What constitutes a hero in real life?

[Kellymeg80]

I'm a hero-worshipper to the max. When I was younger, I saw heroism in success and acheivement in the business/career realm. I still do. I see it as so much more now, though and am having trouble working it all out. In the Objectivist realm particularly, heroism, to me, is partially consituted by an ability to come through life without becoming a rationalist. Also, I'm beginning to see a connection between heroism and learning not to define your self-esteem so narrowly as to let it depend on any one thing (career, money, success in relationships). I've allowed myself to be fooled into thinking people were heroic when really all they were was overstylized, rationalistic and unhealthily attached to career (something I see in a lot of Objectivists, particularly the men). I know all that what I'm saying isn't by any means a full-definition, but really just some floating ideas not yet grounded.

What constitutes a hero for you all? Anyone have "hero radar" next to your "rationalist detectors"?

[Betsy]

What constitutes a hero for you all? Anyone have "hero radar" next to your "rationalist detectors"?

I've been a hero-seeker my whole life and when I was your age, I was actively trying to define what a hero is and how I could recognize him when I encountered him.

What I did was to look at all my own personal heroes -- my father, Benjamin Franklin, Superman, Leonardo Da Vinci, a special friend from school, Thomas Jefferson, a talented teacher I admired, Ayn Rand, etc. -- and asked myself what they all had in common as distinguished from other people. Also, as I sought out heroes, I met some people who seemed to have what I was seeking, but who eventually disappointed me. What separated the gold from the fool's gold?

Over the years I have refined and defined my views and this is what I have found: the two most important qualities are (1) a solid attachment to, and good working relationship with, reality and (2) an active pursuit of values in all areas of life. In short: a realistic valuer. I have also learned how to spot such a person and what the most important indicators are, but that would be a whole 'nother post.

I also have additional requirements for someone to be a personal hero for me. He would have to be extraordinarily intelligent, a "Renaissance Man" with interests and accomplishments in many areas of life, self-confidence, humor, and playfulness. I have met about a dozen of those very remarkable people in my life, most of them through Objectivism which attracts those kind of people, including the one special hero I have been married to for 37 years.

[Kellymeg80]

Over the years I have refined and defined my views and this is what I have found: the two most important qualities are (1) a solid attachment to, and good working relationship with, reality and (2) an active pursuit of values in all areas of life.  In short: a realistic valuer.  I have also learned how to spot such a person and what the most important indicators are, but that would be a whole 'nother post.

Betsy, I definately have similar qualities in my description of a personal hero.

Would you be willing to do that whole 'nother post? I think I've gotten better at spotting the "fools gold" out, but my radar is so blurry (from bad experiences, I think) that I'm not sure I know how to see the real stuff!

[Betsy]

Betsy, I definately have similar qualities in my description of a personal hero.

Would you be willing to do that whole 'nother post? I think I've gotten better at spotting the "fools gold" out, but my radar is so blurry (from bad experiences, I think) that I'm not sure I know how to see the real stuff!

Sure.

The biggest mistake I tended to make in judging people was "benevolent projections." Not being aware of any flaws in a person and not being able to read his mind, I would tend to assume he was like me -- honest, reality-centered, and valuing. That was a mistake and an arbitrary assumption on my part. People have free will and can be very different from me as I learned, much to my distress.

Now my approach is: a person has to actually demonstrate realism and a value-orientation before I assume he has those qualities. Those who are realistic valuers demonstrate it in ways you can see.

(1) Realism. Does he have a good working relationship with reality? Does he plan well? Is he successful in the real world? Does he seem open and honest? Is he curious? Does he expend mental effort to understand things? Is he upset when things don't make sense? Does he show any signs of a significant break with reality such as failure to integrate the obvious, using floating abstractions as if they were meaningful, treating obviously false ideas as if they were certain, etc?

(2) Value-orientation. Does he have a complex personal hierarchy of values and a "favorite everything?" Is he passionate about the things he likes? Does he show any signs of value problems such as resentment towards others, cynicism, or repression?

[Kellymeg80]

Now my approach is: a person has to actually demonstrate realism and a value-orientation before I assume he has those qualities.  Those who are realistic valuers demonstrate it in ways you can see.

