syo
Well-Known Member
there was a guy who traveled to india, and some indians beat him because a hindu goddess was tattooed on his body. fanatics can be dangerous and it's not a label, it's a fact.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
fanaticism
- Thread starter syo
- Start date
I'm not sure I'm articulating my point appropriately, or if it's that you simply disagree. I think it's a very important question to ask - do people do things we call "evil" because they are fanatics, or do we call them fanatics because they do "evil" things?
A term like "fanatic" carries with it normative assumptions. That is, the term only makes sense if there is some presupposed "normal" baseline of behaviors it is being compared to. What does that baseline look like, and who creates it? When do we decide to apply a term like "fanatic" and when do we not? Is "fanatic" basically just another word for "I really disagree with that?" Something else?
syo
Well-Known Member
when lives are in danger.
Ah, then your usage of the term is very different than what I'm thinking. That clarifies things a bit. I was pretty much going by something more like this for understanding what "fanaticism" is:
fanatic |fəˈnadik| noun
a person filled with excessive and single-minded zeal, especially for an extreme religious or political cause.
syo
Well-Known Member
it affects their relationships to others.
To me compassion is the opposite of fanaticism.
Yes. There are plenty of political fanatics.
Just about everything of what we are impacts relationships with others, yeah. For those who are devoted to something (whether or not we want to use the word "fanatic") they will perhaps find kinship with those of like mind and perhaps find conflict with those who are not. The outcome is quite varied, in part because the correspondence between internally-held ideas and behavior is... well... somewhat loose.
PureX
Veteran Member
I think the title of this thread is mislabeling the intended idea. That idea being ideological extremism.
"Fanatacism" isn't a particularly notable problem for society. (Think of Beatles or Elvis fans in the 1960s). Ideological extremism, however, is a problem. Because it is defined by being an extreme ideological aberration from the norm. Which will almost always than present a threat to the ideological status quo, and thereby to social stability as a whole.
Sooo fanaticism about free speech and personal freedoms is...a threat to social stability as a whole. Cool.
PureX
Veteran Member
Who is "fanatical" about free speech? Who is "fanatical" about personal liberty?
I think you're stretching the term unnecessarily, here. Why not just address the real problem, which is ideological extremism? Do you have some sort of issue with this terminology?
There are people who are equally fanatic about things society deems good as there are about things society deems bad. There are people who are fanatic about gay rights, about open borders and the like.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
syo
Well-Known Member
I think we should follow Jesus and his message of love. because without love we can't achieve anything. and I think the message of Jesus can be found in all major religions.
PureX
Veteran Member
I guess you aren't going to address the real issue, are you.
It's because you seem to have a very limited view of what fanatic means and won't seem to accept otherwise. People can also be ideologically extreme about gay rights and safe spaces. It's called the extreme left.
Could you elaborate on what the "real issue" is, as you see it? I'm not clear on what your issue is with Rival's comment. Seems to me @Rival is right - ideological extremism (or "fanaticism" if one prefers) can apply to things a given individual happens to value as much as things they do not value. It also seems to me we're better able to recognize when things we don't value are extremist since we condemn it... and are a touch blind to extremism in our own court.
I mean, I have no doubt that people who don't give a crap about the environment regard my stances on these things as extremist. Do I think of myself that way? Well... *laughs* sometimes, I guess.
PureX
Veteran Member
"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.
PureX
Veteran Member
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.