Free will(b) vs Determinism(s):Does superman stories value Determinism more?

[manwhohaseverything]

Pardon me for being pretentious.Batman vs superman thread.
"No, no. Now, you listen to me. When you first came to us, we thought people would come and take you away because, when they found out, you know, the things you could do... and that worried us a lot. But then a man gets older, and he starts thinking differently and things get very clear. And one thing I do know, son, and that is you are here for a *reason*. I don't know whose reason, or whatever the reason is... Maybe it's because... uh... I don't know. But I do know one thing. It's *not* to score touchdowns. Huh?"
"You are my son. But somewhere out there you have another father too, who gave you another name. And he sent you here for a reason, Clark. And even if it takes you the rest of your life you owe it to yourself to find out what that reason is"
As said,Is superman stories making a case for determinism being a good thing?If that is the case,How does choice play a role?

Moreover,how does it compare when his counter part is about man's struggle in the phase of tragedy and the unknown?

"There is a difference between you and me. We both stared into the abyss. But when it stared back... you blinked."
"Endure, Master Wayne. Take it. They’ll hate you for it, but that’s the point of Batman, he can be the outcast. He can make the choice that no one else can make, the right choice."
“It’s not who we are underneath, but what we do that defines us.”
"You sold us out, Clark. You gave them the power that should have been ours. Just like your parents taught you. My parents taught me a different lesson... lying on this street... shaking in deep shock... dying for no reason at all. They showed me that the world only makes sense when you force it to."

[Myskin]

Dude, what the heck.
It's just a bunch of vaguely "deep" dialogues with no real meaning at all just to make this stuff sound a bit less shallow than it really is.
For the most part - and sure is the case of Zack Snyder's movies - superheroes are cardboard characters whose characterization is vaguely sketched, even if from time to time, and if we are lucky, someone successfully give them something more interesting to do and to say.

[manwhohaseverything]

Dude, what the heck.
It's just a bunch of vaguely "deep" dialogues with no real meaning at all just to make this stuff sound a bit less shallow than it really is.
For the most part - and sure is the case of Zack Snyder's movies - superheroes are cardboard characters whose characterization is vaguely sketched, even if from time to time, and if we are lucky, someone successfully give them something more interesting to do and to say.

It is.It doesn't need to.it is a medium of entertainment at the end of the day .But doesn't mean someone can build something of from it,as you said.Nor does it mean that people don't take positions knowingly or unknowingly.Moreover,throwaway lines don't become a recurring unless it makes an impact on the writers or readers to come and affect directions to come,since these characters are managed by a committee rather than a person with a restriction of sales and popularity being constraints.The evolving nature leads me to believe it will be the same down the road .Which is my point.That's how a thow away line from donner became something used by frank miller in a different context.Donner movie does go for religious iconography and batman under atleast(and some other writers) frank miller goes atleast for the nietzschean shtick.From what i know,nietzscheam philosophy tilts towards favouring free will and most religions does the opposite.

Also,when i notice and talk about something deeper that gets put in whatever capacity in these stories for sounding deep or whatever purpose.People say its too dumb and run away from it.When i talk entertainment and how boring somethings like powerset,powerlevels,feats,stunts,action choreography..etc.People say superman,batman..etc are too deep for that.So which is it?are these stories just dumb or deep or pretending to be deep?if it's pretending,why do it?Pretend i mean,Why not have a cool action comic like action comics #1 or have a cool adventure comic like supersons?(beats anything that comes out these days btw)Regardless these things are present in whatever manner or with whateverlevel of aptitude in execution by various writers who tackle these characters.So,i can call them "themes" sort of and ask the question i asked above.Is superman narrative an advocating voice for determinism and vice versa for batman and freewill?which you didn't answer,i might add.I believe people can talk about these things.Hence the thread.Also this has barely anything to do with zack snyder.Maybe,frank miller's dark knight returns.If people aren't interested they can just ignore.Also,naruto is dumb shonen manga about ninjas.Doesn't mean the author doesn't draw influence from shinto and taoism.Aptitude,experiences and luck of a person also plays a part in whatever a guy creates.I am removing those variables and talking from a potential stand point from what's been given so far.

[Quinlan58]

As it's built now, the Superman story assumes that humankind's natural qualities mean it will eventually lead to a glorious future, as inspired by Superman (whose role also seems to be destiny in some way, either explicitely stated as such or implicitely through the existance of the Legion of Superheroes). It does not assume that the same is true for individuals (hence, among other things, the constant theme of whether Lex can or cannot be redeemed). And Superman himself values free will a lot.