(1) Realism.  Does he have a good working relationship with reality?  Does he plan well?  Is he successful in the real world?  Does he seem open and honest?  Is he curious?  Does he expend mental effort to understand things?  Is he upset when things don't make sense?  Does he show any signs of a significant break with reality such as failure to integrate the obvious, using floating abstractions as if they were meaningful, treating obviously false ideas as if they were certain, etc?

(2) Value-orientation.  Does he have a complex personal  hierarchy of values and a "favorite everything?" Is he passionate about the things he likes?  Does he show any signs of value problems such as resentment towards others, cynicism, or repression?

Betsy, I really like what you say about being reality-centered and valuing. In my experience, it's not just what a person says about valuing, but the way they say it. In my experience, some Objectivists "talk the talk" and semi "walk the walk" of passionately valuing life, but when they talk about it, you can tell it's just a failed attempt to integrate, ie; repression. Repression is the most important thing that sets of warning bells for me.

So much can be seen in the eyes, in the way a person talks and expresses themselves. My Objectivist girlfriends and I have started to refer to it as "sparkling"; the way it radiates from a person when they are truely connected to the world and fully alive.

Thanks.

[Betsy]

In my experience, it's not just what a person says about valuing, but the way they say it. In my experience, some Objectivists "talk the talk" and semi "walk the walk" of passionately valuing life ...

The most important thing is whether, as I said, person has "a complex personal hierarchy of values and a "favorite everything."

A real valuer takes values personally. He doesn't just have the standard, approved "Objectivist" values like skyscrapers, Rachmaninoff, and Victor Hugo; he has his own values: his favorite friends, his favorite flavor of ice cream, his favorite colors, his favorite movies, his favorite shirt, etc. If every time "I ask what's your favorite ...?" and he always draws a blank, it's not a good sign.

you can tell it's just a failed attempt to integrate, ie; repression. Repression is the most important thing that sets off warning bells for me.

That's not quite what repression is. Repression is automatized suppression of cognitive material.

At times it is quite rational to suppress an emotion and the thoughts which caused it so you can think and act as reality requires. For instance, if I think my client is an idiot, I may suppress that, temporarily, as I try to work with him to solve a problem. Some people suppress cognitive material when they evade, and that is immoral, but a much less common use of suppression.

If the same material is suppressed over and over with the premise, "I must not think about X," it can get automatized -- repressed -- to the point that the person often needs outside help to even become aware of the material. While habitual evaders always become repressers, most severely repressed people come by the problem honestly. Usually, very early in life, they mistakenly conclude, "What's the use. If I want things, I'll never get them. If I get them, I'll lose them and be hurt. If I don't want anything, I won't be hurt. I must never think about wanting anything."

I've met quite a few, essentially good people and good Objectivists who are severely repressed, and it's tragic. They are rational, hard working, extremely honest, and terribly sad people. They are tense, uptight, never smile, and feel threatened -- yet fascinated and attracted by -- enthusiastic valuers like me. On occasion, I have been able to steer such people to a good therapist who is able to unlock their valuing souls. The transformation can be amazing.

[AMERICONORMAN]

I am working on a novel. The big hero in this novel is the man who is untouched by the temptation of mysticism or “Dionysus”.

Americo.

[iouswuoibev]

I've met quite a few, essentially good people and good Objectivists who are severely repressed, and it's tragic. They are rational, hard working, extremely honest, and terribly sad people. They are tense, uptight, never smile, and feel threatened -- yet fascinated and attracted by -- enthusiastic valuers like me. On occasion, I have been able to steer such people to a good therapist who is able to unlock their valuing souls. The transformation can be amazing.

What you are saying is exactly how I've felt in the past. I've gone through most of my teenage life being irrational (even when I thought I was being rational) and having a very poor self-concept. I couldn't truly value things because I didn't value myself, even though I wanted to. I'm beginning to turn this around now. Every time I read Ayn Rand's writing, I feel more alive, clear-headed, confident, self-assured and liberated.

I remember when I was in my early teens and I was arguing with my friend. He insisted there were absolute facts, and I was insisting there were not. He said that if he got a shotgun and blew my head off, I would be dead. My response was "only to your perception".

He wasn't able to show me how I was so detached from reality, and simply repeated his assertion ad-nauseam. The thing is, I've always been able to empathise with this reasonless way of thinking, even if I don't think in that way anymore. This emotional connection has caused my conviction to waver in the face of other people's irrational behaviour, making me fall into old habits. After I discovered objectivism this is becoming expontentially less and less true. But I am not ridden of my ability to relate to people's thought processes when they think in this way. And with the vantage of knowing how they think, I also know that there's little hope of changing them. This makes me very cynical of people and yet, all the more wanting to share with them what I have discovered.

