Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
What are the roots of fanaticism?
RichardH
Veteran
It appears that every religion or political movement is susceptible to fanatical absolutism. The belief that one's own views, and those who share those views, represent the objectively true and universal view. Those either outside of your religion, or within your religion but outside your interpretation of it, are at the very least in error. It does not seem to be dependent on the content of those views, because a Christian , Muslim, or Buddhist can be just as absolutist as a Maoist or a Neo-Conservative. No religious, political, or social movement seems to be free of fanaticism, at least around its edges. If the root of the fanaticism does not rest in the content of the absolutized view, does it rest with the psychology of the fanatic holding it?
It seems to me that it is at least partially a matter of the individual lacking the ability to distinguish between his own individual experiences and perceptions, and those of others. In other words the fanatic takes his own individual mind as the archetype of all minds. “This is the absolute truth for me, therefore it must be the absolute truth for you... whether you know it or not” . Since all of his perceptions and interpretations confirm his view to himself, they must also confirm this view to everyone else, unless they are blind or pernicious.
This is just a discussion point, and I am sure there are many different views on the subject. Does anyone have any thoughts on this matter?
It seems to me that it is at least partially a matter of the individual lacking the ability to distinguish between his own individual experiences and perceptions, and those of others. In other words the fanatic takes his own individual mind as the archetype of all minds. “This is the absolute truth for me, therefore it must be the absolute truth for you... whether you know it or not” . Since all of his perceptions and interpretations confirm his view to himself, they must also confirm this view to everyone else, unless they are blind or pernicious.
This is just a discussion point, and I am sure there are many different views on the subject. Does anyone have any thoughts on this matter?
0
Comments
The problems start from having a fixed egoistic view/s. Thus one fights for one's rights, ideals, beliefs, religion, country etc. As far as fanatics are concerned only they are right. They may have strong faith, strong concentration,strong mindfulness and present moment awareness but wrong view.
Agree that this is the beginning of fanatical thought, which leads to actions of fanaticism
My understanding is that one can have a self -concept, that is develop a stable psychological sense of self, without having fixed views which one becomes fanatic about - even retaining a system of beliefs is not a problem as long as understand it is a " system of beliefs "
Yes, can see this .... my interpretation of behaviour in this situation was not to see it as fanatical - though the extent to which individuals would choose to riot could be judged that way
Pascal Boyer has pointed out that fundamentalist threats directed at outsiders are actually used to discipline insiders. If this strengthens group cohesion then it probably does, as fivebells says, make the insiders feel good. In addition, groups seem to become more extreme or more fundamentalist when the group is threatened. We get a little taste of this in a debate when our own views are challenged. I've seen a lot of it among Zen Buddhists at a forum who's name I won't mention. :-)
My own experience with Baptists is that being persecuted is part of the group identity. I don't remember anyone getting off on being persecuted, but it may provide an easy explanation for challenges to belief and reassure the person challenged; i.e. strengthen their claim to group membership. I've seen a couple of hard-core Nichiren Buddhists do this; challenge is interpreted as persecution and is proof that they are good devotees of the Lotus Sutra. (I think this is relatively common in one or two of the small, more extreme Nichiren organizations.)
I'm not offering an explanation, just some possible tidbits of explanation. :-)
I agree with Richard and 5B that this is something human, and I'm human. If I understand 5B's comment about society normalizing fanaticism correctly, an example is war, where the entire population of a country loses the ability to view the conflict from the point of view of the opposing country. Social factors make it unacceptable to question either the motivation or the conduct of the war, although conduct may be questioned if the war goes badly.
Have you ever noticed that a fanatic is always the other guy?
I ‘m not saying that some people don’t get off balance, become boisterous and pushy, or even strap a bomb to themselves in order to prove something.
But, I do think that we use the word/description fanatic too loosely, when the definition for fanatic becomes, “someone who isn’t wishy-washy in their believes, and doesn’t agree with me.” ; ^ )
It always amazes me, how incapable people can be of putting the shoe on the other foot.
For instance, when we made a pre-emptive strike on Iran, and march right down their streets carrying weapon, some of us Americans were surprised when they didn’t throw their arms around us in gratitude.
Now lets put the shoe on the other foot. How would we (here in the USA) like the Iranians to land on the shores of New York City, and march right down our streets carrying weapons, shooting civilians, and saving us from the previous Bush administration, (irregardless for our personal distaste for the guy)?
