The absence of heroic examples

[OctoH]

Jack Bauer. That is all I should need to say.

It seems to me that you are really only referring to sociopolitical proponents, in which case I would refer you to Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York for the legalization of gay marriage in that state. He is obviously not as well known as the people you mentioned, but that sort of landmark action made in impact on a significant community. So I think someone out there probably would say he is a hero.

 

[Woodsey]

Well, I think having idols/heroes is stupid. So I can't say I mind.

I imagine many people gain that "status" after-the-fact anyway.

 

[WolfR]

Jack Bauer. That is all I should need to say.

It seems to me that you are really only referring to sociopolitical proponents, in which case I would refer you to Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York for the legalization of gay marriage in that state. He is obviously not as well known as the people you mentioned, but that sort of landmark action made in impact on a significant community. So I think someone out there probably would say he is a hero.

Yeah, it does affect quite a lot of people, but it's not quite a world-changing kind of personality. Perhaps my standards are too high.

 

[Smooth Operator]

We have plenty of heroes, Bobby Kotick for one, shining beacon of the gaming industry.

Heroes are for fairytales where everyone is perfect, in the real world however everyone has their good and bad points, remember peoples exceptional feats and try to surpass them but don't go imitating anyone.

 

[Gigano]

Guess that means you'll have get onto setting some yourself, eh?

Though personally I believe hero-worship of strong leader figures belong in the 1930's.

 

[WolfR]

Guess that means you'll have get onto setting some yourself, eh?

Though personally I believe hero-worship of strong leader figures belong in the 1930's.

There is a difference between worshipping and admiration.

 

[ImperialSunlight]

This is a good thing. Heroic admiration leads to the loss of individuality. But of course, there are still heroes. In politics, there's Obama. In music there's various terrible pop artists. etc.

A hero is, in my opinion, a leader kind of figure who is truly selfless, courageous and noble.
Not a single leader that I can think of nowadays is like that, except perhaps Nelson Mandela, as novixz pointed out.
Like Gandhi, Washington, Teddy Roosevelt, Lincoln and many more, these kind of heroes I mean, sorry for being so broad in the opening

I disagree that a person must be selfless to be great. Also, depending on their line of work, they need not be brave. ALSO, nobility requires some definition as it has MANY meanings. Do you mean a homeless person can't be heroic?

 

[ZombieGenesis]

Give it 50 years and there will be heroes in this generation.
In the same way genius is never appreciated in its time, the same can be said for heroes. Nostaglia might play a part in it, but mostly, it's important that these things are no longer a hot button of the pop culture.

And I think you'll find plenty of people worship at the feet of figures such as Wayne Rooney, Peter Aundre, and John Madden.

Sure you want more hero culture?

 

[Gigano]

...

There is a difference between worshipping and admiration.

Still, any time that's spent gloating over somebody else is time that could have been spent improving oneself, and working towards furthering the ideals one believes in.

Nobody's perfect. Putting people on a pedestal only serves to either blind one to their flaws, or make those flaws come crashing down on them and grind them all the further into the mud. Take a reputable guy like Mandela, who was a terrorist that killed innocent civilians before his imprisonment and subsequent rise to prominence; so while overall his actions proved to do considerably more good than evil, that should certainly temper any admiration one might feel for him.

 

[WolfR]

...

There is a difference between worshipping and admiration.

Still, any time that's spent gloating over somebody else is time that could have been spent improving oneself, and working towards furthering the ideals one believes in.

Nobody's perfect. Putting people on a pedestal only serves to either blind one to their flaws, or make those flaws come crashing down on them and grind them all the further into the mud. Take a reputable guy like Mandela, who was a terrorist that killed innocent civilians before his imprisonment and subsequent rise to prominence; so while overall his actions proved to do considerably more good than evil, that should certainly temper any admiration one might feel for him.

I'm not sure I agree with that.
In order to improve oneself you usually try to find something or someone that exemplifies the characteristic(s) or traits that you want to improve or acquire, and having an heroic figure usually makes it easier or at least it can point you in the right direction.
Also "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

 

[dyre]

You mean, the media hasn't seen fit to glorify any particular leader? They shouldn't, at least not until the guy's out of office. Gotta keep our leaders on their toes.

It's not like the "heroes" of the past (Lincoln, Mandela, w/e) were universally popular in their day, nor were they perfect leaders. It's nice to admire a leader's life's work when he's done with it, but there's no need to glorify him while he's still in the process of doing it.

 

[Midnight Crossroads]

This man was a hero, OP. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Rescorla#Actions_on_9.2F11]

There are probably hundreds of examples of people like this in Pakistan, China, Japan, Haiti, Iraq, New Orleans, etc. The only difference is they aren't famous.

Several more famous names include: John Paul II, Tenzin Gyatso, and Benazir Bhutto.

The thing, OP, is that we're living in a society where our greatest challenge is a looming threat of crisis on the horizon. Climate, energy, food, and water. The people doing the most are hard to identify because what they're doing is hard to quantify.