Altruism???!!!
- Thread starter Cheapjack
- Start date
- Status
I'm pretty sure the characters won't be malicious. I'm pretty sure that the crew will try to do good things. That's just true of Star Trek movies, but most movies like this anyway.
Rather a bold statement to make based on one daft comment I made, don't you think?
Anyhoo. On to the question. I suppose most of the characters do have an altruistic side to them - they do try to help out when they can and offer support to the oppressed and those in need.
I wouldn't say it's the fundamental quality of the characters. But it is certainly there, and I don't doubt that such qualities will play a part in the characterizations in the movie.
Humor and altruism are not mutually exclusive. Besides, how many times did TOS end with the crew having been altruistic, and how many times did it end with the crew laughing or some humorous moment? I have a feeling that there were more episodes with the latter.
If my comment was a bit glib it's because I honestly don't know what you're talking about. If you want to talk about the way society, and the art that imitates it, has devolved into some kind of state of anti-altruism then I'm all for that. If you want to talk about how Trek has somehow done this of late and how you think JJ & Co. will or will not change that then that's great. If you think the work of JJ & Co. is some kind of anti-altruism propaganda then say so. My point is: the OP was a little vague in its POV and it did come off as ITHell said, like you just learned a new word and threw it out here.
Altruism is not the essence of "Star Trek" any more than it's the essence of human nature.
There are certainly many fine human qualities exemplified by the protagonists of Trek that might be sloppily confused with altruism: compassion, willingness to choose sacrifice, commitment to ideals and to community.
Kirk and Spock were not, in TOS, "altruists." They were men who cared.
That the aphorism "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" has been repeated ad nauseam since its introduction in a TOS-based movie is unfortunate but immaterial against the weight of other evidence - and it's worth noting that even that cliche-in-the-making was turned on its head by the character of Kirk in offering his rationale for sacrifice in the denouement of "The Search For Spock."
There are certainly many fine human qualities exemplified by the protagonists of Trek that might be sloppily confused with altruism: compassion, willingness to choose sacrifice, commitment to ideals and to community.
Kirk and Spock were not, in TOS, "altruists." They were men who cared.
That the aphorism "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" has been repeated ad nauseam since its introduction in a TOS-based movie is unfortunate but immaterial against the weight of other evidence - and it's worth noting that even that cliche-in-the-making was turned on its head by the character of Kirk in offering his rationale for sacrifice in the denouement of "The Search For Spock."
Last edited:
Just as long as they're benevolent. 
I disagree with the premise: that altruism is THE fundamental characteristic of Star Trek characters.
Might SOME of the Trek XI characters act in altruistic ways in the movie? Probably. But that does not make it the fundamental characteristic of all Star Trek characters.
Might SOME of the Trek XI characters act in altruistic ways in the movie? Probably. But that does not make it the fundamental characteristic of all Star Trek characters.
There will be no altruism in XI. Only war and ubermenschen.
Sonic, where'd you get that quote from Rodenberry? I love it.
The quote is actually from D.C. Fontana (about a particular Roddenberry idea) and appears to have come from an Entertainment Weekly anniversary feature a year or so back.
A
Amaris
Guest
You know what else is not understood?
Alula. Alula is so rarely used in Trek, too.
Unless it's in Klingon stew. Hey, that rhymed.
J.
Judging from what Gene Roddenberry has said about Star Trek and mainly from watching it for 35 years, I would have to disagree.
Star Trek is about altruism. It's obvious. I saw that when I was seven and I see it now.
Read 'The Making of Star Trek', by Steven Whitfield and read the Roddenberry quotes. At The very least it's about a better world, brought about by altruism.
The way things are going altruism will be a dirty word before long, or classed as a form of madness.
Star Trek is about altruism. It's obvious. I saw that when I was seven and I see it now.
Read 'The Making of Star Trek', by Steven Whitfield and read the Roddenberry quotes. At The very least it's about a better world, brought about by altruism.
The way things are going altruism will be a dirty word before long, or classed as a form of madness.
Star Trek also predicts that we'll go through darker times before we reach an altruistic state though. Sanctuary districts, WWIII, the post-atomic horror, Colonel Green, etc. all are part of Earth's period of growth before first contact with the Vulcans. I've been thinking about it and it even the Terminator universe seems to have some of the hope of Star Trek. You could almost place it in the same universe, only what we see is that brutal war before Star Trek is born. In both shows the people that remain on Earth must eventually overcome their differences to face threats to humanity. Even if we, in the real world, aren't altruistic as a whole now, it doesn't mean that we won't get there some day. But that means one must think globally and act locally, stuff like that.
Yes, one aspect of Star Trek is altruism, but it's not something at which humanity just arrived. Nor is it something that, even in the 24th century, so distant that humanity has entirely forgotten how they got there. What you're saying at least sounds like altruism taken as a matter of course, taken for granted. I don't think that would be good because then they'd descend into a complacency that would mean eventually forgetting why they're altruistic in the first place.
Altruism isn't all Star Trek is about anyway. No matter what Gene Roddenberry said, all art is open to the interpretation of its audience.
Yes, one aspect of Star Trek is altruism, but it's not something at which humanity just arrived. Nor is it something that, even in the 24th century, so distant that humanity has entirely forgotten how they got there. What you're saying at least sounds like altruism taken as a matter of course, taken for granted. I don't think that would be good because then they'd descend into a complacency that would mean eventually forgetting why they're altruistic in the first place.
Altruism isn't all Star Trek is about anyway. No matter what Gene Roddenberry said, all art is open to the interpretation of its audience.
Last edited:
I'm not convinced that Star Trek is about altruism, as opposed to, say, enlightened self-interest.
Perhaps, instead of making an assertion, saying it's obvious and that it was obvious to you at age seven, you might explain why you think that. Perhaps, instead of telling people to read a book and "read the Roddenberry quotes", (which many here very likely already have done) you might cite specific examples which you believe support your contention.
Why do you believe this? Please explain, instead of merely declaiming. Then we might have something to discuss.
And maybe we can dispense with unproductive little backhanded cracks like this:
and this:
and this:
A
Amaris
Guest
Well, I was actually just pulling your leg a little bit. Alula is a small joint in the middle of a bird's wing. It assists it in flying. Alula is only a few words after Altruism in the dictionary.
As for altruism, yes it's in Star Trek, but it would be a wonky premise for a show. A form of altruism would be better, that being: compassion, forgiveness, self sacrifice. Altruism itself is too broad based a word to apply effectively to Star Trek. That would be like saying "Bipedal Creatures are at the heart of Star Trek. I've known this since I was seven." It's too broad and general to be applied to this situation. Such broad based generalizations are rarely used in debate and discussion effectively, simply because the original poster can always fall back on it and say he or she is always right, regardless of what other posters say.
Also, you're coming on a little strong. Might want to knock it down a notch.
J.
- Status
Similar threads