To use just the recent Bendis run, it's maybe pre-determined that universal unity in the form of the United Planets would happen eventually, and at the same time the Red Cloud damns herself through her own choices, despite her clear potential for good (and Toyman saves himself, despite his previous crimes).

So, I'd say on a societal level it embraces some kind of determinism, but on an individual level it's more free-will based. To use quotes, it's humankind's destiny to "join him in the sun", but each individual must choose if they want to be there or be left behind.

[manwhohaseverything]

As it's built now, the Superman story assumes that humankind's natural qualities mean it will eventually lead to a glorious future, as inspired by Superman (whose role also seems to be destiny in some way, either explicitely stated as such or implicitely through the existance of the Legion of Superheroes). It does not assume that the same is true for individuals (hence, among other things, the constant theme of whether Lex can or cannot be redeemed). And Superman himself values free will a lot.

To use just the recent Bendis run, it's maybe pre-determined that universal unity in the form of the United Planets would happen eventually, and at the same time the Red Cloud damns herself through her own choices, despite her clear potential for good (and Toyman saves himself, despite his previous crimes).

So, I'd say on a societal level it embraces some kind of determinism, but on an individual level it's more free-will based. To use quotes, it's humankind's destiny to "join him in the sun", but each individual must choose if they want to be there or be left behind.

Sorry for the late reply,deeply apologise.

Can i ask?you said,people joining in him the sun is the destiny of mankind as a society or amalgum of societies.Considering not just lex, batman,green arrow..etc can be an outcast which in normal takes superman can't .they could easily fall out of that domain.Do you think that is why the conflict happens?Usually when man creates or imagines these glorious futures there is darker underbelly to it.Do you think the legion future explores that fully?

Considering at the end of donner movie clark actually defies determinism and destiny to save lois. I can attest to that clark indeed does value free will of individuals.But,it took lois's death for clark to say "nope! i am not having this.I am done obeying my parents".Also,Darkknight returns critices superman for the same and not intervening or acting when humanity took a drastically different course.Clark essentially says "it's their destiny",as a reasoning and takes humanities side to fit in.(i am simplifying ofcourse)That assumption(human society inherently leading towards a glorius future) can be very bad.

[Quinlan58]

Sorry for the late reply,deeply apologise.

Can i ask?you said,people joining in him the sun is the destiny of mankind as a society or amalgum of societies.Considering not just lex, batman,green arrow..etc can be an outcast which in normal takes superman can't .they could easily fall out of that domain.Do you think that is why the conflict happens?Usually when man creates or imagines these glorious futures there is darker underbelly to it.Do you think the legion future explores that fully?

Considering at the end of donner movie clark actually defies determinism and destiny to save lois. I can attest to that clark indeed does value free will of individuals.But,it took lois's death for clark to say "nope! i am not having this.I am done obeying my parents".Also,Darkknight returns critices superman for the same and not intervening or acting when humanity took a drastically different course.Clark essentially says "it's their destiny",as a reasoning and takes humanities side to fit in.(i am simplifying ofcourse)That assumption(human society inherently leading towards a glorius future) can be very bad.

Happy New Year!

I'm not much of an expert on the Legion, but what little I've read from them does portray the future as having a "dark underbelly" too. I guess that ties with the "never-ending" aspect of the Superman mission statement. Achieving the utopia they're seeking is impossible (at least during the course of stories that require their characters to sometimes punch some villains; in a distant, non-focused future it might very well be possible), but the stories assume the potential to always be there, with Superman and his ilk either guiding them there, safeguarding them against threats or outright leading them there (depending on how proactive they want the characters to be).

Reaching out to outcasts is part of Superman's whole MO at this point, though sadly not always well done. Lex, Parasite, Toyman, Red Cloud, several Phantom Zone Kryptonians, more one-off villains than I can mention here, some of the civilians spotlighted in those "Superman interacts with a regular person" issues, sometimes Batman, etc. Action Comics 1000 even had a story with him reaching out to the owner of the green car in Action Comics 1 (one of the better stories in that issue, though it would have been better if Supes wasn't flying like a god above a sinner).

