heroes (pl.) < L hérōs (sing.), hérōes (pl.) < Gk hrōs, hrōes]

Now.
Let's go back to the prime specimen of which we are speaking.
We are speaking of a man (or woman or child or what ever) who is handicapped in some way. Who is perfectly within his/her rights to sit back and live without effort. To be cared for as an invalid. To be a parasite on the face of humanity.
There are a good number of people out there who do just this. And many of them are not even really handicapped. They claim that they are handicapped because they're overweight or some such hogwash. They are feeding off the system because they're too weak and/or lazy to care for themselves.
Here we have an individual who's life is utter trial. From sunup to sundown he struggles with practically every action he must take.

Yet we go on living out endless cycles of mindnumbing labor and for what? To meet the same, cold obejctives imposed on a man who's lost both his legs: Survive.

Yes. We do have to eke out our existence. And we do it in order to survive.
Yet, the cripple does not do it to survive. He's quite capable of surviving without exerting the slightest effort on his own behalf due to the various government and societal organizations which exist to care for him. These organizations are even utilized by the healthy who wish to parasitize rather than struggle each day like the rest of us. Some (cough cough coolskill cough cough) deem this parasitism a form of heroism. Sticking it to the man or whatnot. (Another topic altogether of course)
The poing being that the cripple does not perform these actions to survive. He does them for higher reasons. For pride. For self respect. And, in some cases, in order to be an example to others who are similarly afflicted. Who are faced with the choice of festering in their own invalidity or to rise up and strive to make a place in the world just like the rest of us.

They do it by choice.

Their's the difference.

Now.
Let's see which definitions of hero have been satisfied so far:
I think that definition 1 is satisfied as the cripple performs these actions for noble reasons.
I think that definition 2 is satisfied as he is an example to others in how to live their lives nobly.
And, perhaps we could say that definition 5 is satisfied as long as the cripple works at Subway.


I wouldn't misspell Sysyphus.

Uhmm.....


Tiassa,

And a star is a star because of its properties and behavior, not because we humans observe it.

Exactly. The original question was whether you would consider the man a hero. His own opinion is not under question.


Whitewolf,

What if in his cubicle he is progressing towards the cure for cancer by unheard-of leaps?

Irrelevant. Let's assume that his job is practically pointless. A mere paper pusher.

Do you know how hard it is to carry on the same routine for ages?

Do you know how hard it is to roll off the bed before 7 a.m.?

Of course.
And, yet, I have little choice in the matter. I wouldn't say no choice as there are some few options available to me, but they all entail a lifestyle which is beneath that which I aspire to. I've eaten garbage in the past, I don't care to do so again.

Recall classical heroes: they were in perfect health and possessed good strength; they even had small penises.

They also killed a lot of people and dragons and whatnot.


Tab,

That's not heroic, just doggedness.

I think it would be doggedness in a fit man. In a handicapped one it would be a striving to be more than the bounds which one is placed in within society. Society has tried to peg down this cripple as an invalid and he rises above his label to be something more. To show that he can be more. That he must be more.

And, what's more, he doesn't want to be seen as a hero (perhaps). He just wants to live his life in freedom. Like everyone else.


A hero?
Why not?

Exactly. The original question was whether you would consider the man a hero. His own opinion is not under question.

I have stated that there is a context or condition whereby this man would be a hero. I have laid out the criteria. The only question that remains is whether or not he has acknowledged absurdity. If yes, he becomes the absurd hero. If no, he's just another face in the crowd.

If he meets the criteria, yes. I don't have that detail, though.

The absurd hero meets the standard of your dictionary definition #1.

Tess:
I have laid out the criteria
No you haven't.

A dead Algerian has. I find you, once again, digesting someone else's work.

Furthermore, Sisyphus was not heroic in the mere acknowlegement of the 'absurd' - anyone can do this- but in his confiscation of that uselessness. The descent does not in any form undermine the ascent, the compulsion on both ends being equal.

That is the interpretation in my own words, you book swallowing little halfling, of the existential hero.


Nexus:
Uhmm.....

I meant Siphylus.

Yet, the cripple does not do it to survive. He's quite capable of surviving without exerting the slightest effort on his own behalf due to the various government and societal organizations which exist to care for him. These organizations are even utilized by the healthy who wish to parasitize rather than struggle each day like the rest of us. Some (cough cough coolskill cough cough) deem this parasitism a form of heroism. Sticking it to the man or whatnot. (Another topic altogether of course)
The poing being that the cripple does not perform these actions to survive. He does them for higher reasons. For pride. For self respect. And, in some cases, in order to be an example to others who are similarly afflicted. Who are faced with the choice of festering in their own invalidity or to rise up and strive to make a place in the world just like the rest of us.

