Heroes, Legends, Champions, Why Heroism Matters

by Andrew Bernstein

Why is Heroism so important? This seems, on the face of it, quite an obvious question. Why would we need to look into the question of Heroism? Surely the opposites – a criminal, a resentful person, or someone you would think is self-centred to everybody else’s cost – are never going to be worth looking up to? So why have this book?

We clearly acknowledge and recognise a hero, from mythology, folk stories and lore, everyday life, stories of heroism in the news. But this book posits that the departure from heroism – as evidenced with the popularity of anti-heroes, for example, in media and books, or a pervasive lack of purpose in society, point to some cultural and philosophical shift. Why are we using heroes less and less for inspiration, guidance and to find purpose?

I think the interesting dichotomy is between the mythic and the real. Some would argue there isn’t really a separation between the two, but when approaching ‘heroism’ are we looking at the rational, real angle or the spiritual meaning of heroism? Having written Objectivism in One Lesson: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Ayn Rand, Bernstein clearly fits into the former camp.

In either approach, what actually defines a hero? We all kind of know but do we really know? Bernstein elucidates this, arriving at the following definition:

A hero is: A morally upright individual who, with ability and dauntlessness exceeding that of everyman, confronts the obstacles and/or dangers arising in pursuit of significant life-advancing goals, and who triumphs in at least a moral sense. (pp.46)

Being heavily influenced by Ayn Rand, a certain portion of this book – and perhaps the most interesting – meets the debate of the self. Does a hero have to be benevolent and selfless to be heroic? The answer here is a resounding no. It argues that heroes sacrifice lesser values for higher – and maintain their higher, life-giving values. It might happen that benevolence and helping others happens as a happy coincidence of the pursuit of personal values, but that it is not the main objective or pursuit of a hero. Instead, the self-sacrifice is not of the self for other people, but it is self-fulfilment which might bring about good results for everyone.

I agree partially with this. Benevolence seems, to my mind, to be a life-giving value, which is why it so often coincides. Sacrifices can and often are heroic, and are so when they are life giving. And although self-fulfilment is indeed important, there are often heroic actions where someone makes a sacrifice that makes it heroic just because of what it is. A counter point given to this is that when someone gives to charity, they get a good feeling from it, but I feel this is a little reductionist in a lot of situations. When someone charges into battle they aren’t thinking about personal glory, they’re not thinking of themselves. They might be thinking of their values (protecting their country, say) and so even then the sacrifice is heroic regardless of self-interest, and there’s probably the denial of a lot of self-fulfilment. But I bet few people would say such an action isn’t heroic.

In the section of the book most pertinent to this, Shakespeare is cited as an example, and that if he had not accomplished his amazing works, and instead looked after an ill relative, then it would be

self-denying and not heroic, even though he is making a sacrifice. The argument is that the selfless action does not necessarily provide more benefit to humanity than if on life is saved, even though the one life saved is life-preserving. The aim is a rational cost-benefit analysis – what great feats, actions, art, science, mathematics would we lose if someone wasn’t heroic, and instead focussed on helping others to the detriment of these achievements? Is the priority to stick to a value or to be benevolent?

The argument here is clearly that benevolence is not, of its self, heroic. It depends on what values are held by the hero, and what higher value is being supported and what lower value is being sacrificed. The hero, according to Bernstein, sticks to their higher values and may have to sacrifice things they love to get there.

This can appear quite cold, but from a definition standpoint it makes more sense to construct an ordering of what is truly important when we are talking about a hero. Something has to define the hero and judge these debates of morality, and the argument made is that it is heroic, life-supporting values that judge these cases. In other words, Shakespeare should focus on his plays because it confers more benefit to humanity, but also that it is him staying true to what is important to him, rather than dropping it all to help an ill relative.

Earlier on in the book I raised my eyebrow at some of this, but it was elucidated more effectively towards the end. At first my instinct was to say ‘well, of course the soldier is heroic sacrificing himself’, and indeed, he is of course. Bernstein argues that when the soldier sacrifices himself, it’s not because it’s for other people, it’s because it is in service to his higher order heroic life supporting value. I.e., it’s a heroic act because the soldier is sticking to his heroic values.

Whether you like this book might depend a bit on how coldly rational you think this is, or if you just think it’s logical. There has to be some kind of definition for a hero, and if you look at Greek myth it can become confusing due to their flaws – with Achilles being the obvious example, or Oedipus and his excessive pride. How do we define that which we are meant to hold up as higher but is supposed to be the ideal way to act? Bernstein addresses this also. Heroes can pop up anywhere, and aren’t perfect. But we have to recognise that this makes them more human, and that we don’t have to emulate everything about them. More importantly we have to identify what makes them heroic and adopt that in our own lives.

Bernstein’s work was thoroughly engaging then, in a short space of time I was really examining my thoughts. But it’s not always as tight as I think it should be, and doesn’t even consider really the bridges between religion, mythology, modern times and heroism, instead choosing to push the Ayn Rand angle of self-fulfilment being the most important thing over all else, and particularly getting into the weeds with Marxism vs Capitalism, which felt jarring and unnecessary with the heroic analysis. I’d even have liked to have seen the book approach the more spiritual side – for example, if self-fulfilment is of ultimate importance, and how to become what you should be is examined in religious/mythic stories, it could be quite interesting.

More time could have been spent on wringing out some of the more pernicious philosophical aspects. I find myself agreeing with a lot of the points – action is important for a hero, values are important. It argues that self-fulfilment is crucial if they are aimed correctly, because heroes become what they are supposed to be, even with their flaws. They stick to their values which happen to be life-giving, not necessarily benevolent but for the betterment of humanity. But some of the heroic stories included in the book were not related to very effectively. I wondered why one or two of them were in the book, and the departure to discussing Marxism did not link well to the rest of the book and felt a bit odd to include.

Final Score

In conclusion this is a good introduction to the idea of heroism, and a particular angle of Ayn Rand’s philosophy. It is a fairly concise and easy read, which did have some sections I think could have been left out, but some parts are very engaging if you’re interested in the topic. I think this is probably one for people interested in these niches – it doesn’t encounter the opposite angles or surrounding contexts enough to my mind but it might make you think about your own ideas of heroism.

7/10