Would we be grateful? Would we take on their Muslim beliefs of government, and gratefully throw away democracy at that moment?
Think about it? Which act is more fanatical? Is it our pre-emptive warfare against their civilian population, or their being upset with us, and fighting back?
Like I said above. The fanatic is always the other guy.
S9
Yes, and I did that when I equated fundamentalism with fanaticism. Fundamentalism is a more extreme form of belief, and it can give clues to understanding the extreme, but it's not the same as fanaticism.
Not me. I just look in the mirror and it all makes sense. :-)
Iraq.
Day late and a dollar short. The godless, amoral Democrats have already done the job by putting a foreign born Muslim in the White House.
(Please note that there's an element of facetiousness in the previous sentence. :-)
It wasn't a pre-emptive strike, and it wasn't directed against the civilian population. I was opposed to the invasion, but that pales in comparison to the massive incompetence of the people who planned and managed the occupation. It was handled in a way that guaranteed a powerful insurgent backlash. To paraphrase Hanlan's razor, never attribute to fanaticism that which can be explained by stupidity.
However, you were trying to make a point about labeling, not about Iraq. And I agree with your basic point, which is that while disagreeing with me may be a sign of obstinacy and bad judgment, it's not necessarily a sign of fanaticism. ;-)
It occurred to me that there's another obvious example of society normalizing fanaticism. There's a particular category of fanatic that we've all heard or read about:
That might be a good definition of fanaticism; the coincidence of the visionary and the everyday.
I do not consider myself to be politically astute, because what I do know is TV knowledge mixed in with vast amounts of personal opinion. So in many ways, I could easily be wrong. But, this I do know. The way that my country is carrying on and treating the peoples of this world, is not an extension of my own personal needs or wants. (Yes, Iraq, thanks. For some reason, I keep mixing them in my head.)
In a way, the Buddha was a fanatic. I mean this in a good way. ; ^ )
Buddha got it into his head one fine day, that he wanted to know the truth, no needed to know, and so he just walked off leaving a wife and child behind. Can you spell drastic?
He also acted quite irresponsible in walking away from an earthly kingdom that he was in line to rule over (AKA serve his people.)
Then it is also said that, he pushed himself to such extremes that at one point he almost died from his extremes, and so on…
But then, aren’t we all glad that he did persist in this, and bring to the world great blessings in the form of both teachings and a wider view of our own possibilities?
So, when is too much; a good thing?
S9
I always kinda thought that a fanatic (or perhaps interchangeably: a fundamentalist) was someone who is convinced, without a shadow of doubt, that they are so right about something (doesn't really matter what it is), that everyone else must be wrong, and are therefore: the enemy.
Some belief systems tend to have a little bit of this, I think, built in to them. After all, your belief system is very basic and is important to you. If you do not believe it is the only right way, why bother to believe in it?
I always try to be respectful of this when people ask me why I have elected Buddhism as my belief. I try to make sure I don't step on toes when I begin my explanation, otherwise, they start feeling like I am attacking them. I become the fanatic.
I must be Rip Van Winkle. When did this happen and how have I not heard about it until now?
Forgive me. I mixed up Iraq with Iran, while I was typing my message. They seem to be pretty close together, somewhere in my brain cells.
You are okay. Go back to sleep. ; ^ )
S9
I think you are basically right.
The colloquial way that we use the word fanatic these days is as a way of pointing out people who are “over the top” in their belief systems, one way or another.
Very often, these fanatical types are very pushy with their ideas, jamming them down other people’s throats. In other words, there is no “open dialogue.” It ranges all the way from the hurtful “my way or the highway,” to the far more dangerous “Death to the infidels.”
I believe if we dig deep enough into fanaticism, we will find out that Fear is at the very root of it.
S9
It is also understandable when someone groups Iran and Iraq together. The Bush administration was able to sell the idea that the responsible parties for terrorist attacks were somehow associated with Iraq and to this day many still believe that to be the case. This is just another example of the gulf between perception and reality.
I hate to even think this but, I am beging to wondering if this terrible war policy of our country isn't just continuing because, if they brought all our boys (and girls) home right now, there wouldn't be any jobs for them.
It's enough to make a grown man cry. : = [
S9
We grasp tightly to our beliefs, I think, in the hopes of making them solid, stable, and somewhat permanent because we identify with them. They are 'our' beliefs and 'we' are ___ists. Since we so desperately want to be solid and stable entities we use belief systems to shore up that delusion and create a 'self' where none actually exists. When our beliefs are challenged we perceive this to be a threat to our sense of 'selves' and we fight back, often irrationally and sometimes viciously.