They do it by choice.

Their's the difference.


Am I blind or just a cold hack of ice??
I don't see a fucking difference!!

Welfare's only a pink slip away. Any one of you can choose to check out of the race now.
You can choose to liquidate all your assets, your skill, your mind, those healthy, hard working hands putting food on the table, your money, job, home and car and claim Welfare.
You can choose your own handicap.

In what way would this be different than a paraplegic choosing home care and disabiltiy money?
The both of you are subject to the overwhelming demands of staying alive, the same objectives fueling a cockrach's scampering when the lights are turned on as staying alive is his duty.

Whitewolf's as mistaken as you in commending anyone for doing that which is obligated. She's no more worthy of respect for going to work than she is for eating when hungry.

Who the fuck would praise anyone for eating when hungry????!!

Welfare's only a pink slip away. Any one of you can choose to check out of the race now.

It's a bit more difficult than that to get welfare these days, I believe. And, not only that, but I dare you to find a welfare program that will wipe your ass for you and hand feed you.

The both of you are subject to the overwhelming demands of staying alive, the same objectives fueling a cockrach's scampering when the lights are turned on as staying alive is his duty.

Again, the cripple is not just staying alive. He could stay alive quite well without having to lift a finger. Rather, he is working for more than survival.
The cripple's motives are noble and heroic. Especially when seen in the light of the example he sets for others who might also live a life of parasitic ease rather than becoming a productive citizen.

I'd like you to explain to me how the definitions of hero I've provided above do not apply as I've shown.

Who the fuck would praise anyone for eating when hungry????!!

Well, to be fair, if your statement about the ease of welfare is true, then anyone who stays off the welfare in lieu of a self-supporting lifestyle is also worthy of the hero label as they would also stand as an example to others to live a more noble existence than the tapeworm.

I dare you to find a welfare program that will wipe your ass for you and hand feed you.


Easy: WIC

Free food and toilet paper.

Again, the cripple is not just staying alive. He could stay alive quite well without having to lift a finger. Rather, he is working for more than survival.
The cripple's motives are noble and heroic. Especially when seen in the light of the example he sets for others who might also live a life of parasitic ease rather than becoming a productive citizen.

My grandmother went to her grave washing her own asshole, know why?
Someone else doing it was humiliating.

I will not generalize on motive here- neither you nor anyone here knows why anyone of our disabled population chooses to live the lives they do.

Motive here is irrelevant. That a torso from Chicago chose to get pregnant and give birth despite warnings either to set an example to other torsos or becuase she, like, reaaaaaaaaaallly wanted children is irrelevant.
That she chooses to work for either one of said reasons, too, is irrelevant.

What is revelant, however, is this habit of .......knighting....the weaker of two men for achieving the same goals demaned of both.

I'd like you to explain to me how the definitions of hero I've provided above do not apply as I've shown.

You didn't.
The dictionary did.

Look, Nexie, we can all give up, curl up and die off. Other than that, there are different job options that offer different work schedules. Let's not explore this side of the issue here, because there are too many what-ifs.

A man is defined by his actions, not by his mere intentions. His intentions are irrelevant. Whether he does something by choice or not is irrelevant. The actions of the man in the scenario are what you listed at first. It does not matter whether he is a cripple or not because it is his actions alone that matter. Is Beethoven more of a genius merely because he lost his ability to hear by the end of his life? No, Beethoven is a genius because you simply enjoy his music that much.

Further on the classical hero:

They also killed a lot of people

YEA!! Those healthy, strong, willful men with small [marble] penises killed a lot of people! What on earth happened to the Hero's image in today's society.... =(

Not to throw my own top hat in, but invert: the two qualities you assign the example to heroism on sound a bit like a cop out: "one who has heroic qualities". But what are they? On the other elements - Greek god, sandwitch, bread for aforesaid sandwitch.

I'd call such a fellow above the par. But is it heroic? In the classical sense, no. For that one needs to be out slaying dragons or gorgons; or even a corrupt usurping king. In the common...and, forgive me, sometimes seemingly more banal usage...I suppose one might call him a hero.

Gendanken,

Easy: WIC

Free food and toilet paper.

