fanaticism

[Rival]

Well, it's extreme. Which threatens the status quo, as well as the center-norm, which means it threatens social peace and order in general, and regardless of what the norm is, or what the extreme is in relation to it.

That you don't care would not surprise me. That you can't see this, however, would puzzle me.

The anti-slavery bill was pretty extreme, you object to that? The Protestant Reformation was pretty extreme. The ideas of the Renaissance and Enlightenment were a bit extreme. The theory of evolution was kind of extreme. The French Revolution was sort of extreme.

 

[Rival]

"Fanatic" is a nondescript and absurdly over-used term. Such that it is used to refer to anyone who feels passionately about anything. And discussions based on such an open and loosely defined phenomena aren't going to achieve any significance.

Because this is a religious form, I assume that a thread about "fanaticism" is really a thread about ideological extremism, as that is the single most notorious aspect of religion expression, today. So I suggested that we discuss ideological extremism and leave behind the vague and mostly useless term of "fanaticism".

You seem to be objecting to this, and I was asking you why.

Because I perceive no difference.

 

[metis]

religious fanaticism damages any religion. many people turn away from religion because of fanatics, and I don't blame them for abandoning religion. sometimes I think we should all become irreligious so that we can get rid of fanatics. but since that is impossible, what can we really do to stop fanaticism?

You really do have a good point here.

What we all too often see, imo, are some who come to a place like RF and go about demeaning others, throwing insults around like they were candy, thus refusing to even try to get involved in serious debate. IOW, it's that they come here with an "agenda", and anyone who doesn't agree with their "agenda" is an "idiot" who can then be demeaned, insulted, bullied, made fun of, etc. We teach our children not to do this and yet some use these same tactics almost constantly.

It reminds of the adage that "one can attract more flies with honey than with vinegar", so it begs the question why some seem so intent on using the latter? Yes, there are times we all tend to "lose it", so I'm not talking about that but am talking about some here who seem to have some sort of permanent chip on their shoulder.

 

[robocop (actually)]

One thing that has been done is that scientists have recently discovered religious fanaticism is a mental illness.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

One thing that has been done is that scientists have recently discovered religious fanaticism is a mental illness.

Evidence please.

 

[Augustus]

Who is "fanatical" about personal liberty?

Quite a few US militias for a start...

Well, it's extreme. Which threatens the status quo, as well as the center-norm, which means it threatens social peace and order in general, and regardless of what the norm is, or what the extreme is in relation to it.

What about 'good' extremists who threaten a 'bad' status quo? Mandela, Spartacus, etc.?

 

[Augustus]

To me compassion is the opposite of fanaticism.

While it might seem incongruous, many fanatics are motivated by compassion. How else would you categorise undergoing great personal sacrifice to [sin your opinion] help a disenfranchised group?

Someone who devotes their life to helping the poor would be viewed as compassionate.
A communist revolutionary may truly believe that their actions will provide a better life for all.

The motivation is the same, the difference is only method.

While some fanatics may be selfish in their intentions, most do so out of belief they are contributing to a noble cause [however misguided].

From the perspective of the perpetrator, extremism is often a very moral action.

 

[PureX]

The anti-slavery bill was pretty extreme, you object to that? The Protestant Reformation was pretty extreme. The ideas of the Renaissance and Enlightenment were a bit extreme. The theory of evolution was kind of extreme. The French Revolution was sort of extreme.

And to whom and to the degree that they were extreme, they cause a great deal of social upheaval.

Do you think that because some ideologies are somewhat extreme relative to some segments of a society that this then justifies all extreme ideology in all contexts? Because that's what it sounds to me like you're trying to argue.

 

[DavidFirth]

education is a crucial factor!

I agree but education by itself isn't going to get the job done. There are very well educated fanatics out there who use their education to their own selfish advantage, as you all know.

 

[PureX]

Quite a few US militias for a start...

What about 'good' extremists who threaten a 'bad' status quo? Mandela, Spartacus, etc.?

What about them? They still caused a great deal of social upheaval and even total collapse. The fact that you happen to agree with some of them and disagree with the status quo some of them sought to overturn doesn't change the fact that they are dangerous.

As to the "fanaticism" of those militias that claim they want to protect the liberty that they already have, I would say they are also ideological extremists, though they are extreme about an ideology that is already the social norm. I agree that we can call them "fanatics" but I maintain that the term is still vague and that the term "ideological extremists" is the more accurate and informative. Beatles fans were "fanatical" about the Beatles' music and image, but they were not ideologically extreme, nor were they a threat to their social status quo. The people that we are discussing, are both. So I propose that we use the term that designates the kinds of "fanatics" that we're discussing, specifically. That is the term 'ideological extremists'.

 

[PureX]

I agree but education by itself isn't going to get the job done. There are very well educated fanatics out there who use their education to their own selfish advantage, as you all know.

The factors that fuel the leaders of ideological extremism and the factors that inspire the followers are not generally the same factors. We will not be able to educate the leaders to any mitigating effect, but we could educate some, and possibly many of their followers to disavow the extremist ideology. Especially if we can do so before it becomes entangled with their personal identity. Once they reach this state of entanglement, they become mentally deranged, and mere education is not likely to have any appreciable effect on them. At that point it becomes a cult psychosis, and that's a far more difficult phenomena to intercede.

