Contrary to what most people believe, it's not just ancient epic heroes who attempt to find eternal life. Modern humans, too, are afraid of death. One of the main themes in the Epic of Gilgamesh is the idea that death is a natural part of life, and that the life that is given should be enjoyed while it lasts. Humanity has used this and other methods to justify its continued existence on earth.
As Siduri, the wine-maker, says to Gilgamesh, "Dance and be merry, feast and rejoice. Let your clothes be fresh, bathe yourself in water, cherish the little child that holds your hand, and make your wife happy in your embrace, for this too is the lot of man" (p.102). She insists that the best thing man can do with his life is enjoy it, along with everything that nature provides. Since death is inevitable, life should be relished, the fruits of the earth utilized to their fullest, and material pleasures enjoyed without guilt. Gilgamesh refuses to listen to these words of wisdom, and ends up losing the plant of eternal life and returning to Uruk with only "a tale of the days before the flood." Modern followers of this philosophy of life tend to believe that one's time on earth should be spent enjoying the fruits of labor, leaving a legacy for one's children, doing good things, regardless of whether they will be remembered by future generations.
Humans have devised two other methods of dealing with he prospect of leaving this world and never returning. Followers of one method spend their lives attempting to do great deeds. They invent new things, make great art, construct tall buildings or monuments, and otherwise draw attention to themselves in such a way that ensures that they will not be forgotten when they die. This method places a great deal of trust in the length of the human memory. Some people have attained a form of eternal life in this manner, in the minds of those who admire, study, or worship them. Most of these attention-seekers, however, are victims of the habit of humanity to jump from one great thing to the next, continually seeking new idols and new experiences, following that which gives them a sense of importance and permanence of their own. They are forgotten in favor of the next great celebrity, the next tall building, or the next popular song or work of art.
Another type of person is the one who has adhered to the idea that there exists a form of life after death, in a place much better than that in which he lives. Actual life seems insignificant compared to this other life, so much so that it is often neglected in the pursuit of eternal happiness. The only catch involved in attaining this eternal life is that passage into it is regulated by large organizations and other earthly forces, by which I mean religion. Attaining this eternal life usually requires that sacrifices of some sort be made during mortality, usually something along the lines of fasting, prayer, or regular donations to specific causes. The organization in charge can accept or deny any person admittance to their chosen place of rest. Adherents to this method of attaining immortality have chosen to accept that it works without concrete proof, lending those in charge a great deal of power over their followers' behavior.
Belief in any of these three methods is what gives many of the world's people a reason to continue living. For those with the means and motive to make a difference in the world of the living, the great-deeds method is usually preferable. For those who feel as though they are unable or are prevented in some way from leaving some sort of mark in the mortal realms, there's always the hope-for-eternal-life method. In some ways, the first way of life- enjoying it, whether another one is offered afterwards or not- is the hardest to live. It requires that death be accepted as natural, not dreaded or fought against. Those who are able to enjoy their lives are ones who accept the possibility of death peacefully and without guilt or fear.
How modern mortals deal with the impermanence of the world is not a subject that they generally like to discuss. Many people get up and go about their business only because they have conveniently forgotten that they are living the only life that is given to them. Reminding a person that, biologically, their only reason for living is to ensure the continuation of the human race usually causes feelings of insignificance and depression. We go to work and school because it gives us something more stimulating to do than lie in bed and wait for the end of the world. We've also been encouraged to believe that whatever profession we choose, from secretary to brain surgeon, construction worker to military leader, will have a beneficial impact on someone's life. While it may improve someone's life temporarily, that person will eventually die, taking all memories of the person responsible for his happiness with him. From the time of Gilgamesh until today, humans have been seeking eternal life, whether through deeds or through continued belief in the existence of life after death. These methods can seem silly when simply stated, but they are powerful enough that they've gotten the world out of bed every morning for thousands of years.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Why Heroism?
Some of the greatest books and films in human history center around the concept of the hero. From the ancient Greek epics to modern fantasy and science fiction movies, the hero- usually a man, often endowed with some sort of special power or ability- has gone on a journey, searched for something lost, or wielded his sword/bow/light saber/nunchuks/fearsome intellect against an entity seen as "evil." When they succeed in their quests, they are revered by their fellow characters, and hailed by their readers or viewers as brave, noble, selfless, etc, etc. Whether these characters are, in fact, heroes, depends on the individual's idea of a hero.
Clearly, someone whose heroes are famous athletes is not going to be inspired by a Rubik's Cube champion, and someone who looks up to great scientists is not going to care about the exploits of a military leader. A 2001 poll asked Americans what they thought the characteristics of a hero were. "Not giving up" topped the list, followed by such things as "doing what's right," "changing society for the better," and "not expecting personal recognition." If we assume that there are as many definitions of what makes a hero as there are people, then we can conclude that there is no great, universal figure whom we all admire and whose actions we strive to emulate. People like Rosa Parks and New York City's firefighters are held up to us as heroes, but this is because they conform to the politically correct "hero" standard. Rosa Parks didn't wake up one morning and think to herself, "Today's the day I stand up for the rights of my race, and do the deed that will cause little schoolchildren, forty years from now, to say that I am the bravest person in the world." She was probably just tired, pissed off, and sick of being told to move from her seat. She didn't consciously decide to be a hero, but a split-second decision caused her to go down in history as a great leader of the civil rights movement. "Acceptable" heroes such as Parks are the ones who don't give up, change society for the better, and don't expect personal recognition.