I know I can bond with people on different levels. I can establish rapport with them, and I can enjoy their company. But when it comes to discussing ideas and they don't have a viewpoint like mine I suddenly find it very hard to connect with them, and I can either choose to overlook the fact that I don't appreciate their view of life, and just enjoy the 'rapport and chitchat', or, try to have some meaningful conversation with them anyway.

A friend who I've known for a long time, the same one I mentioned earlier, is very interested in politics. He claims to be a capitalist but he really believes in a mixed economy. He's also an altruist and thinks his country is greater than him and he'd die for it, and thinks everyone else should to. I've only learned this in the last few years. I'm quite disgusted by it. It is disheartening when no one around you is rational. It is even moreso when I know how easy it is to be like them - because I used to be like them! Being an objectivist makes feel quite isolated. But, I wouldn't and couldn't be any other way.

EDIT: It just occured to me that what I said had nothing to do with repression. I was explaining all this in order to say, that I feel I am repressing my desire to reach out to people. I can choose isolation, or mingle with people who are ultimately good, but have a rotten philosophy. Listening to people talk 'serious' is like listening to my old self.

[Kellymeg80]

A real valuer takes values personally. He doesn't just have the standard, approved "Objectivist" values like skyscrapers, Rachmaninoff, and Victor Hugo; he has his own values: his favorite friends, his favorite flavor of ice cream, his favorite colors, his favorite movies, his favorite shirt, etc. If every time "I ask what's your favorite ...?" and he always draws a blank, it's not a good sign.

I really like what you say about having the approved "Objectivist" values. A lot of Objectivists I've seen are substituting those "values" for true values. I see a lot of Objectivists debating over favorite movies, with an attitude suggesting that if we can all just agree on favorite movies, than they could know their favorites are ok. This points to an inability to/desire not to think for themselves, dare I say a pack mentality.

That's not quite what repression is. Repression is automatized suppression of cognitive material.

You're right, Betsy. Thank you for the correction.

At times it is quite rational to suppress an emotion and the thoughts which caused it so you can think and act as reality requires. For instance, if I think my client is an idiot, I may suppress that, temporarily, as I try to work with him to solve a problem.

Yes, there is nothing wrong with supression at times. I've found that learning to supress my emotions when neccesary has helped me succeed in many areas of my life. I often supress an emotion until I can find a proper time/place to express it, ie; I wouldn't react angrily or cry or walk out on a partner in the middle of a dinner with friends, but I would certainly find a place to talk about it later.

I've met quite a few, essentially good people and good Objectivists who are severely repressed, and it's tragic. They are rational, hard working, extremely honest, and terribly sad people. They are tense, uptight, never smile, and feel threatened -- yet fascinated and attracted by -- enthusiastic valuers like me. On occasion, I have been able to steer such people to a good therapist who is able to unlock their valuing souls. The transformation can be amazing

That's wonderful. Your experiences have definately been different than mine, and I'm sure, more varied, due to your greater depth of experience. I've found severely repressed Objectivists to be generally unreachable at anything beyond a surface level. That is, you can teach them how to dance (a very expressive activity by its nature) or demonstrate passion to them in your life, but they are only able to parrot it. They dance or talk about passion, but it is all done rather dispassionately.

In any case, I'm glad you've had such great experiences, Betsy. It gives me a lot more hope for some of the good, honest people out there.

[Fred Weiss]

I see a lot of Objectivists debating over favorite movies, with an attitude suggesting that if we can all just agree on favorite movies, than they could know their favorites are ok. This points to an inability to/desire not to think for themselves, dare I say a pack mentality.

I wonder if Betsy chuckled over that one as much as I did.

If you ever want to start a brawl among Objectivists, start discussing what movies they like.

I've even seen a somewhat similar range of disagreement over books, especially fiction - although there because there a number of "approved" books/authors people feel they have to tread carefully.

Frankly, I'm surprised when I hear Objectivists tell me they don't like Victor Hugo -but then I don't particularly like Mickey Spillane, so who am I to talk.

Fred Weiss

[Kellymeg80]

I wonder if Betsy chuckled over that one as much as I did.

