He Is Hero

‘In the beginning’, indicates a story that it is cliché and overdone. This will begin as others to tell the trope of Hero.

In the beginning, what inspired the common man- since women where often disregarded-was a Hero. A Hero was often born during mysterious, glorious, alien-like circumstances. It was his birth that predestined his good fortune, good looks and power and strength beyond that of the common man. Or simply put, someone did something so great that the common man thought to honor him- as it is usually a male- with the title of a ‘hero’. A common man witnessed another common man braver than himself, therefore the other more brave became a Hero. Or we can say that common man was much more sophisticated than we may give credit for sometimes, so a Hero was an imagined person. In regards to religion, or to gods, He or them are the imagined person(s). His purpose was to represent a figurative meaning of a few adjectives commonly associated with someone that has taken a risk or has made a (self) sacrifice for the greater good or in selfishness.

War or dangerous adventure is the hero’s normal occupation. He is surrounded by noble peers, and is magnanimous to his followers and ruthless to his enemies. In addition to his prowess in battle, he is resourceful and skillful in many crafts; he can build a house, sail a boat, and, if shipwrecked, is an expert swimmer. He is sometimes, like Odysseus, cunning and wise in counsel, but a hero is not usually given to much subtlety. He is a man of action rather than thought and lives by a personal code of honor that admits of no qualification. His responses are usually instinctive, predictable, and inevitable. He accepts challenge and sometimes even courts disaster. Thus baldly stated, the hero’s ethos seems over simple by the standards of a later age. He is childlike in his boasting and rivalry, in his love of presents and rewards, and in his concern for his reputation. He is sometimes foolhardy and wrong-headed, risking his life—and the lives of others—for trifles. Roland, for instance, dies because he is too proud to sound his horn for help when he is overwhelmed in battle.

Encyclopedia Britannica

The Hero to modern humankind is like the ancient definition- as revealed in super hero comics, movies and television. The Hero may also be one as described in Kung Fu films, anime collection films and television series. The Hero is someone that is strong, a risk taker and willing to sacrifice his life for others or the greater good. Though He or She is a conflicted character and may allow the more human emotions to overwhelm the mind. During this moment, as it is usually brief, self-reflection turns into selfish behavior that may cause greater damage to an individual or to an entire community. However, the Hero will readjust itself as good. And to remain forever timeless.

The most common, least forgotten form of the Hero is ‘God’. What is meant by ‘least forgotten’? No, ‘God’ is most often labeled as the Hero for modern humankind, but the meaning of that term ‘hero’ is often glossed over. A ‘hero’ is defined as a mythical person who is of the divine. This definition could also be applied to a warrior, or a soldier today, or just about anyone that exhibits such qualities like courage and bravery. In the sense of moral philosophy, the discussion here is the ‘God’ as the Hero that determines ethics. The Hero being part of a myth is one of divine creation by the imaginative common man (or men), in order to provide a figurative meaning of ethics for the common people.

In all tropes, either ancient or modern, there is a battle between good and evil. The successor, the one that triumphs over evil, is often regarded as the Hero. In ancient times this Hero overcame a battle either with the self or for a community of people- whether He was related to them or not. In modern times this Hero overcame a great feat often imaginary as it plays in superhero films and television. In the religious sense, every interpretation as ‘God’ or the Hero shows that He is the successor over what is evil- and that being the Devil/Satan in the Christian theology. What is evil? Evil is one that defies; a naysayer or negative thoughts and emotions; in opposition or question to what is good. The Hero then becomes an example to abide by and to follow by common people.

The purpose of these tropes are to exhibit good behavior or to have others obliged, for a common good. This purpose was exhibited in both ancient political and moral philosophy as a constant measure to ensure an ordered society, and well-behaved or well-ordered individuals. As for religious philosophy the same as true, though with an additional granting of immunity.

In the end, the Hero is simply a story of a moral code or something to achieve.



How to Explain Atheism?

The question posed to an atheist is often along the lines of ‘how could you not believe in God’?

The mindset that follows behind this question, perhaps, are along the lines of ‘you are denying your own existence along with everything else that exist’. Or, perhaps, the person or the believer posing this question may think that to not believe is the most ridiculous concept because of what the belief in ‘God’ offers.

A belief in ‘God’ offers sanity and hope. That is sanity meaning that the question of life existence is troubling to the human mind. In ancient philosophy, the undeclared atheist contemplated about how religion and the concept of the supernatural did not suffice in answering the greater question of life, especially that of human existence. Or in the case of Epicurus and Lucretius that thought if gods existed then they placed no importance on the lives of human beings, as they were absent and invisible. It is troubling to think what caused our existence and what gave us the ability to think and to question this fact. That troubling fact being one of insignificance, as I spelled out in ‘So They Believe’. And in hope meaning that there is an underlying purpose to suffering or to living on Earth. That there is some being out there beyond our sphere, well now beyond our universe, is our guidance and care-giver.