Are you doing this on purpose? Free food does not equal hand feeding. Toilet paper does not equal a nurse wiping your ass.

My grandmother went to her grave washing her own asshole, know why?
Someone else doing it was humiliating.

People who suffer traumatic and life changing accidents are prone to depression and surrender if not suicide. A healthy and vital man loses his legs and he is prone to give up. What's the point? His life is over.

Or how about the guy who got his face bitten off by a bear? Now that guy should really kill himself. But he doesn't.

The humiliation of having to live as an invalid is a terrible thing. You admit it in your above quote.

Now, it should be apparent that an amputee is not going to just get up and go to work the day after his amputation. He has to struggle from day one and spend months having his ass wipied before he can learn to do it himself. Then he has to instill in himself the will to continue to care for himself day after day despite the hardship which he must suffer.

I've seen you in terror over having a wisdom tooth pulled. Imagine having no legs.

I will not generalize on motive here- neither you nor anyone here knows why anyone of our disabled population chooses to live the lives they do.

Motive here is irrelevant.

I don't think it's entirely irrelevant, especially as you keep bringing it up but dismiss it when I attempt to. However, as per definition 2, it's how you're perceived in the eyes of others that makes you a hero.

The whole inspiration and example thing, you know?

What is revelant, however, is this habit of .......knighting....the weaker of two men for achieving the same goals demaned of both.

The two men have different obstacles which to overcome.

I'd say that the man who doesn't have to struggle to cross the room to get to the bathroom is the weaker of the two based solely on that single criteria. If all we have to go on with the two men is the information given in the opening post plus the fact that one man is paraplegic while the other is not, then I'd definitely have to say that the cripple is not the weaker man.

You didn't.
The dictionary did.

Oh, come on.
You're going to try to use the same old "you're a pseudo" argument on me for using the dictionary for a definition? Should I emulate Dr. Johnson and make my own then? Would that satisfy you? Would I then be heroic?


Whitewolf,

Whether he does something by choice or not is irrelevant.

I disagree. I think choice is one of the most important things in a human's makeup. It is what elevates us. What allows us to transcend the animal.

We choose.

Sisyphus (however the fuck you spell it) chose to push that stupid boulder up the hill every damned day. That's what made him a hero.

The actions of the man in the scenario are what you listed at first. It does not matter whether he is a cripple or not because it is his actions alone that matter.

Yes, but once you realize that the man's every move is a struggle, then the scenario takes on a whole new light. You have to re-examine every move he makes with the knowledge that none of these moves are trivial as they would be to a healthy man.

It is his actions that matter. And the context in which those actions are performed.

Is Beethoven more of a genius merely because he lost his ability to hear by the end of his life? No, Beethoven is a genius because you simply enjoy his music that much.

Actually, I would say that Beethoven's ability to finish his symphony while being absolutely stone deaf is an excellent indicator of his musical genius. How could it not? Only if the symphony were horrible. Which it's not.

YEA!! Those healthy, strong, willful men with small [marble] penises killed a lot of people! What on earth happened to the Hero's image in today's society....

Ok. The cripple's job is genocide. Does that make him a hero?

Geoff,

In the common...and, forgive me, sometimes seemingly more banal usage...I suppose one might call him a hero.

Man, you are a pushover.
You agree with me then.
He's a hero.
Now, let's convince the others and maybe we'll be heroes?

Actually, I wouldn't say that he is. For you see, I detest the modern era, desiring nothing more than a return to coattails, top hats and banging the indentured Irish maid in the study to the laughing of walrus-moustachioed men with canes. Also hard drinking.

The common usage, sir, is too common. Good day to you, sir!

How did he become so horribly crippled in the first place, please? Did he crash a stolen car? Did he douse a burning child? It might be important. I hope he crashed a stolen car, it would serve him jolly well right. And that's probably why he can't get welfare.

He sounds a bit more dogged and stubborn than actually heroic. (Although what is heroic, except lots of little acts of doggedness and stubbornness all chained together?) Maybe he just got bored with the welfare thing - being spoon-fed - and fancied a bit more of a challenge. Boredom's a great motivator.

Saving that child, though. That makes him a hero in my eyes.

I'm undecided.

Yes; dogged and stubborn. Well dogged and stubborn.

Also: does he work in arms sales?
Also: does he have any pets and how does he treat them, please?

Too many gaps.

Easy: WIC

Free food and toilet paper.


You have to have toddlers or a pregnant woman in the house to get WIC.

