[ExI] Heroism without self-sacrifice

[PJ Manney]

On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 10:54 PM, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky
<sentience at pobox.com> wrote:
> I actually have no problem with the idea that self-sacrifice reveals
> heroism; it shows the importance to them of whatever they are
> pursuing.  The implication that heroism *requires* self-sacrifice
> implies that there is no other way to show dedication, however.
>
> After all, the point of heroism is not to reveal virtue, but to
> protect that which is worth protecting.
>
> My own conceptualization of heroism is touched on somewhat in:
>
> http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/11/superhero-bias.html
> http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/01/something-to-pr.html

Max may be teaching a 500's course, but I seem to be stuck teaching Story 101.

Eliezer makes some good points above, but the conundrum of 'how heroic
is superhero heroism' as opposed to 'normal hero heroism' is one that
storytellers have been grappling with for some time -- I'd say at
least several thousand years.

>From Gilgamesh's fear of death to Lucifer's fall from grace to
Achilles' heel to Superman's kryptonite, the vulnerability of the
superhero may indeed be the oldest story ever told because without it,
we don't care about the superhero at all.  Why?  Lack of empathy,
which is at the core of Eliezer's argument, although never specified.
We can empathize more easily over the difficulties, therefore imbue
the policeman's act with more heroism.  Not the superhero's effort.

In a post on writing about the Singularity a couple of years ago, I
wrote about the hobbling of the augmented hero.

http://pj-manney.blogspot.com/2006/09/singularity-or-bust.html

Maybe my choice of the word "hobbling" is indicative of how deeply
embedded the Achilles reference is in the collective consciousness (if
I may go all Jungian on y'all).

In the Freudian era of the 20th C., we hobbled them in obvious
psychological ways, although Mary Shelley was doing that well before
Freud.  (Both Frankenstein and the creature are deeply screwed up and
in pain and therefore, fascinating and relatable.)  Peter Parker,
Clark Kent and Bruce Wayne are all in need of therapy, with daddy
issues, sufficiency issues, survivor-guilt issues, sexual issues...
They've got so many issues, it's amazing they can get out of bed in
the morning!  It's that effort to don the cape and tights every day in
the face of crippling psychological problems that makes them
compelling, empathetic, and therefore, heroic.  Not saving the world
from the Green Hornet.  Because even though I agree that the world is
very much worth saving, it is the fact that they can save it with one
hand tied behind their back that makes their herodom less valued, as
Eliezer pointed out, and in need of complications.

Back to self-sacrifice, there are mythic stories that don't involve
it, per se, but still involve the danger of physical or metaphysical
crash.  As Terry and Jef hinted, they involve the heroism of self
knowledge and enlightenment, although these are still gained by taking
social and physical risks.  Buddha is a primary myth.

Why do I feel Max is mining us for a paper?  :)  If you are, a little
more detail on what you really want would be appreciated.

PJ