@Corfiot
Well, the first thing that needs to be done is establishing what superior means, because in the game of evolution, the one who survives and brings up offsprings is the winner, whether they done it by slaying the dragon or eating shit is irrelevant. Murder, theft etc are functional evolutionary tactics in certain cases.
I don't think the hero myth can be destroyed, even if ideologues want it, as it ingrained in us humans, but it can be subverted. You had hero stories all the time in feudal society, it has nothing to do with it imo.
@matrix
There are two definitions of superior that I find would be interesting, one is "what you think superior" and the other is "what survives" as you described.
How do you subvert a hero myth, you basically just change what is the "ideal" and mould the heros accordingly. The argument is that there must be something objectively impossible to attain, the ideal, even if that changes. Sometimes it's a religious ideal (e.g. Jezus) or a mythical ideal (e.g. Hercules) or simply an actual idea (e.g. justice).
Feudal society had the elites as the ideal for the peasants. The elites had their heros, too. It doesn't seem to work without the role model at any level.
It's an interesting thing to think about, inequality.
There are two definitions of superior that I find would be interesting, one is "what you think superior" and the other is "what survives" as you described.
How do you subvert a hero myth, you basically just change what is the "ideal" and mould the heros accordingly. The argument is that there must be something objectively impossible to attain, the ideal, even if that changes. Sometimes it's a religious ideal (e.g. Jezus) or a mythical ideal (e.g. Hercules) or simply an actual idea (e.g. justice).
Feudal society had the elites as the ideal for the peasants. The elites had their heros, too. It doesn't seem to work without the role model at any level.
It's an interesting thing to think about, inequality.
@matrix I don't trade in yen or speak Japanese tho...
I like hypotheticals.
Let me take a few theoretical philosophical positions, see what you think about them, if you can be bothered.
1
The existence of someone superior is not a bad thing. It motivates by setting an example of what better things can be achieved, for you to aspire to. I could argue that this is the natural and inevitable way of things. The alternative is forced equality and humans are not born equal, therefore it would be a forced downgrading of the superior to the inferior - lowest common denominator - and therefore a waste of potential.
2
Bringing down someone you deem superior only decreases overall quality in the system so the inferior can feel better about their situation. The point is not to bring down your superiors, the point is to join them and then surpass them. You can improve yourself without someone else being already superior but that's just a different discussion.
3
This eradication of the hero myth and role models and things to aspire to destroys societies and makes psychopaths' power grabs easier. Naturally leading to a feudal society where the many are trapped in squallor, working for the elite.