One of the biggest stories of the last couple weeks has been the ongoing saga of the teenage soccer team trapped in a cave in Thailand (four members of which got out Sunday morning, and hopefully more will be out by the time this is published). The story has captured the world’s attention because it has several tragic elements with which we can sympathize, and other heroic parts which are inspiring. It was sad to hear of the team’s loss, then gratifying to hear they had been found. It was disturbing to hear they couldn’t get out, but pleasing to see how many people offered to help. Most recently, the news that incoming rains and diminishing oxygen levels could force an unsafe rescue attempt has been coupled with the team’s resilience in the face of danger.
Themes like this have pervaded human history for generations. Stories about heroes in dangerous situations go back as far as we have records. From the moment ethics began as a field, the idea that one should help those in need has been a consistent feature. Similarly, the role of community in helping those in tough situations is emphasized by religions and cultures around the globe and throughout history. As we continue to wish the best to the rest of those individuals stuck in the cave, perhaps we can refresh ourselves as to the ways ideas of heroism and community have been emphasized in society. After all, some of us may need to respond to a comparable situation in our future.
- Alena Rettová, “A solitary war? Genre, community and philosophy in Swahili culture,” Journal of African Cultural Studies, June 2016.
- Michele Moses, Lauren Saenz, and Amy Farley, “The Central Role of Philosophy in a Study of Community Dialogues,” Studies in Philosophy & Education, March 2015.
- Kenneth Berthel, “Creating Harmony from Diversity: What Confucianism Reveals about the True Value of Liberal Education for the 21st Century,” ASIANetwork Exchange, 2017
- Travis Wiltshire, “A Prospective Framework for the Design of Ideal Artificial Moral Agents: Insights from the Science of Heroism in Humans,” Minds & Machines, February 2015.
- Zeno Franco, Scott Allison, Elaine Kinsella, Ari Kohen, Matt Langdon, and Philip Zimbardo, “Heroism Research: A Review of Theories, Methods, Challenges, and Trends,” Journal of Humanistic Psychology, July 2018.
*
Have a suggestion for the What Are You Reading column? Contact us here.
In the 1990s, Susan Neiman ( http://www.susan-neiman.de/ ) held the view that heroism was a lost topic much needed in philosophy. In some ways, some of her books — Moral Clarity, and Why Grow Up? — are calls for heroism, from the inside out (addressing the formation of heroes).
I remember she emphasized Hanna Arendt’s Men in Dark Times as well as Rousseau’s writing on heroism.
Well, are philosophers qualified to write expert level articles about heroism? Isn’t this the first question we might be asking before following the links you have shared?
On a personal human level this seems an impossible question to answer because philosophers, like all the rest of us, vary considerably from person to person and none of us really knows what we might do if a challenging moment requiring heroism should arrive.
I’m reminded here of the Sheriffs deputy who stood outside the scene of a recent school shooting in Florida listening to the gunfire inside. What would I have done had I been in that deputy’s shoes? Would I have raced towards the gunfire? I have no idea, and will never know unless I am confronted with such a situation.
So, on a personal level philosophers are reasonably declared as qualified as anyone else to write an article about heroism, and an article on the subject by a philosopher is likely to be more articulate than most.
Evaluating the profession as a whole seems a far easier matter. We really have little evidence that the profession as a whole is willing to buck the group consensus, risk the judgment of their peers, and heroically address the threats that most need addressing.
To be fair to philosophers, in this way they are really little different than the larger society they are part of. Given that this is so it seems articles on heroism by philosophers should be seen as merely personal opinion and not expert testimony. An article on heroism by a plumber would merit equal consideration.
From what I gathered, the articles on heroism (I could only find two–the others are on community) rely on expert testimony and the cultural consensus of what values a hero embodies, not their own experience. So while you raise a fair point about philosophers (though that said, there are some incredibly heroic philosophers in history), it is one the authors thought of.
Thanks Nathan.
I should probably rush to add that while imperfections in my personality often obscure this, I would very much like philosophers to be cultural heros, and feel philosophy is an excellent tool for identifying what kind of heroism is most required.
If I was a better writer it would be clear that I’m attempting to be like the high school football coach who once hit me in the helmet with his clipboard to jar me out of a sleepy complacency and drive me to reach the highest level of performance I was capable of. It’s amazing what impact just the right word from just the right person at just the right time can have on a young person.
High school football coaches are often heroic in their tireless service to the young people in their charge, and they are often philosophers of a sort too, at their best selling a vision of what it is to live a good life.
“When the going gets tough, the tough get going.”
Sure, it’s trite, it’s a cliche, it lacks nuance etc, but as a life philosophy goes, it hits pretty close to the mark.
The best coaches have mastered a sophisticated blend of sincere encouragement and screaming in your face which is not at all easy to replicate in print, especially by those of us not well endowed with social skills.
Nathan writes…
“So while you raise a fair point about philosophers (though that said, there are some incredibly heroic philosophers in history), it is one the authors thought of.”
Although I haven’t read the articles, that’s largely because based on what evidence I have already I honestly doubt that the authors would really have any clue what I’m talking about.
Which of the authors are willing to write an endless series of articles about nuclear weapons until such time that they are considered hysterical wacko crackpots by their peers? Or, if you prefer, which of the authors is willing to make and defend a reasoned case as to why they aren’t going to write articles about nuclear weapons?
Where is the evidence that ANY academic philosopher is willing to take a strong stand in either of those directions?
I respectfully decline any suggestion that whatever I’m writing about has already been addressed by your profession. I also respectfully decline any notion that attempting to defend a status quo is a suitable business for philosophers to be engaged in.
CRACKPOT PHILOSOPHY: If a solution to a human problem could be found within the status quo group consensus such a solution would have already been found, and the problem already resolved.
For a philosopher, heroic action would seem to involve action which is both important, of benefit to others, and risky. Pushing the topic of nuclear weapons and the relationship with knowledge they arise from would seem to qualify.
WRONG? Of course I could be wrong, in which case it would be kind of someone to explain why so that I don’t spend the rest of my life wasting time on an illogical activity.
RIGHT? Or, I could be right, in which case I’ve just handed readers a way to emerge as a brave philosophical leader.
It wouldn’t be risky and brave to write an article on these topics. But as readers should conclude from observing the experiment I’ve been conducting on these subjects, writing one article isn’t going to be enough to accomplish anything. Writing ten articles won’t be either. Writing a hundred articles would probably be just just the beginning of achieving some modest level of impact.
What’s risky is that if a philosopher were to address these topics in a way which has any hope of connecting and being useful, they are in danger of being labeled a single issue kook suffering from obsession. If one is not willing to take that risk, ok fair enough, but the price tag for that choice is surrendering the opportunity to emerge as a hero and a leader.
I recall being in junior high school. Three high school kids or older were tormenting somebody on the playground. All of us stood around huddled in the safety of the group, shaking with fear and hoping we wouldn’t be the next target.
And then one of us, this sawed off little short guy, stepped from the crowd and told the big kids to cut it out. And so of course he became the next target. The sawed off little short guy immediately raced right in to one of the big kids and proceeded to rip his face off. Seeing this, the other big kids ran. Over fifty years later and the courage of the sawed off little short guy is still remembered here, and the cowardice of the person telling this story is still regretted.
So we’re all grown up now, but little has really changed. Somebody is going to emerge from the crowd and confront the issues others are afraid of, while most everybody else will hide in the safety of the crowd. A few will stand up and be heroes. And most will lie down and be sheep.
If you want to be sheep, write yet another article on diversity. If you want to be a hero, find the biggest threat you can and race headlong in to it.