The word "hero" describes someone who behaves selflessly when the stakes are high.
It's an admirable quality, for sure, but to this we assign one of the most superlative words in the language, akin to terms like "genius" and "legend"? Shouldn't the proper word for a person who behaves selflessly when stakes are high be "non-shmuck"?
Another word sadly degraded from years of grading on a curve is "brave". These days, merely enduring something like cancer entitles you to "brave", as if you'd been given a choice and proclaimed "bring it on!".
Are we really so small a species that by merely enduring unavoidable adversity, or by not behaving selfishly under stress, we've risen as high as humans can go?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2012
(208)
-
▼
August
(22)
- Some Beers to Try
- Explaining Armstrong
- Dead Malls
- Understanding Online Star Ratings
- The Infinite Potential of Slow Learners
- Home Decor for the Visually Incompetent
- "The Poor"
- A Campaign of Two Half-Libertarians
- Job Creators
- Apple to Set a Precedent of Non-Indispensableness
- Paul Ryan: Fierce Libertarian and Staunch Catholic?
- Ruggiero Ricci: Suggested Listening
- Our Ruggiero Ricci
- Brave Heroes
- Recognizing Pure Id For What it Is
- Gender Segregated Competition
- Give Me That Old Time Olympics
- Whimsy
- No-Fee Change Counting And Human Happiness
- Another Rubber Tree Plant
- Nerds 1, Jocks 0
- Richard Wagner: Pussycat
-
▼
August
(22)
No comments:
Post a Comment