You're right in that the assumption is dangerous and has been shown to lead to bad outcomes in some stories. But I'm reminded of that story in Superman 400 where a random person starts a revolution simply by wearing Superman's suit and realizing it allowed him to resist his oppressors (temporarily). The assumption is not that it'll always be on its way to a better future but that, even at the worst of times, humankind will always eventually aspire to it again (as facilitated by Superman, or maybe just the idea of Superman).

[manwhohaseverything]

Happy New Year!

I'm not much of an expert on the Legion, but what little I've read from them does portray the future as having a "dark underbelly" too. I guess that ties with the "never-ending" aspect of the Superman mission statement. Achieving the utopia they're seeking is impossible (at least during the course of stories that require their characters to sometimes punch some villains; in a distant, non-focused future it might very well be possible), but the stories assume the potential to always be there, with Superman and his ilk either guiding them there, safeguarding them against threats or outright leading them there (depending on how proactive they want the characters to be).

Reaching out to outcasts is part of Superman's whole MO at this point, though sadly not always well done. Lex, Parasite, Toyman, Red Cloud, several Phantom Zone Kryptonians, more one-off villains than I can mention here, some of the civilians spotlighted in those "Superman interacts with a regular person" issues, sometimes Batman, etc. Action Comics 1000 even had a story with him reaching out to the owner of the green car in Action Comics 1 (one of the better stories in that issue, though it would have been better if Supes wasn't flying like a god above a sinner).

You're right in that the assumption is dangerous and has been shown to lead to bad outcomes in some stories. But I'm reminded of that story in Superman 400 where a random person starts a revolution simply by wearing Superman's suit and realizing it allowed him to resist his oppressors (temporarily). The assumption is not that it'll always be on its way to a better future but that, even at the worst of times, humankind will always eventually aspire to it again (as facilitated by Superman, or maybe just the idea of Superman).

Thank you for taking the time to reply.Hope you have a good new year as well.

[bat39]

manwhohaseverything makes a compelling argument.

Now I'm not going to dive too deep into the philosophical debate about free will and determinism.

But I do feel that Batman, as a character, has typically been presented as having more agency than Superman.

In most versions, Superman begins his mission because the Kents tell him he must use his powers to help people, or because Jor-El and Lara tell him he must be an inspiration to humanity.

Batman, on the other hand, begins his mission because he made a decision to make all criminals pay for his parent's deaths and to ensure that no innocent suffers like he did.

Superman, to a large extent is bound by doing the 'right thing' and how he and his actions are perceived by the world. Batman does what he believes is the right, irrespective of what others think of him, and is bound only by his own moral code.

And while I know there are a million other factors at play, I do wonder if ultimately this is the reason for Batman being more popular over the last few decades compared to Superman. Because, on some innate level, we'd rather be the guy who turns himself into the ultimate warrior through sheer grit and determination and then takes down those whom he feels need taking down...than the guy who's born with cool powers but burdened by destiny, by a never-ending battle for 'truth and justice', and by the expectations placed on him by two sets of parents.

[The World]

manwhohaseverything makes a compelling argument.

Now I'm not going to dive too deep into the philosophical debate about free will and determinism.

But I do feel that Batman, as a character, has typically been presented as having more agency than Superman.

In most versions, Superman begins his mission because the Kents tell him he must use his powers to help people, or because Jor-El and Lara tell him he must be an inspiration to humanity.

Batman, on the other hand, begins his mission because he made a decision to make all criminals pay for his parent's deaths and to ensure that no innocent suffers like he did.

Superman, to a large extent is bound by doing the 'right thing' and how he and his actions are perceived by the world. Batman does what he believes is the right, irrespective of what others think of him, and is bound only by his own moral code.

And while I know there are a million other factors at play, I do wonder if ultimately this is the reason for Batman being more popular over the last few decades compared to Superman. Because, on some innate level, we'd rather be the guy who turns himself into the ultimate warrior through sheer grit and determination and then takes down those whom he feels need taking down...than the guy who's born with cool powers but burdened by destiny, by a never-ending battle for 'truth and justice', and by the expectations placed on him by two sets of parents.

This isn't an apt comparison. Superman at one point had these qualities and then some. It's just these days if you mention Siegel and Shuster people start screeching and throwing hissy fits about how the character has moved onto his blander modern self. Meanwhile Finger and Kane get reverence with the Bat people. Then Superman's fanbase wonders why things always seem dire for the character, or why Kara and his boy are nipping at his heels.