If you ever want to start a brawl among Objectivists, start discussing what movies they like.

I've even seen a somewhat similar range of disagreement over books, especially fiction - although there because there a number of "approved" books/authors people feel they have to tread carefully.

Frankly, I'm surprised when I hear Objectivists tell me they don't like Victor Hugo -but then I don't particularly like Mickey Spillane, so who am I to talk. 

Fred Weiss

Yes, I had browsed over the movies thread and saw Betsy comment that Objectivists often disagree on movies. Disagreement is fine! People may like a movie for many different reasons, some of which may have very little to do wiht Objectivism (such as the movie reminding them of something special, loving a particular actor/actress or enjoying a certain kind of humor). It seems hard for Objectivists to understand that.

I'm reminded of the time someone went to Rand and said they didn't think they could be an Objectivist. She asked why and promptly told her "because I like Beethoven". Oi! She told them that liking Beethoven had absolutely nothing to do with Objectivism and everything to do with her personal artistic preference. Objectivists need to understand that and stop defending their personal preferences as if they were metaphysical absolutes.

As for Hugo, I love his work, but I can understand impatience with it. It's translated from French, has 30-50 page long commercials on barnacles or the historical architecture of french chrurches and certainly not light reading. If you don't love readin already, Hugo maybe a stretch. A gratifying stretch, but a stretch nonetheless. Ahh, intellectual yoga, I love it!

[Fred Weiss]

Yes, I had browsed over the movies thread and saw Betsy comment that Objectivists often disagree on movies.

No, it's not that. It's that everything Betsy likes, we like something else. And we really don't like what Stephen likes!

Disagreement is fine! People may like a movie for many different reasons, some of which may have very little to do wiht Objectivism (such as the movie reminding them of something special, loving a particular actor/actress or enjoying a certain kind of humor). It seems hard for Objectivists to understand that.

One other thing to keep in mind is that your tastes can change over time. I like certain books/movies now that I didn't like when I was younger.

As for Hugo, I love his work,...

That just goes to show what a person of advanced and refined tastes you are.

I couldn't have gotten through 10 pages of a Hugo novel when I was younger.

.. but I can understand impatience with it. It's translated from French, has 30-50 page long commercials on barnacles or the historical architecture of french chrurches and certainly not light reading. If you don't love readin already, Hugo maybe a stretch. A gratifying stretch, but a stretch nonetheless. Ahh, intellectual yoga, I love it!

That's not usually what I hear from the Objectivists who don't like him. It's the tragic element. That's a whole other topic.

Btw, I understand that those lengthy "sidebars" where he goes on for pages and pages describing cathedrals or battlefields, he did entirely from memory and with nonetheless uncanny accuracy. The man had an incredible mind for detail which I understand is a not uncommon characteristic of men of great genius. AR is another example.

A good fictional example is Jed Bartlett, the President in the TV show, West Wing. There are some funny bits where he bores some staffer to tears with long, detailed descriptions of the national parks or some historical event or any of a myriad of other things at which he is an expert.

Fred Weiss

[nimble]

Wow you translated it from French? That must have been hard. I have taken 6 years of French and I can very loosely translate the book. I just took the easy way out and read the English version. I wanted to get the most of the book, so a loose translation wasnt going to cut it.

[Betsy]

That's wonderful. Your experiences have definately been different than mine, and I'm sure, more varied, due to your greater depth of experience. I've found severely repressed Objectivists to be generally unreachable at anything beyond a surface level. That is, you can teach them how to dance (a very expressive activity by its nature) or demonstrate passion to them in your life, but they are only able to parrot it. They dance or talk about passion, but it is all done rather dispassionately.

My approach is to look for, and home in on, any indication of a personal value. I usually wait until we're alone -- one-on-one is less threatening than social situations -- and then I go for it.

[b = Betsy, T = Target]

B - Those are lovely earrings you're wearing.

T - You like them?

B - The color is so subtle and they look sophisticated and casual at the same time.

T - I made them.

B - Would you make a pair for me?

===

OR

===

B - I saw the way your eyes lit up during the violin concerto.

T - Yeah, I played the violin when I was a kid.

B - What do you like more, listening or playing?

T - I used to love to play. I was considered a prodigy. I once played with the NY Philharmonic when I was ten and I won the Young Paganini Prize.

B - Do you still play?