So, here I am to explain atheism. Atheism is the ‘lack of belief in gods’. This is not a ‘denial of god(s)’, as that statement requires a belief in god(s). This is not a belief system as its definition begins and ends in its initial statement. This term is not a religion as there are no doctrines, moral philosophy, and the sort attributed to the statement. There are two types of atheist: one that is gnostic and the other that is agnostic. Gnostic meaning to know something, or to know without doubt, or to know with affirmation. Agnostic meaning to be unsure of something, or to doubt, or to not know without affirmation. A gnostic atheist lacks a belief in god(s) because there is definitive proof of its or their non-existence. While an agnostic atheist are those like Epicurus and Lucretius expressing a lack of belief in gods, though not sure of that statement provability.

Therefore, to an atheist of either persuasion the mindset of a theist bears no weight on their mind. The argument that atheist are in denial of their existence, or in denial of their creator, ignores the point that an atheist thinks that the ‘creator’ was created by imaginative common people.

Then, depending on the particular atheist, the reasons in addition to their lack of belief is determined by how much that one person is convinced.

My Statement

I am asked often how and why I am an atheist. I tell them first that no liberal college poisoned my mind with liberal nonsense of the beginning or declining of everything. Actually, I first began to question the existence of ‘god’ after tattling on a younger sibling that expressed a lack of belief. It was only when I was a child that I questioned the imagery of this being, as well the purpose that this ‘god’ may serve in my life. As well, the lesson about there being different religions in the world proved to be a less convincing case for the religion I was indoctrinated into. So I told myself, though unknowing of the proper words at the time- that I will remain simply agnostic until I have read the holy text about all religions.

Over time I became simply an atheist. As a young atheist I never mocked the theist, only to question what all they stated as the exact meaning and purpose to every question and concern that can be conceived about life. I never got around to reading all of those holy text as they are many and most inaccessible to myself. Not even the Christian bible. I can only count on one hand how many times I have opened and read the Holy Bible. However, I took an interest in philosophy and the concept of religion as learned in the subject of history. As I graduated, moved on to college, I became a gnostic atheist.

How am I able to have a firm knowledge of something I have not read? To study the specific text(s) is meant to only argue the points made within the holy text(s). That was never my purpose since as a child. As a child I questioned the imagery and the purpose, not ‘what did Jacob say?’ Therefore, the confirmation and answers to the many questions I had kept silent existed in the origins of each religion. As I had moved onto college I wished to major in philosophy. Upon searching for the likelihood of making a living with that degree it encouraged me to choose history instead. Specifically, I concentrated on western civilization and that meant learning of the beginning of ancient philosophy and the philosophers, as well as the beginning of the major Western religions present today. In learning about something you learn about how and why it was created. Though the details of this topic is for another extended essay, I may state that my confirmation was found that god(s) and religion are human created.

My confirmation was not told specifically, but through several courses. This affirmation was told by Christian professors that had to explain the point of historical interpretation of religion as not being a denial or criticism of their present religious convictions. Though one could sense the discomfort in the room whenever we discussed the early Christian beliefs, as in comparison to their own as modern Christians. I was told this to be true when discussing the concept of ‘hero’s’ as told in epic poems or the history of a glorious time before the existence of writing by the ancients. This was never specific. There was never a confirmation that ‘yea all of this myth’ by professors or by the students, whom all or most are religious as well. This is simply a person, myself that came to the conclusion of all that I have been taught- and all that had been carefully worded as to not offend.

My Conclusion

What I have come to conclude: ‘He Is Hero’.

A combination of all of the courses, lessons, lectures have concluded to that specific topic. Now I admittedly failed at knowing the mundane, specific details of the epics; the purpose of Homer’s writing; the thoughts of Socrates; to actually read the text about the Jews and Christians under Roman rule; etc. All of which were disinteresting as my mind often went on a tangent about the overall idea, gathered without reading much further. My mind is primarily fascinated by concepts. I am moved by the general idea of something rather than the specifics, though the specifics like an event’s date may prove to be useful. Though not useful in understanding the underlying meaning of everything, or one specific topic and the purpose of it.

I have concluded here that He is in fact a Hero. My quest in knowing this fact was due to my thoughts and views on religion. What does Hero mean and what does Hero provide to others has always been a common topic upon my mind. And then whenever questioned about my inability to believe in a higher, supernatural being I vaguely reference that He Is [A] Hero.

