Looking again at our heroes and saints!

[Asher Kelman]

Michael Nagel has pointed here to what can be learned about famous "heros" by doing some simple background searches.

In other words, perhaps we could say that what might seem ideal in a public figure, shouldn't be taken for granted. It may be simply not the truth of the matter!

I think this applies to everything we "believe in" If we look at just the superficial skin over the person or a thing, then we might miss the true significance of that person or work.

res ipsa loquitor seems self evident. A thing speaks for itself. So we would expect that looking at what we see we should be able to make judgemnts.

Successful art, (paintings and photographs), share with the most iconic public figures, common traits of passionate following as if the antidote to mortality is embodied in them!

However, what we see is modified by what we are shown or allowed to see.

I considered this when I ask, as I often do, for more background information when I see an interesting work of art.

Folk say "A picture should speak for itself" or a one "picture can speak a thousand words". The latter may be true, but it soes not necessarilly apply to all pictures. Some images require some specific prerequisite knowldge to fully appreciate the image for what it is and ALSO for what it represents.


It was reference here, that the great "savior of England, Sir Winson Churchil has a chequered past that is at odds with the picture one could see from the perspective of the public at the time, or even now, as he is already an ontouchable hero.


As to "Winston Churchill," I am pleased that the knowledge of his true character is spreading at last.


I have a list of folk who are or were considered societies heros, treasured creatives, moral examples or saints:

John Lennon,

Winston Churchill

Richard Wagner

Maya Angelou

T.S. Elliott

Ezra Pound

Mother Theresa

as a start.


Their real life behavior have evil streaks which contradict the elevated social status they have in our minds and even beautifufication by acadamics, religious and learned folk!

So there is more reading for all of us to do. What we see, is not the entire story and not necessarily the most important attributes of that person. That is why I like backstories. Your references on Winsotn Churchill makes the point that what is seen on the surfae and what is known for sure by everyone may simply not be the truth, if it were all known.

Asher

 

[Asher Kelman]

It is a characteristic of man to make two paraoxically opposite errors of judgement.

1. "What you see is what you get", (by the curtseying pretty barmaid).

2. "What a goodly outside falsehood hath" (by William Shakespeare).

That is why, on a practical matter, it might be easier to deal with a crook, who both of you know that you know is dishonest, than a righteous saint as latter, you have no defense against!

For that reason, the bragadacious and dishonest Trump might be far safer than the man waiting to replace him, Vice Presdent Mike Pence, (never in alone with a woman but his wife), who, with the Bible in Hand, (just New Testament, of course), will see us all as sinners to be limited, debased, marginalized and punished.

Asher

 

[Michael_Stones]

There is no black; there is no white. There are no saints; there are no sinners. The extremes converge toward a patchwork of grey stripes. Darwin got it right: only the fittest survive. Survival necessitates sacrifice. Leaders sacrifice followers and those different from themselves. To do so requires a suspension of empathy. It also depends on context.
The last surviving British Dambuster said this: 'I have a pet hate of what I call "relative" historians. I ask them two questions: "Were you there?" and "Were you aware of the circumstances at the time?" The answer is no, so keep your bloody mouth shut.'

 

[Asher Kelman]

There is no black; there is no white. There are no saints; there are no sinners. The extremes converge toward a patchwork of grey stripes. Darwin got it right: only the fittest survive. Survival necessitates sacrifice. Leaders sacrifice followers and those different from themselves. To do so requires a suspension of empathy. It also depends on context.
The last surviving British Dambuster said this: 'I have a pet hate of what I call "relative" historians. I ask them two questions: "Were you there?" and "Were you aware of the circumstances at the time?" The answer is no, so keep your bloody mouth shut.'

Your ideas are so appreciated, Michael!

A thoughtful comment. Yes, there is no such thing as "sin". That is the totally invented entity that becomes a "coin of the realm" of power to control believers into obeissience. Without "sin", then there's no evil as a force.

What remains are two social guidelines:

1. Ethics: systems by which societies govern their day to day transactions with honesty.

2. Morality, which, now, (excluding sin), only can cover those acts which substantially damage the fabric of society such as the rape of women, wiping out of a species or tribe, the drowning of all female children or the decapitation of strangers who do not constitute existential threat.

Both of these rules, as the Dambuster suggests, are "plastic" and the units of measurement are adaptable and depend on the threats of the current circumstance.

This set of concepts might fly in the face of lists of categories of sins, venal and otherwise, but these are essentially, the divine truth of the matter, as much as we can divine!

Asher