T - No, I gave that up a long time ago.

B - I have a friend who played the piano with the Philadelphia Orchestra when he was a kid and then gave it up in high school. When he was about your age, he picked it up again. He doesn't perform any more and he doesn't take lessons. He just plays for his own pleasure. He says he looks forward to sitting down at the keyboard after dinner and making music -- and it makes his whole day.

===

[Betsy]

No, it's not that. It's that everything Betsy likes, we like something else. And we really don't like what Stephen likes! 

Not only that, but Stephen and I don't always like the same movies. He likes action movies, shoot-em-ups, car chases, explosions. So does our son. Yuck! It must be a guy thing.

[Kellymeg80]

My approach is to look for, and home in on, any indication of a personal value

I haven't had the same experiences here. I've often found repressed Objectivists to have (or at least say they have) at least some personal values, and often demonstrate them. Their repression is seen in their emotional reactions to said values or to life in general. They may say "That's great", but with no inflection in their voice, no smile on their face, no animation whatsoever. They rarely say anything really superlative, and when they do, they lack gusto. These people often seem to be better after a couple drinks. The alcohol just melts their repression away. Seeing these people after a few drinks makes me know that the expression/passion is hidden deep within their soul. But how to get it out when they're completely sober? I've found it almost impossible. And *that* I have a lot of experience with.

So in my experience, it's not having values, but the quality of a person's reaction to said values that is important.

[Betsy]

But how to get it out when they're completely sober? I've found it almost impossible. And *that* I have a lot of experience with.

Sometimes it's very hard, even for an experienced therapist who does it all day. Most non-professionals don't have the interest or the patience to dig for hidden values but, personally, I really enjoy the "thrill of the hunt" and when I find buried treasure, it makes my whole day. I watch for subtle signs like what they pay attention to, what gets them agitated, and things they do that are uncharacteristic of the way they usually behave.

The key to most repressers is that they are afraid. They don't trust people and they are afraid people will humiliate them, take their values away, and hurt them. I try to minimize the threat by discussing values one-on-one and being positive and friendly. I use "I" messages instead of "you" messages. I honor their personal space and sensitivity and I'm non-confrontational. Instead of saying, "You should never have quit the violin. Start playing again," I share my little story about my friend who plays the piano for his own pleasure after dinner.

My approach doesn't always work, but when it does, what a victory!

[AmbivalentEye]

To be honest here, I'll say that there hasn't been any actual "heroes", in my life, not in the sense that I have come to accept the term. Of my elders and closest counsel, all have been a group who have indirectly nearly demanded that I murder my mind. I've had my controversies with them as far as I could remember, but they are also those that have kept me alive and therefore to a certain extent, they're idols. I have broken it down into the two categories. All my heroes will be idols, but my idols will never necessarilly ever have to be heroes to me. For example, my parents, who despite their intentions or opinions have always silently wanted me to withdraw from my mind and simply shut up to their plans and regulations. My arguments are endless, but still, my father has forever supported me(financially), gave me my basic necessities as any father does, and he loves me as I to him. He isn't a hero. Having been surrounded by this negative influence has taken it's toll on me in some many aspects which only until now, have I begun to piece together and correct, therefore, my dream has always been to find those heroes, and if never possible, then to become one: The highest possible of my ability and the earning of my virtues. As still an adolescent, the only comfort came to me in reading the books of Ayn Rand. Though fictitious, are the only even slightest clue of what I had always been inquiring. To me, a hero has always been... I guess, the highest possible. I mean this in the sense of a person who has a goal and uses it's last nerve of ability and rationality to become that or achive it. People of the strictest code of morals and values that can never be compromised or otherwise betrayed. Also, most importantly, people who know the immense value of Life, as Ayn Rand always described it and as I have always felt it. Many times, it still feels like a dream, or perhaps only a creation of fiction. But it is the beleif that it may be true that keeps me striving for something greater of myself. That's my vision of hero.

On a side note: I've wanted to comment on an unfairness in my school system. It occurred in my Literature class when I was asked to write a reprt on the main character of "The Old Man and The Sea", as one of the greatest heroes there could ever be. It was intended to be a persuasivily inclined prompt, and I refused to do it. Though "Santiago" may have had some very admirable qualities, I could not declare him a hero, it seemed to go agains my already accepted ideals. Is it right for the school system to impose such an assignment at the sake of my grades? It was a forced task, and though it may have only been a small issue, it signified a lot to me and felt a personal betrayal in having to turn in that paper. The school year is over so that is passed. Still, I wanted to make it known....

