Flibbertigibbet

A Blog About a Hero

People often think I'm being a crazy, egomaniac when I say that I'm a hero.

But, let's put that statement in its proper context, which is my life which is that of a human being and takes place in reality.

As opposed to the imaginary anthropomorphic kitten lives filled with derring do.

In its most general sense, a hero is a person of high virtue.

Since I subscribe to Objectivism, all of the things I am willing to consider virtues are entirely attainable to practicable by human beings.

Independence
Rationality
Justice
Honesty
Productivity
Integrity
Pride

So, when I say I'm a hero, I'm saying that I'm a person who practices these things.

I don't know everything. I make mistakes in judgment now and then. But I force myself to face all the facts of reality and deal with them as a rational person. And that makes me a hero.

Update: Interestingly, Leonard Peikoff commented on something related to this topic:

Q: In your judgment, is it possible for a person who has achieved moral perfection, i.e., unbreached rationality, still to have some psychological or psycho-epistemological problems?

A: Yes, definitely. Morality pertains only to the conscious and volitional, i.e., to factors within one’s direct control, and “perfection” is defined accordingly. One can have psychological problems and still be totally moral, if he treats his problems rationally—i.e., without evasion and with the use of his full mental effort. He may not be able, in an hour or even a lifetime, to solve his problems; but if he does what is possible to him, no moral code can ask him to do more.

Moreover, there is a difference between inner conflicts and existential behavior. Apart from psychosis, a man can act “perfectly,” i.e., with unbreached rationality, even if he does have unresolved conflicts and doubts. (Similarly, he can think rationally, even if hampered by automatized psycho-epistemological problems.) In part, this involves doing what you can not to take your inner problems out on other people. For example, don’t act out motives you know to be neurotic, such as insecurity by venting hostility, or dependence by declaring love.

The above does not mean that you must spend your years trying to solve a psychological problem, if you can find no clue to its solution or to a therapist who could be a helpful guide. In such a case, in my opinion, you should delimit to the extent you can the influence of the problem in your life, but cease beating a dead horse—until and unless you discover some signs of life. In other words, you live with the strengths you have, and stop condemning yourself for weaknesses which, it seems, you cannot change. If there is ever reason to reconsider the problem, in order to shed further light on it, do so; but look for such light only when you have some idea of where to look. If so, you have done morally what you can. Only you can determine whether your decision to live with, rather than attempt to solve, a psychological problem is honest.

By the way, discussing your problems with an untrained friend is often, I have observed, one of the worst and most confusing ways to proceed.

Thanks to Diana for the tip!