[bat39]

This isn't an apt comparison. Superman at one point had these qualities and then some. It's just these days if you mention Siegel and Shuster people start screeching and throwing hissy fits about how the character has moved onto his blander modern self. Meanwhile Finger and Kane get reverence with the Bat people. Then Superman's fanbase wonders why things always seem dire for the character, or why Kara and his boy are nipping at his heels.

Yeah, I agree about the Siegal/Shuster Superman being a lot more like modern Batman in some senses. But I am talking about the popular perception of the characters now.

I'm probably going to be doing a much larger version of this post at some point, but I sometimes can't but help feel that Batman has supplanted Superman as the ultimate wish-fulfillment character. He's a billionaire AND one of the smartest people on earth AND one of the world's greatest warriors. And he gets to spend his night beating the crap out of criminals and enforcing his own brand of justice to get the catharsis that he wanted when he was a child and a victim of crime. He can even go toe to toe with God-like beings and come out on top!

Contrast this with Superman and there's this almost oppressive morality around him. He has to be a Boy Scout, he always needs to show restraint, and he can't be seen enjoying his powers too much. He literally needs to have grown up feeling that nothing he wants or he is is more important than being the ultimate superhero and helping every single human being. Hell, more than any character in-universe, its the Superman fandom that imposes this on the character! Just in the past few weeks, I've seen threads arguing that MOS is a bad movie because the Kents in it actually put their son first before anyone else, or that Superman shouldn't have a secret identity because he needs to be out serving humanity 24/7. What's the point of being a God when you're a prisoner of morality and other people's expectations? When you can instead be rich, smart, strong and a cool badass in black leather instead?

[Alpha]

Yeah, I agree about the Siegal/Shuster Superman being a lot more like modern Batman in some senses. But I am talking about the popular perception of the characters now.

I'm probably going to be doing a much larger version of this post at some point, but I sometimes can't but help feel that Batman has supplanted Superman as the ultimate wish-fulfillment character. He's a billionaire AND one of the smartest people on earth AND one of the world's greatest warriors. And he gets to spend his night beating the crap out of criminals and enforcing his own brand of justice to get the catharsis that he wanted when he was a child and a victim of crime. He can even go toe to toe with God-like beings and come out on top!

Contrast this with Superman and there's this almost oppressive morality around him. He has to be a Boy Scout, he always needs to show restraint, and he can't be seen enjoying his powers too much. He literally needs to have grown up feeling that nothing he wants or he is is more important than being the ultimate superhero and helping every single human being. Hell, more than any character in-universe, its the Superman fandom that imposes this on the character! Just in the past few weeks, I've seen threads arguing that MOS is a bad movie because the Kents in it actually put their son first before anyone else, or that Superman shouldn't have a secret identity because he needs to be out serving humanity 24/7. What's the point of being a God when you're a prisoner of morality and other people's expectations? When you can instead be rich, smart, strong and a cool badass in black leather instead?

I think his sense of responsibility is one of the best things about him. I think he both feels the desire to help everyone and the responsibility of using his powers in a sensible way. He absolutely feels that Superman is in this world for eveyone else, not for himself. This is why he is the counter to Ayn Rand. And it's also why he needs Clark Kent, so he can have a life of his own. And he can still enjoy his powers and enjoy what he does as Superman, even with all the moral quandaries he faces.

Do you guys think Clark would give everyone in the world his powers if he could and just retire while the world takes care of itself? Is that the point of Legion of Superheroes? That it's a future where so many people with powers exist on earth, and are properly organized, so that even if he existed and was at the prime of his powers he would be unnecessary?

[The World]

Yeah, I agree about the Siegal/Shuster Superman being a lot more like modern Batman in some senses. But I am talking about the popular perception of the characters now.

I'm probably going to be doing a much larger version of this post at some point, but I sometimes can't but help feel that Batman has supplanted Superman as the ultimate wish-fulfillment character. He's a billionaire AND one of the smartest people on earth AND one of the world's greatest warriors. And he gets to spend his night beating the crap out of criminals and enforcing his own brand of justice to get the catharsis that he wanted when he was a child and a victim of crime. He can even go toe to toe with God-like beings and come out on top!