-J.

[AmbivalentEye]

That's not quite what repression is.  Repression is automatized suppression of cognitive material. 

At times it is quite rational to suppress an emotion and the thoughts which caused it so you can think and act as reality requires.  For instance, if I think my client is an idiot, I may suppress that, temporarily, as I try to work with him to solve a problem.  Some people suppress cognitive material when they evade, and that is immoral, but a much less common use of suppression.

If the same material is suppressed over and over with the premise, "I must not think about X," it can get automatized -- repressed -- to the point that the person often needs outside help to even become aware of the material.  While habitual evaders always become repressers, most severely repressed people come by the problem honestly.  Usually, very early in life, they mistakenly conclude, "What's the use.  If I want things, I'll never get them.  If I get them, I'll lose them and be hurt.  If I don't want anything, I won't be hurt.  I must never think about wanting anything."

I've met quite a few, essentially good people and good Objectivists who are severely repressed, and it's tragic.  They are rational, hard working, extremely honest, and terribly sad people.  They are tense, uptight, never smile, and feel threatened -- yet fascinated and attracted by -- enthusiastic valuers like me.  On occasion, I have been able to steer such people to a good therapist who is able to unlock their valuing souls.  The transformation can be amazing.

I guess it depends on the form of the repression or suppression, I'm still trying to set apart each so I guess I'dd appreciate a definition. But what I mean is that if you're "hiding" or "holding back" an act or a verbal statement, then of course you have to concider the circumstances and whether or not its appropriate, but when it comes to "holding back" or in some cases "denying" a though from oneself is when it becomes evil. This is the basis of many intellectual struggles[this is merely an opinion(don't shoot)] and I've come to see it as one of the fundamental steps of rationalizations. I personally have had many problems on these grounds, which, as I've said, I'm trying to fix. If there is a thought, your reason must accept it by proof, or discard it also on proof of a fallacy, but to simply deny it is wrong. Denying the thought, then becomes, denying your mind, does it not? This is why I have seen it in many rationalizations and why I have seen so many intellectuals suffering. Am I correct in my stating this. I mean, this is an idea I have only begun to fromulate and have very little to back up my thoughts, but it seems reasonable, and Ayn Rand seemed to imply the same things in "Philosophy:Who needs it?"

Thank you for the definitions, I don't have the resource to attain it right now.

[AmbivalentEye]

I am working on a novel.  The big hero in this novel is the man who is untouched by the temptation of mysticism or “Dionysus”.

Americo.

I'll look forward to at least someday hear that it's finished. I know how difficult it can be to complete one. Let me know.

[Free Capitalist]

Hi Betsy, how do you differentiate between a heroic person, and what you called a personal hero?

Also, and this is addressed to everyone, why has no one mentioned the Ancient, and especially Greek, concept of hero?

[Betsy]

Hi Betsy, how do you differentiate between a heroic person, and what you called a personal hero?

A hero is anyone who embodies the virtues and achieve the values ALL people should but does so in an extraordinary way. A personal hero, in addition, is someone who has achieved values that are of particular importance to oneself.

For instance, one thing that I personally value is a wide-reaching mind that achieves great things in several areas of endeavor -- a Renaissance Man. All the heroes I valued most -- Benjamin Franklin, Superman, Leonardo da Vinci, Thomas Jefferson, and more -- are this kind of person. Howard Roark is not. Someone else may value a man whose physical beauty matches the beauty of his soul and another may place great personal value on a hero who has achieved great things in a particular field. The qualities which make for a personal hero are genuine virtues, but they are optional virtues.

[xobject]

The top of this discussion is strange:

"Heroism as applied to the real world"

I really wonder what that means......

Can Heroism be applied anywhere else other than the real world ?

[Free Capitalist]

I don't understand your distinction, yet. Why not just consider Roark and Leonardo Da Vinci as two different kinds of a personal hero? I admire both. Or are you saying that everyone ought to admire Da Vinci, him being a unversal hero, and only some will admire Roark, because his virtues are specialized?

[noumenalself]

FWIW, Andy Bernstein has an essay available on what heroism is:

http://www.andrewbernstein.net/heroes/2_heroism.htm