However, this image of the selfless everyday person doesn't explain the world's fascination with supernatural heroes, or the ones who do their deeds not out of a desire to "better their communities" but out of hate or a desire for revenge. These heroes are almost exclusively found in fiction, the supernatural ones for obvious reasons, and the vengeful ones because anger and hate are not socially acceptable emotions. We're happy to watch an angry person kill an evil guy in a movie, but if an angry person killed an evil guy in real life he'd be considered a murderer, not a hero.
It is perhaps for these same reasons that many people believe that there are far fewer female heroes (heroines) than there are male heroes. There are just as many heroines in literature and film as there are heroes. However, what makes a heroine admirable to her audience (mainly women) is not usually her intelligence or their skill in combat, traits traditionally applied to male heroes. It is, instead, based on her physical appearances and her ability to help others and keep them- and herself- happy. If by the end of the book or movie she has obtained the affections of a suitable male, so much the better. Heroines such as these are emulated by women worldwide, and judged to be "acceptable" to men.
Heroines that defy this acceptable standard are few and far between. Those who do are seen as unfeminine, and therefore undesirable members of society. While a young girl may admire a warrior princess in a book or film, she cannot emulate the actions of her idol for fear of being judged violent or masculine by society. Women in literature and film who are given the same special abilities as their male counterparts are expected to use them for the good of the community, not for personal gain. A woman who puts her own goals before the cares of those around her is considered selfish. This attitude is seen in everyday life all the time- witness society's views of a woman who chooses to pursue a career, especially a traditionally male one, instead of tending to a family. While these women are occasionally lauded for their courage, they are more often discouraged and considered villains rather than heroes.
In modern society, heroes give the average person someone to admire and to copy. That well-known heroes inspire us to do benefit our societies is a good thing. But other heroes- less socially acceptable ones- often lead their followers down paths that are detrimental to society. Personally, I believe the world would be better off without heroes. For every great figure of the past that is held up as a hero, there is someone in the present who is looking to that figure for guidance instead of looking to himself. If a country is in need of a hero, it means that that country can no longer rely on itself- its leaders and its people- for hope, innovation, strength, or whatever is needed. Someone who needs a hero to inspire him to be brave or selfless has lost his natural ability to be so, and therefore has lost the ability to look out for himself.
Clearly, someone whose heroes are famous athletes is not going to be inspired by a Rubik's Cube champion, and someone who looks up to great scientists is not going to care about the exploits of a military leader. A 2001 poll asked Americans what they thought the characteristics of a hero were. "Not giving up" topped the list, followed by such things as "doing what's right," "changing society for the better," and "not expecting personal recognition." If we assume that there are as many definitions of what makes a hero as there are people, then we can conclude that there is no great, universal figure whom we all admire and whose actions we strive to emulate. People like Rosa Parks and New York City's firefighters are held up to us as heroes, but this is because they conform to the politically correct "hero" standard. Rosa Parks didn't wake up one morning and think to herself, "Today's the day I stand up for the rights of my race, and do the deed that will cause little schoolchildren, forty years from now, to say that I am the bravest person in the world." She was probably just tired, pissed off, and sick of being told to move from her seat. She didn't consciously decide to be a hero, but a split-second decision caused her to go down in history as a great leader of the civil rights movement. "Acceptable" heroes such as Parks are the ones who don't give up, change society for the better, and don't expect personal recognition.
However, this image of the selfless everyday person doesn't explain the world's fascination with supernatural heroes, or the ones who do their deeds not out of a desire to "better their communities" but out of hate or a desire for revenge. These heroes are almost exclusively found in fiction, the supernatural ones for obvious reasons, and the vengeful ones because anger and hate are not socially acceptable emotions. We're happy to watch an angry person kill an evil guy in a movie, but if an angry person killed an evil guy in real life he'd be considered a murderer, not a hero.
It is perhaps for these same reasons that many people believe that there are far fewer female heroes (heroines) than there are male heroes. There are just as many heroines in literature and film as there are heroes. However, what makes a heroine admirable to her audience (mainly women) is not usually her intelligence or their skill in combat, traits traditionally applied to male heroes. It is, instead, based on her physical appearances and her ability to help others and keep them- and herself- happy. If by the end of the book or movie she has obtained the affections of a suitable male, so much the better. Heroines such as these are emulated by women worldwide, and judged to be "acceptable" to men.
Heroines that defy this acceptable standard are few and far between. Those who do are seen as unfeminine, and therefore undesirable members of society. While a young girl may admire a warrior princess in a book or film, she cannot emulate the actions of her idol for fear of being judged violent or masculine by society. Women in literature and film who are given the same special abilities as their male counterparts are expected to use them for the good of the community, not for personal gain. A woman who puts her own goals before the cares of those around her is considered selfish. This attitude is seen in everyday life all the time- witness society's views of a woman who chooses to pursue a career, especially a traditionally male one, instead of tending to a family. While these women are occasionally lauded for their courage, they are more often discouraged and considered villains rather than heroes.
In modern society, heroes give the average person someone to admire and to copy. That well-known heroes inspire us to do benefit our societies is a good thing. But other heroes- less socially acceptable ones- often lead their followers down paths that are detrimental to society. Personally, I believe the world would be better off without heroes. For every great figure of the past that is held up as a hero, there is someone in the present who is looking to that figure for guidance instead of looking to himself. If a country is in need of a hero, it means that that country can no longer rely on itself- its leaders and its people- for hope, innovation, strength, or whatever is needed. Someone who needs a hero to inspire him to be brave or selfless has lost his natural ability to be so, and therefore has lost the ability to look out for himself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)