Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
And what, “to die for the motherland” is not death for beliefs? Her, of course. So the question boils down to which beliefs are more worthy.
And here we have two people dying in battle. One man's conviction was ” stop fascism.” Persuasion of the second “to bring victory to Germany”. For the motherland, strictly speaking, only the second died. He didn't care what his homeland was doing or what it did with the victory. What is good for him is what the motherland does. The former, on the contrary, did not care what country to fight for, it was important to him that what the German homeland is doing now is no longer being done. If possible, never.
Now tell me which of these two has done the German people the most good.
In fact, a true Hero is someone who KILLS (or otherwise forces to surrender) the enemies of their homeland. As a person who once had something to do with shoulder straps,I will say that the Army, Service, and War are the same Work, the same Work, as other activities. Simply-specific and more risky. And Death in battle is, nevertheless, an emergency, an industrial accident, rather than an end in itself….
The company rose to the attack – the first fell dead after taking a couple of steps, the second-ran and shot the enemy machine gun…WHICH of them is the Hero?.7… As you can see, sometimes it's just a “lottery”.((
To determine who is more of a hero, let's try to enter from afar.
When you try to solve the question “head-on”, contradictions begin to emerge one after another, which have already been outlined here in the answers.�
And if you check with well-known heroic plots, it turns out that none of the above is a defining indicator, even if it is characteristic.
Is it possible that the hero is the one who is “more convinced”in his beliefs? How to measure who is more convinced and who is less convinced? And even if there is a way to do this, is there any connection between beliefs and the” degree ” of heroism?
It is impossible to even calculate who is the bigger hero out of two heroes who died even for the same idea. But it often happens that films are made about one of them, but they have never heard about the other.
And so.
Neither death, nor homeland, nor beliefs are important. Heroism isn't about that.�
Tragedy, mise en scene, and plot are important. Heroism is a literary and mythological phenomenon. More for the people, the hero is the one who has the louder legend. The hero is the protagonist of a drama. The main character is the one whose story is more suitable for a book or film adaptation. The hero is the one who is best remembered.�
A hero is a meme.
The hero is the one around whom the hype is.
The heroes are Karbyshev, Theseus, Jesus, Karl Martell and 28 Panfilov residents. Regardless, not so much on their real merits or beliefs, but on the reality of themselves.
In short, the main character is the one who has the most interesting fairy tale.
Beliefs can be anything, and it is absolutely not a fact that they will necessarily be heroic or even ” correspond “to morality. For example ,a maniac is usually convinced that he has the right to rape and kill, and a thief-that he has the right to steal. If someone died for their criminal beliefs, they are definitely not a hero to the people.
With the death for the Motherland ,too, not everything is smooth. First, to die for your country, you need to have the belief that it is necessary. So it's the same thing.
Secondly, it is not yet known what kind of country it is and what kind of policy it pursues. Maybe dying for her would be morally reprehensible. For example, if the motherland pursues an aggressive policy of conquest, can the death of someone who died for the sake of conquering foreign peoples be called heroic?�
Third, it is not a fact that the death of someone there for the motherland will benefit this very motherland. If a person himself provokes a war, say, by firing on the territory of neighbors, and dies at the same time, what kind of hero is he?
Before calling someone a hero, you need to carefully study the issue. Each case is unique. And yet, in different historical periods and for different people, the assessment of actions can change.
You're looking at heroism from the wrong angle. First, you don't have to die. Secondly, the homeland or beliefs for whether a person will be considered a hero are secondary.
Heroism is always considered an act in specific circumstances, when a person risks his own health, life, and well-being for the sake of other people, often not even familiar to him, and at the same time achieves some result.
People choose their heroes based on myths and legends about them.�
About 300-400 years ago, these myths and legends were popular, that is, information was passed from mouth to mouth, gradually overgrown with legend.
In the modern world, this process has long been ordered and taken under strict control by the ideological apparatus. Therefore, a great hero for the people will be the one who is appointed this hero and will tell about him in the media, popularly explaining to the people what exactly-for love of the Motherland or for loyalty to beliefs-the people should appreciate him.
If you accept the Truth under beliefs, then of course the greater hero is the one who dies for the Truth – the truth is more expensive than the Motherland.�
“A beautiful thing is love for the fatherland, but there is something even more beautiful — this is the love of truth. Love for the fatherland gives birth to heroes, love for the truth creates wise men, benefactors of humanity. Love for the motherland divides peoples, feeds national hatred and sometimes dresses the earth in mourning; love for the truth spreads the light of knowledge, creates spiritual pleasures, brings people closer to the Deity. Not through the motherland, but through the truth leads the way to heaven.”
The homeland is primarily people (family, friends, dear people in general), and not the territory. If a person died for the Motherland, then he died, as it sounds in Old Russian, for the friends of the owl-this is the greatest feat. Just need to consider one important detail. A person's ideas can be completely different, and the struggle in which a person can die for the Motherland is generally possible in war. Wars, as is customary, are waged by States, and therefore there is an ideological element here. Death for the state is still death for an idea and, as a rule, for an empty idea. However, it should be borne in mind that death for the state does not negate death for the Motherland. And per turnover, respectively. At the same time, given the picture of soldiers / veterans of the Great Patriotic War in the photo, the premise of the question and possible answers can give rise to false prejudices among people, no matter how Red Army soldiers or heroes died for communism. As history has shown, hundreds of memoirs, family memories of hundreds of thousands of families, people died precisely for their Homeland and for the right to exist, and not for some ideas with the peaks of snow-covered communism. Naturally, there were people who died for the idea in the war, but neither the sofa experts, nor the caramel propagandists from the media (both pro-state and opposition), nor I, nor you have the gift to read the thoughts of those who died at war, what exactly they thought about the ideas around them and what they think about their home, and therefore about the Motherland. It is considered honorable and accepted that people died for their Homeland. This is indeed true, because it is only natural that a person should think about home and family, and not about the political leaders who caused him to disappear. So, the answer to the question is obvious: A person who dies for the Motherland is a greater hero for the people, because he really lies down for the well-being of this very people. People who died in the Second World War died for the Motherland, and already in some fifth or tenth turn for the idea. And then it is unlikely that they died and even thought about any ideas there. As one bad Italian mobster and well-known mobster joked about a bullet that gets in the ass changes too much in the head. It didn't save him, of course, but he had the right idea. There are obvious things, and in this case it is obvious that the soldiers did not think about communism, if only for the reason that neither before the war, nor after the fuck fell to them. They had much more important things – to live for the sake of their loved ones, for example, and this is certainly also a feat for the people and much more than death for an idea. By the way, one Belarusian writer, a front – line soldier, by the way, had a character in the book, which fellow villagers branded “idzeyn prydurkam” – a very revealing characteristic. A person's ideas usually mean good for society and all that, but as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. By the way, the Second World War, in addition to economic reasons, also had ideological (ideological) reasons. So the ideologues on the market here are the real enemies of humanity, not just any particular people. After all, all nations that are involved in a total sum-up are suffering.
The one who is most promoted by agitprop. In a huge multi-million-strong state, a person can learn something other than the immediate environment only from the media. After all, non-existent heroes were also promoted.