 

[Augustus]

What about them? They still cause a great deal of social upheaval and and even total collapse. The fact that you happen to agree with some of them and disagree with the status quo some of them sought to overturn doesn't change the fact that they are dangerous.

Apartheid South Africa could be considered ideologically extreme, yet was the status quo. The norm is not necessarily the centre, and it is not necessarily benign.

As to the "fanaticism" of those militias that claim they want to protect the liberty that they already have, I would say they are also ideological extremists, though they are extreme about an ideology that is already the social norm. I agree that we can call them "fanatics" but I maintain that the term is still vague and that the term "ideological extremists" is the more accurate and informative. Beatles fans were "fanatical" about the Beatles music and image, but they were not ideologically extreme, nor were they a threat to their social status quo. The people that we are discussing, are both. So I propose that we use the term that designates these kinds of "fanatics", specifically. That is the term ideological extremists.

Extremist is a relative label though. It is only 'informative and accurate' to those who share aspects of a common ideology.

At what point does someone become a left or right wing extremist? A Muslim extremist? Extreme nationalist? All of these depend on your start point on the spectrum.

Terms like fanatic and extremist are equally subjective.

 

[DavidFirth]

The factors that fuel the leaders of ideological extremism and the factors that inspire the followers are not generally the same factors. We will not be able to educate the leaders to any mitigating effect, but we could educate some, and possibly many of their followers to disavow the extremist ideology. Especially if we can do so before it becomes entangled with their personal identity. Once they reach this state of entanglement, they become mentally deranged, and mere education is not likely to have any appreciable effect on them. At that point it becomes a cult psychosis, and that's a far more difficult phenomena to intercede.

Still, education alone won't get the job done. Many will resist and reject the teaching and many will be led away from it.

 

[PureX]

Apartheid South Africa could be considered ideologically extreme, yet was the status quo. The norm is not necessarily the centre, and it is not necessarily benign.

That is a very good point. And that does occur more often than we would like to admit. In which case the ideology that's being labeled "extreme" is being labeled by another set of extremists that have nevertheless gained control of society, and the labeled extremists may in fact be the 'norm' reasserting itself.

Extremist is a relative label though. It is only 'informative and accurate' to those who share aspects of a common ideology.

Yes, well, that would be true of all 'information', though. Information that cannot be translated to a shared experience or understanding of reality doesn't inform us of much.

At what point does someone become a left or right wing extremist? A Muslim extremist? Extreme nationalist? All of these depend on your start point on the spectrum.

At the point where they threaten the status quo. The term "extreme" still means something even when it means something relative to something else. In fact, most of the terms we humans use only mean something relative to something else. Think about it. Relativism is a defining aspect of the human condition. Up (down), here (there), now (then), right (wrong), and so on.

Terms like fanatic and extremist are equally subjective.

No, they are relative, not subjective. There's a difference. In this case what your calling "subjective" is not subject to an individual human perspective, it's actually subject to a "collective" of humans perspective. That's an important difference.

 

[PureX]

Still, education alone won't get the job done. Many will resist and reject the teaching and many will be led away from it.

But keep in mind that there isn't just the education of the prospective participants. There is the education of those who study the participants, and deal with them in actuality, in hopes of finding better and more effective ways of mitigating their toxic social effects. And it is in this form of education that our greatest hopes, lay.

 

[DavidFirth]

But keep in mind that there isn't just the education of the prospective participants. There is the education of those who study the participants, and deal with them in actuality, in hopes of finding better and more effective ways of mitigating their toxic social effects. And it is in this form of education that our greatest hopes, lay.

I get your point, I truly do, but people are basically inherently evil with evil tendencies. Not everybody is going to accept your education with open arms.

 

[PureX]

I get your point, I truly do, but people are basically inherently evil with evil tendencies. Not everybody is going to accept your education with open arms.

Perfection is an illusion. Not everyone can or will be saved from themselves, or from each other. But most can, and most want to; when they can see the truth of themselves and of their situation. And that's where education can be so helpful. Not just for those falling into the cognitive abyss, but for those who want to help them find their way out, too.

 

[Augustus]

At the point where they threaten the status quo. The term "extreme" still means something even when it means something relative to something else. In fact, most of the terms we humans use only mean something relative to something else. Think about it. Relativism is a defining aspect of the human condition. Up (down), here (there), now (then), right (wrong), and so on.

A conservative would have threatened the Nazi status quo, and would thus be an extremist according to your definition.

In pre-war Germany, the conservative was the status quo and the Nazi the extremist

In the space of a few years in Germany the status quo and the 'extremist' swapped places per your definition, then immediately flipped back post war.

Threatening the status quo cannot be a logical gauge of ideological extremism can it?

No, they are relative, not subjective. There's a difference. In this case what your calling "subjective" is not subject to an individual human perspective, it's actually subject to a "collective" of humans perspective. That's an important difference.

It's the same thing. The 'collective' is simply an aggregate of individual subjective interpretations.

Joining a million subjective perspectives together doesn't magically make them not subjective.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Evidence please.

Fanaticism Is a Disease Like Alcoholism is pretty good evidence, but I'm sure they have scientifically linked it to mental illness.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Fanaticism Is a Disease Like Alcoholism is pretty good evidence, but I'm sure they have scientifically linked it to mental illness.

I don't see any scientific evidence here, just someone's opinion.