Let’s try a thought experiment. I define fanaticism as maintaining a position that can’t and won’t be changed by any sort of rational argument. That said, I ask for the second time: Are you a fanatic?
Next, let’s start investigating a little deeper. Try identifying a belief you have that is fundamental. Try something simple at first. The wall in front of me is solid. Would I be able to convince you otherwise? Would you act on it if I presented a perfect explanation proving that you are wrong and you agreed beyond any doubt? Can that wall in front of you not be solid?
Well, maybe that’s stupid. A wall is solid. It’s part of the definition. If I see something I identify as a wall, it must be solid. You can’t prove a wall is not solid. Bad example. I’m sorry.
Something different then. Do you believe there’s any human group that is inherently superior or inferior to another? Would you accept any perfect argument against that belief? Actually, would you accept anyone trying to make that argument? And, if you accept that this is a valid investigation, do you take for granted that a conclusion in conflict with your beliefs is proof enough that there’s some flaw in the argument itself? Are you a fanatic?
I am. Nothing new in my case. Self consciously speaking, I mean. The point today is the feeling we have when something fundamental is challenged. We won’t budge. And, please, notice I’m saying we, I’m saying you, I’m not saying them. I honestly believe we are all fanatics of some kind, although I might be wrong in this case, as in most cases.
Well, this might sound funny… yes, I am a fanatic, but I don’t remember why 😅
Since I studied philosophy, I decided that the only logical thing to do was to always follow the scientific method, for ontological reasons. “Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum”. Scientific knowledge can be neither 0% nor 100%, only beliefs can, it needs at least a sliver of doubt for falsability to be possible.
Is a wall solid? Depends on the definition, a wall is mostly void as far as we know. Walls work like particles, which work like magnets, which work like chairs (see: Feynman on magnets). It’s a tautological definition with extra steps, which make up most of our knowledge. We keep adding more and more steps, allowing us to navigate and manipulate the tautology, yet never breaking out of it. We’re the universe observing itself from the inside, which necessarily means some part is going to stay unobserved.
The funny part, is that a few decades ago, I had a metaphysical discussion… which ended up in a fundamental disagreement, with me saying “it’s obviously so” and the other party “it’s obviously not”… but I’ve since forgotten what the discussion was exactly about 😆
Based on that, I have to guess I am a fanatic in some sense, and you could say I’m a fanatic of doubt… but that’s kind of the opposite of fanaticism, so I’d say I am a very little bit of a fanatic.
I don’t consider myself a fanatic, but I also don’t define it the same way you do.
Everyone has beliefs they are not dissuadable from, so fanaticism as a concept loses is usefulness in describing abnormal devotion if you use it to also describe normal devotion.
“I am not okay with you killing my 3 year old child for fun” is a pretty universal position that people would take, and could not be budged from, for example. That doesn’t make everyone fanatics.
I looked up the actual definition because I felt like this definition had a missing element, and the element that’s missing for me is the passion or excessive enthusiasm. For example, I’d be comfortable defining myself as a Ditto fanatic. I love Ditto, I know lots of Ditto facts, and I have a fundamental belief that no Ditto plush has any business using anything besides scuba fabric or something similarly stretchy and smooth. I also believe that tiny polystyrene beads are the only filler that make sense for a Ditto plush. I’ll back that up with Ditto lore any day. There is a fanatical quality to my search for the perfect Ditto plushie because of the level of depth and enthusiasm I approach it with, and it gives me joy to talk about it because it’s fun to talk about Ditto qualities.
Contrasting this with my fundamental belief that no human group is inherently superior or inferior to one another - the energy is different. I won’t budge on this, and I have a bit of data to back it up, but it’s not fun or interesting to argue or debate. I don’t go looking for or researching information on this because I don’t find the idea that one human might be inherently better than another interesting. What’s the point of that information? I haven’t ever seen that idea used for good. I might argue it the way I know I should take a vitamin, but it feels like a waste of time to argue about this when we could be talking about more interesting things. That’s not fanatical to me - I don’t obsess over it, and if I had my way, it wouldn’t even be up for debate. To me, that is more a moral than fanaticism. A moral is something divorced from fact or debate, that you hold to be true because you believe the world runs better that way. I wouldn’t accept a perfect argument that one type of human is inherently better than another because morally, I know that idea is at the root of all discrimination, and discrimination leads to harm, which I do not want to cause or contribute to, to the best of my ability.
I could see that same position becoming fanatical if I spent my free time chasing online trolls, bringing it up constantly with coworkers, or researching it obsessively to strengthen my arguments and be in the “winning” position of a debate. I am no more likely to change my opinion than I am the fanatic’s in this situation, but there is a significant difference in how I engage with the question and how much of my brain space it takes up.
Anyway, I’m a fanatic, but if I’ve got the read of your post right, that’s less the feeling to explore than the one that comes when someone questions your morals, and perhaps where they came from. Fanaticism is an interesting behavior though, and definitely worth deeper exploration if the fanaticism is tied to morals.
I’m not sure I understand the argument. You want to check with with rationality - so your argument has to be rational. Asking is I believe that there is any human group that is inherently superior or inferior to another depends or definitions of inherent and superior. The group of human males are inherently superior to the group of human females on the number of Y chromosomes they have (putting aside gender vs sex etc. ) Does that help in any way? The issue is that we tend to choose definitions of superior and inferior that don’t match the data, or are caused by something other than the group selection (like socioeconomic conditions). I’m sure I’m fanatic about many things. I think we should be helping those less fortunate. But it does not mean I’m ‘right’ - you can’t rationally talk about this opinion without defining ‘better’. Some measurement of outcome. Are we trying for the average suffering to go down? Median? How do you measure suffering? Do we only care about material success? Total gdp? This is why I think the rationality argument is problematic. Without defining very clear comparison metrics you can’t really rationally discuss superior, inferior, better or worse. Different people assign different ‘values’ to different outcomes, even when we can measure them. So I try to hit some balance - I want the world better but am not sure how to do that - so I use my non-rational opinions to color my behavior.
Actually, the wall being solid is not that clear either. As with many things, it depends.
