Scott Labarge's Heroism: Why Heroes Are Important

An Analysis on Heroism

Who is your hero? Many of us can clearly picture our idea of our personal hero in our head, but is the person you consider to be a hero really a hero by definition? In Heroism: Why Heroes are Important, Scott LaBarge, a Classics and Philosophy Professor at Santa Clara University, awakens your thoughts on the word heroism and how it has changed since its origins in ancient Greece. Throughout his essay, he goes in depth into the term ‘hero’ and compares it to society’s take on heroes today. Although LaBarge uses examples to back up his stance that “Today, it is much harder to detach the concept of heroism from morality (LaBarge. 1),” his essay contains flaws and he contradicts his own words.

On the beginning page of LaBarge’s essay, it is easy to get caught up in his words and the underlying emotion his writing puts off. He builds his argument by comparing historically significant figures to societal celebrities that are well known for bad choices; he fails to provide view on the opposing position standpoint. He uses bad examples for the opposing side in order to further his argument and make it more appealing to the reader. The

author seems bias when it comes to his personal definition of a hero. The opening paragraph begins with a look at his personal hero and how the man helped to inspire him to pursue a career in philosophy. Henry David Thoreau was an author and philosopher that stood out during his time. It is clear in the sentence “Thoreau is one of my dearest heroes, and I do not know who I would be without him (LaBarge. 1)”, that LaBarge looks up to him and idolizes Thoreau. With that in mind, what makes his heroic view of Thoreau any better or more important than the idols some look up to today?
In the third paragraph of his essay, LaBarge states that, “We need heroes first and foremost because our heroes help define the limits of our aspirations (LaBarge. 1)”. In the following paragraph, he goes on to say that athletes, movie stars, and musicians are not heroes. Heroes come in all shapes and forms, but they all have one underlining factor that makes them the same; they inspire people to go beyond what is believed to be the limits of humans. For example, a musician gets on stage and speaks about how he came from the bottom in a low income area. That speech could inspire a kid to pick himself up from the dirt and pursue his dream of being a musician, even though he doesn’t come from a rich area. Putting faith in someone to go beyond the limits, even if it’s just their own personal limits, is enough to be considered a hero in the eyes of that person. Philosopher Thoreau inspired LaBarge to be a philosopher, how is that different from a musician inspiring someone to become a musician? Just because someone doesn’t think highly of another being, it doesn’t make them any less a hero. As LaBarge said, “We need to separate out the things that make our heroes noteworthy, and forgive the shortcomings that blemish their heroic perfection (LaBarge. 2).”
Throughout LaBarge’s essay, not only does he put up an unfair comparison between his side and the contradicting side, but he also subtly self-defines what occupation gives others the right to be a hero.

His self-bias opinion clouds the essay and doesn’t give way for a true discussion on heroism and the different forms of heroes. He puts up a weak front, such as his comparison between Martin Luther King Jr. and 50 Cent, to make his argument seem stronger. In the end, although LaBarge uses examples to back up his stance that “Today, it is much harder to detach the concept of heroism from morality (LaBarge. 1),” his essay contains flaws and he contradicts his own words. He says it is hard to separate, in our minds, heroism from morality, but in the end he forgets that heroes are mortals who do extraordinary

things.