A simple statement not conveying and justifying all that is known or could be known. However, in its simplicity answers a common question asked of an atheist. Here I gave my own summary of how and why I’m convinced.

On Dating A Narcissist

I have had unsuccessful immature relationships so far in life, and so far into my adult life. I have yet to experience a relationship whereby the person has not said, towards the end of it all, that we are ‘two different people’. In my mind this is plainly obvious that we are two different people. I do not understand by the key break up line-that concludes every relationship that I have had-that we are too different to be together for an indefinite amount of time. Here, I’m thinking these geniuses are truly and remarkably blind. How did you not know that, in the beginning, I preferred talking insistently about abstract ideas and of society, whereas you preferred the behaviors in the expression of love [i.e. cuddling]? How did you not know that my version of relaxation is to nap and to sustain knowledge on various subjects at once, whereas you wanted to go outside for play? How did you not know that I prefer meaningful and thought-provoking conversations, whereas you assumed I required frequent responses of infatuation and laughter? I was certainly aware of such differences and of others more personal. Why are you only aware towards the end of it all? Or, a better question here, why do you assume that awareness of differences is a sign that we are a mismatch, or too imperfect to remain as a couple?

Some people tend to assume that true companionship is with a person that complements in a way that they are ‘twins’. They are the exact copy of the other. They are the reflection in the mirror that they wake up to and either reluctantly stare or smile. I cannot bear the thought of being with someone that is the reflection of me. Not that I do not love myself. However, if I am to want someone that is the exact version of myself or somewhat similar then I rather be single. Why take on an extra bill for takeout dinner, or to purchase matching outfits for my personality doppelgänger, when I can do so cheaply and alone? What satisfaction is there, for myself, if I am constantly surrounded by my own mindset, beliefs and ideas when my personality craves for different opinions and intellectual arguments? I enjoy the debate between individuals, preferably with someone who is different. Now my character, my personality resembles that of the Carl Jung/Myers-Briggs personality type INTP. I do not give much weight to astrology or personality typing, however I find it very helpful to explain my nature and character-which is considered odd and rare to most people. As I crave intellectual stimulation, I have been accused of wanting someone who is of that exact type. I have been accused of, towards the end of a relationship, of being a narcissist. Why is that? I insisted on doing something that is of my character to do. Howlever they are mistaken. I wish to create meaningful conversations with people regardless if it is of their nature or character to argue. I wish to engage their minds, of their thoughts and opinions on various abstract thought or of society. This person need not to have a preference for doing so, as I find arguments or any sign of disagreement scares people. I crave different experiences from those of different backgrounds, so that I may better understand the greater subject of humanity. If I had some exactly like myself we would write a book together. While that is all fine and anticipated for future collaboration, I have not gained nothing more with someone who simply wish to analyze and to retain as well.

Do opposites attract then? According to the article, ‘The Science of Narcissism: Why We Really Just Want to Date Ourselves’, relationship ‘twining’ or a person wanting a complement is greatly desired. As a side note here, I will reference the article that first presented the idea from my original search. Then I will follow the links provided by the author in order to find the original topic or study published. I have found that Business Insider will have authors linking to a previous Business Insider article- for more views I suppose. The original article cited included a study about how humans, as all animals, tend to have or to seek partners that bear similarities to their parents. The comparison used was the hair color and the eye color of the person’s partner compared to their parents. The study claims that there is a form of genetic imprinting that conditions us to continue a preference for certain genes. This may be the case for basic, instinctive tribal survival. However, in a more modern world I would see that this is more of a cultural familiarity or preference due to some perceived ideological necessity. For example, the black activist that insist that interracial dating is futile to the radical and never-ending upset nature of one. And since this study indicates a bias towards heterosexuals or those that engage in opposite-sex attraction more so than others, I find the study to have little understanding of human attraction.

But can opposites attract then? According to several articles, though one I’ll site here: ‘Attracted to Your Opposite?, people do prefer their ‘twin’. This is a chemical balance that we are unable to detect, but are sure to know when we find someone exactly like ourselves. Essentially, if you like something, then you like what you like and will seek out that likeness in someone else. While others enjoy a reflection of themselves in others, there are those that are truly attracted to opposites. This is to say that everyone loves differently and in regardless of their reason. The point that I agree with is concluded within the article about the subject of love. It is concise-love is ‘the simple ability to overlook everything you cannot stand in someone’. I have experienced that precise point. To be aware of such differences, but to make it work  regardless because that is love.