Contrast this with Superman and there's this almost oppressive morality around him. He has to be a Boy Scout, he always needs to show restraint, and he can't be seen enjoying his powers too much. He literally needs to have grown up feeling that nothing he wants or he is is more important than being the ultimate superhero and helping every single human being. Hell, more than any character in-universe, its the Superman fandom that imposes this on the character! Just in the past few weeks, I've seen threads arguing that MOS is a bad movie because the Kents in it actually put their son first before anyone else, or that Superman shouldn't have a secret identity because he needs to be out serving humanity 24/7. What's the point of being a God when you're a prisoner of morality and other people's expectations? When you can instead be rich, smart, strong and a cool badass in black leather instead?

Yeah, you're preaching to the choir buddy. I've been trying to tell the Superman fanbase about the obviously hot griddle their hand is next to since the old website. This character's biggest problem is his own fanbase. But honestly either the Silver Age or the Golden Age had it better than Post-Crisis Superman, this dude is just hamstrung by so many strange and obtuse problems invented either by his own fanbase or by his own writers trying to humanize him in strange and counter intuitive ways that end up undercutting the humanizing that they're trying to do in the first place.

In my eyes Batman has gone through a similar Post-Crisis realism fueled degradation especially towards the end of the 90's but at least his life gets to look fun. Post-Crisis Superman just seems so hopelessly dull half the time. I can't imagine the thought process that led to tossing away Superboy so that Superman could play football and be prom king which are so uninteresting and dull that they've long since become at best hazy aspects of his lose and hard to pin down backstory. How do you look at the most expansive and unique backstory in the history of comics written in tandem with his modern day life and throw it in the trash so you can say that he played football? Who does that? They try so hard to present Clark Kent as "real" to convince of the humanity he supposedly didn't have Pre-Crisis and for what? To show everyone that Clark Kent isn't a coward? But we already knew he wasn't a coward because Superman exist and we've seen him carry on as Superman even without his powers. The duality of Superman/Clark Kent personalities was what made the damn secret i.d shtick entertaining was the persona's being so different. What's even the god damn point in watching someone with Superman's powers "be the man" 24/7. Their attempt to make Clark Kent "real" defeats the point of the Clark Kent/ Superman dynamic which was literally present in the first issue of Action Comics.

I've been observing how DC is devolving into the 2 and half Batmen show and I have to say that while at the heart of it all is Batman spewing his childish influence into the DC Universe. But you also have Post-Crisis Superman off to the side giving people a reason to not want to resist the childish fantasy because he really does present adulthood as this truly abysmal bog that saps all your potential in life away. It's just hilarious to me that this Superman spends so much of his time preaching about hope, yet he can't inspire it. Tries to be inspiration but can't realize that talk is cheap. It's crazy how many stories have been set aside for writers to explain why Superman is important in the Post-Crisis era. It's crazy because you hardly ever see that Pre-Crisis because the writers knew the character of Superman WAS the stuff of legends so they just wrote about the guy and that was enough. Sure he eventually fell out of popularity, but who doesn't? Just makes me scratch my head.

I've been reading back issues and I've even been considering making a thread to chronicles Superman's history and it's just damn depressing see where he once was and what he's been reduced to. Who the hell though one day he'd be struggling against Kara or his own son; you don't see this sort of crap in Batman's neck of the woods.

To Post-Crisis Superman's fans I don't mean to be hard on your guy. I still like him well enough but doesn't the fact that there's even a debacle around whether his name is Superman or Clark Kent tell you that he might not be cut out for this role?

[The World]

I think his sense of responsibility is one of the best things about him. I think he both feels the desire to help everyone and the responsibility of using his powers in a sensible way. He absolutely feels that Superman is in this world for eveyone else, not for himself. This is why he is the counter to Ayn Rand. And it's also why he needs Clark Kent, so he can have a life of his own. And he can still enjoy his powers and enjoy what he does as Superman, even with all the moral quandaries he faces.

Do you guys think Clark would give everyone in the world his powers if he could and just retire while the world takes care of itself? Is that the point of Legion of Superheroes? That it's a future where so many people with powers exist on earth, and are properly organized, so that even if he existed and was at the prime of his powers he would be unnecessary?

Honestly I don't think so. I've never really felt at any point that Superman was doing what he did begrudgingly while yearning for a life of normality. He does what he does because he enjoys it and written correctly generally doesn't think twice to jump into a situation wherever or whenever it's occurring. This is a guy who makes robots of himself and his friends for fun, tried to recreate his birth parents, and fought Luthor with no powers without dropping a beat. I think Who took the Super out of Superman more or less answered the question of whether he actually wants to be Superman or not actually. Even when he had no powers he was basically behaving like Superman in a business suit. The Super part is more than skin deep, he's always been full of quirks and abnormalities it's part of his charm imo. Shame the modern guys didn't get the memo.