A debate rages which I put forth to the good people of Sciforums to ponder.

A scenario:

A man wakes every morning at 5 a.m. He goes to the bathroom. Shits. Showers. Shaves. Puts on his clothes. Makes breakfast. Gets in his car and goes to work. Spends 8 hours in his cubicle. Comes home. Makes a light dinner. Watches some tv. Reads. Masturbates. Goes to bed.

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

Some would claim that this man is a hero.

Would you?

Why or why not?

Note: There is a piece of hidden lore here. Be wary of your response for you see through the glass darkly.

We cannot say whether this man is a hero or not, since we do not know his motives for his actions.

They could well be heroic deeds. And they could not be.

Depends all on circumstances, motive, application, culture.

http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/ltg/projects/jtap/tutorials/intro/owen/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7084764.stm


Heros are they.

Are you doing this on purpose? Free food does not equal hand feeding. Toilet paper does not equal a nurse wiping your ass.

No, but if he is disabled he is eligible to get a nurse who will do these for him; however, as I was taught in a health aid class, the disabled prefer to be treated like normal people as much as possible. Again, there are too many variables here, and it's irrelevant, so let's not discuss this side of the issue. I think we ought to stick specifically to what was given to us in the scenario and assuming as little as possible.



People who suffer traumatic and life changing accidents are prone to depression and surrender if not suicide. A healthy and vital man loses his legs and he is prone to give up. What's the point? His life is over.

Or how about the guy who got his face bitten off by a bear? Now that guy should really kill himself. But he doesn't.

You know, in Zola's Germinal, there's this scene where the husband of that cheating whore looks out the window, thinks of the hungry men and women, and considers how little their suffering is. They can have any girl they want, any time they want; while he, despite being well-fed, suffers because his wife won't return his love. Zola's sympathy is with the poor, but I can't agree with him. I say, let's not compare people's suffering. We all suffer and let's not tally who is in more pain.

I disagree. I think choice is one of the most important things in a human's makeup. It is what elevates us. What allows us to transcend the animal.

We choose.

Sisyphus (however the fuck you spell it) chose to push that stupid boulder up the hill every damned day. That's what made him a hero.

What's a true choice? The Germans who helped Jews during WWII didn't feel they were choosing; they felt they were obligated to save these lives. Again, too many variables and it's absolutely irrelevant; let's leave this out.

It is his actions that matter.

Thank you.

And the context in which those actions are performed.

No.

How could it not? Only if the symphony were horrible.

Aha. So if a stone-deaf persona attempted to write music and failed, he does not deserve a place in history; where as if a stone-deaf persona succeeded, he does deserve admiration. Therefore, hearing or lack thereof is negligible here; what matters is solely the persona's talent. Likewise, for history, it ought not matter whether the paper-pusher is healthy or not; what matters are his actions and their outcome.


Ok. The cripple's job is genocide. Does that make him a hero?

Don't be a whiny child, you know exactly what I meant. In those days, a man had to do something great, something others couldn't do, in order to be an example to his fellow men. Nowadays, it's enough to merely be a cripple paper-pusher.

We cannot say whether this man is a hero or not, since we do not know his motives for his actions.

They could well be heroic deeds. And they could not be.

Depends all on circumstances, motive, application, culture.

Agreed. The specifics mean everything.

No you haven't.

A dead Algerian has. I find you, once again, digesting someone else's work.

Over in the corner, princess. I think you missed one.

Furthermore, Sisyphus was not heroic in the mere acknowlegement of the 'absurd' - anyone can do this- but in his confiscation of that uselessness. The descent does not in any form undermine the ascent, the compulsion on both ends being equal.

That is the interpretation in my own words, you book swallowing little halfling, of the existential hero.

You are correct. I feel that issue is covered in the topic's criteria:

A man wakes every morning at 5 a.m. He goes to the bathroom. Shits. Showers. Shaves. Puts on his clothes. Makes breakfast. Gets in his car and goes to work. Spends 8 hours in his cubicle. Comes home. Makes a light dinner. Watches some tv. Reads. Masturbates. Goes to bed.

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

In continuing his routine (e.g., "Repeat"), the man continues to push the boulder up the hill and walk back after it. The only question is whether or not he acknowledges his absurdity as he does.

I mean, I agree with your point, but you're picking some silly nits.

The only question is whether or not he acknowledges his absurdity as he does.


I agree.

The disabilities just add extra weight to the stone.

Risk life to save others.