Just so I understand this part of your point, what do you mean by “hero” (as in “I am a hero” but also the previous paragraph where you talk about who is and isn’t a hero)? Is that a reference to some earlier article I missed, maybe?
You’re not missing any context. I thought there was a pretty clear divide at the gathering between people living their ordinary lives as sound studio technicians or scientists or whatever; and people trying to change life as we know it, like me or the cancer-cure guy or the old guard who’d spent years trying to do something about the insane loss of life. I’m not sure how I could make it any clearer. Some were in class “heroes”, some were in class “the ordinary lives that heroes protect”.
Presumably some would reserve the word “hero” for those who actually succeed in changing life as we know it (for the better), and thus would be confused by your usage.
I chose to interpret it as hero in the literary sense. There is something epic about Eliezer’s life mission, no?
Let’s just hope he isn’t a tragic hero. You don’t need to succeed at your mission to be a hero; you just need to be the protagonist in the story. It’s all very absurd, but surely more so for Eliezer than you and me...
Yeah, maybe a better term to use in this context would be something like “revolutionary” (a bit aggrandizing, but so is “hero”, and I’d say it’s well-deserved). That would be for those who are actively trying, whether or not they have personally made any significant, lasting contributions — the heroes would be those who have.
(Not that we’d want this to turn into a status game, of course. The only point of debate here is whether clearer terminology could be used.)
I could accept that. That’s really the only point I was trying to make; that trying to do something noble, like curing cancer, is praiseworthy, but does not automatically make someone a hero. Lots of people try to cure cancer; most of them are well-intentioned kooks or quacks… and even of those who aren’t, those who work on possible cancer cures within a rigourous scientific/rational framework, most of them will fail. As I said, they are worthy of praise and recognition for their efforts, but they are not automatically heroes. But I would be fine with calling them “aspiring heroes”.
I’m trying to make sure I’m not arguing about definitions here, but I’m not sure if the disagreement is over the definition of the word “hero” or over what we value enough to consider heroic. I might be persuaded that even trying to cure cancer is a heroic act, but I’m not sure how we could avoid having that include the well-intentioned kooks too.
Edit: Actually, I think I just persuaded myself: the well-intentioned kooks tend to promote their kookery without sufficient evidence, possibly giving people false hope or even leading people to choose an ineffective treatment over one relatively likely to be effective. That is not heroic regardless of intent. I can accept that if a person is working on cancer treatments with rationality, scientific rigour, and intellectual honesty, then they can reasonably be described as heroic.
I think revolutionary is still a little lofty. These people consumed a product. They were among the first people to consume a product. The whole post reads like, “I liked Nirvana before they were popular, and I want special status conveyed on me to recognize that fact.”
Like I said, most of the people at that gathering were not heroes; they were people who signed up out of common sense. Some of them were trying to cure cancer (literally) or get the whole world signed up for cryonics; those were the heroes.
I meant “revolutionary” would be for “people trying to change life as we know it” (as Eliezer put it), not just anybody signed up for cryonics. (And “hero” would be for those who succeed at changing life as we know it (for the better).) But maybe it’s not the best term anyway, it was just an example.
Just so I understand this part of your point, what do you mean by “hero” (as in “I am a hero” but also the previous paragraph where you talk about who is and isn’t a hero)? Is that a reference to some earlier article I missed, maybe?
You’re not missing any context. I thought there was a pretty clear divide at the gathering between people living their ordinary lives as sound studio technicians or scientists or whatever; and people trying to change life as we know it, like me or the cancer-cure guy or the old guard who’d spent years trying to do something about the insane loss of life. I’m not sure how I could make it any clearer. Some were in class “heroes”, some were in class “the ordinary lives that heroes protect”.
Presumably some would reserve the word “hero” for those who actually succeed in changing life as we know it (for the better), and thus would be confused by your usage.
I chose to interpret it as hero in the literary sense. There is something epic about Eliezer’s life mission, no?
Let’s just hope he isn’t a tragic hero. You don’t need to succeed at your mission to be a hero; you just need to be the protagonist in the story. It’s all very absurd, but surely more so for Eliezer than you and me...
Yeah, maybe a better term to use in this context would be something like “revolutionary” (a bit aggrandizing, but so is “hero”, and I’d say it’s well-deserved). That would be for those who are actively trying, whether or not they have personally made any significant, lasting contributions — the heroes would be those who have.
(Not that we’d want this to turn into a status game, of course. The only point of debate here is whether clearer terminology could be used.)
“Aspiring hero” is good enough, I think.
I could accept that. That’s really the only point I was trying to make; that trying to do something noble, like curing cancer, is praiseworthy, but does not automatically make someone a hero. Lots of people try to cure cancer; most of them are well-intentioned kooks or quacks… and even of those who aren’t, those who work on possible cancer cures within a rigourous scientific/rational framework, most of them will fail. As I said, they are worthy of praise and recognition for their efforts, but they are not automatically heroes. But I would be fine with calling them “aspiring heroes”.
I’m trying to make sure I’m not arguing about definitions here, but I’m not sure if the disagreement is over the definition of the word “hero” or over what we value enough to consider heroic. I might be persuaded that even trying to cure cancer is a heroic act, but I’m not sure how we could avoid having that include the well-intentioned kooks too.
Edit: Actually, I think I just persuaded myself: the well-intentioned kooks tend to promote their kookery without sufficient evidence, possibly giving people false hope or even leading people to choose an ineffective treatment over one relatively likely to be effective. That is not heroic regardless of intent. I can accept that if a person is working on cancer treatments with rationality, scientific rigour, and intellectual honesty, then they can reasonably be described as heroic.
I think revolutionary is still a little lofty. These people consumed a product. They were among the first people to consume a product. The whole post reads like, “I liked Nirvana before they were popular, and I want special status conveyed on me to recognize that fact.”
Like I said, most of the people at that gathering were not heroes; they were people who signed up out of common sense. Some of them were trying to cure cancer (literally) or get the whole world signed up for cryonics; those were the heroes.
I meant “revolutionary” would be for “people trying to change life as we know it” (as Eliezer put it), not just anybody signed up for cryonics. (And “hero” would be for those who succeed at changing life as we know it (for the better).) But maybe it’s not the best term anyway, it was just an example.
Indeed.