[Alpha]

Yeah, you're preaching to the choir buddy. I've been trying to tell the Superman fanbase about the obviously hot griddle their hand is next to since the old website. This character's biggest problem is his own fanbase. But honestly either the Silver Age or the Golden Age had it better than Post-Crisis Superman, this dude is just hamstrung by so many strange and obtuse problems invented either by his own fanbase or by his own writers trying to humanize him in strange and counter intuitive ways that end up undercutting the humanizing that they're trying to do in the first place.

In my eyes Batman has gone through a similar Post-Crisis realism fueled degradation especially towards the end of the 90's but at least his life gets to look fun. Post-Crisis Superman just seems so hopelessly dull half the time. I can't imagine the thought process that led to tossing away Superboy so that Superman could play football and be prom king which are so uninteresting and dull that they've long since become at best hazy aspects of his lose and hard to pin down backstory. How do you look at the most expansive and unique backstory in the history of comics written in tandem with his modern day life and throw it in the trash so you can say that he played football? Who does that? They try so hard to present Clark Kent as "real" to convince of the humanity he supposedly didn't have Pre-Crisis and for what? To show everyone that Clark Kent isn't a coward? But we already knew he wasn't a coward because Superman exist and we've seen him carry on as Superman even without his powers. The duality of Superman/Clark Kent personalities was what made the damn secret i.d shtick entertaining was the persona's being so different. What's even the god damn point in watching someone with Superman's powers "be the man" 24/7. Their attempt to make Clark Kent "real" defeats the point of the Clark Kent/ Superman dynamic which was literally present in the first issue of Action Comics.

I've been observing how DC is devolving into the 2 and half Batmen show and I have to say that while at the heart of it all is Batman spewing his childish influence into the DC Universe. But you also have Post-Crisis Superman off to the side giving people a reason to not want to resist the childish fantasy because he really does present adulthood as this truly abysmal bog that saps all your potential in life away. It's just hilarious to me that this Superman spends so much of his time preaching about hope, yet he can't inspire it. Tries to be inspiration but can't realize that talk is cheap. It's crazy how many stories have been set aside for writers to explain why Superman is important in the Post-Crisis era. It's crazy because you hardly ever see that Pre-Crisis because the writers knew the character of Superman WAS the stuff of legends so they just wrote about the guy and that was enough. Sure he eventually fell out of popularity, but who doesn't? Just makes me scratch my head.

I've been reading back issues and I've even been considering making a thread to chronicles Superman's history and it's just damn depressing see where he once was and what he's been reduced to. Who the hell though one day he'd be struggling against Kara or his own son; you don't see this sort of crap in Batman's neck of the woods.

To Post-Crisis Superman's fans I don't mean to be hard on your guy. I still like him well enough but doesn't the fact that there's even a debacle around whether his name is Superman or Clark Kent tell you that he might not be cut out for this role?

Inept and constantly humiliated human being/ former football player with bravado aren't the only options. Clark Kent can be humble and secure and not have to be looked down upon, just underestimated.

[Alpha]

Honestly I don't think so. I've never really felt at any point that Superman was doing what he did begrudgingly while yearning for a life of normality. He does what he does because he enjoys it and written correctly generally doesn't think twice to jump into a situation wherever or whenever it's occurring. This is a guy who makes robots of himself and his friends for fun, tried to recreate his birth parents, and fought Luthor with no powers without dropping a beat. I think Who took the Super out of Superman more or less answered the question of whether he actually wants to be Superman or not actually. Even when he had no powers he was basically behaving like Superman in a business suit. The Super part is more than skin deep, he's always been full of quirks and abnormalities it's part of his charm imo. Shame the modern guys didn't get the memo.

I definitely don't think he does it begrudgingly, and I totally think he enjoys it, even the tough decisions. But that doesn't mean that he wouldn't prefer for others ro be able to make those choices, and that he wouldn't find himself unnecessary in a world like that, which would actually be a good thing.

At any case, watch exactly is the dream that Legion of Superheroes fulfills then? Why is it proof of his triumph as Superman?