As we know, belief systems are just more attachments, sometimes useful and sometimes harmful. Even though we require a system of belief as Buddhists, the Buddha instructed that we would eventually have to drop even that in the end.
The intensity with which we hold our beliefs is, I think, a measure of our desire to be solid and everlasting entities and is based primarily on the fear, as Subjectivity pointed out, that we are not.
I've always been an opinionated person and one of the greatest challenges in my practice is to slow the critical, opinion-making part of my brain before I start to add my own layers of belief to things so I can take a good look at why I'm forming these ideas and opinions in the first place. At the same time it's a great weight off my shoulders not to form these baseless opinions and to allow them to exist without my help. A flexible mind is a peaceful mind.
Anthony De Mello once said, “Every time you cling to something to stop your self from falling, understand that it is falling too.” Quote
Talk about impermanent.
S9
Thanx
That is from a little jewel of a book called, “Awareness,” The Perils and Opportunities of Reality’ (not all of his books are this good)
Another Q by Anthony De Mello: pg 12
“Maybe they should have suffered a little more. Maybe they ought to touch rock bottom and say, “ I am sick of it all.” Its only when you’re sick of your sickness that you’ll get out of it.”
S9
If you have food, a place to live, a good education, many friends, and are sercure in your perception of where you stand, then you will not be a fanatic.
If getting food is a daily uncertainty, you can't afford a place to live, you have no education, people seem to be hostile towards you, and don't know how to make peace with the establishment, it's very likely that you will hold extreme views as a defense mechanism for the lack of security.
This is because fanatical views are clear cut and dry. They hold the absolute truth, no exceptions, and there isn't any worrying about where you stand. If you live in a world where almost everything is uncertain, it's likely you will turn to your beliefs to compensate.
I recall a talk by Ajahn Sumedho commenting on the wish for everything to be perfect.
No, no, you were just jumping ahead a little.
Palzang
I am glad to see your gentle face again. : ^ )
It does seem like only a matter of time b/4 we go to war with just about every country in the world, that is until we can get into outer space and find a whole new bunch of victims/enemies.
Weapon sales is big business in this country (USA)
On top of that, the American people do seem to be their biggest and most gullible customers.
Peace,
S9
K: Most ideologies and religions can be the cause of fanaticism.
S9: I believe that fanatics are born not made. (AKA not caused)
I looked 'fanatic' up in the dictionary, and the word that stood out in that definition for me was “Uncritical” zeal.
So, you probably wouldn’t want to include people, like a researcher who was obsessively looking for a cure for cancer/because his mom died from cancer, under that same heading.
K: If someone were to become more fanatical or fundamentalist about Jainism, they'd actually kill fewer things.
S9: However, jumping around on one foot, and trying not to step on ants, could go a long way toward making compassion seem foolish, don't you think?
Best to be balanced and sensible in our action/thoughts, and avoid extremes (as Buddha said), IMO.
When is good, too good?
Peace,
S9
Been out wandering the Twitterverse lately...
Living in metro DC, I can tell you it's more than weapons sales. It's what Eisenhower called the Military-Industrial Complex. Defense contractors get mega-rich here, and they have been literally since the Civil War. There is no incentive to stop a war once it has been begun (usually for very flimsy reasons); too many people get rich off them (except, of course, the poor shlubs who have to fight them!).
Palzang
You are so right. These organisms, created by both money and privilege, do seems to have a life of their own.
I read a book some time back that predicted that wars in the future would be between corporations, rather than countries. Is that future now?
Too many high officials in our government, after picking the pockets of the American people, seem to get high paying cushy jobs, (in these very corporations that are given high end contracts), soon after they slink out of Washington.
If these same people had robbing a 7/11 for tiny bucks, they would be doing time.
We won’t even get into all of the pain to the soldiers themselves, and collateral pain caused to multiple generations in their families. It would just make you weep.
: ^ (
I think we need to think of "new ways" to make these same people rich and powerful, (because they are certainly not going to give that up, any day soon). Some new industry that doesn’t have such an 'evil fall out' for the common man would be worth looking into.
Let us hope it is something ecological, or going towards improved heath. Two birds with one stone
Peace,
S9
________________
I think you can make a pretty good case that we live in a corporate "democracy".
I think they would make excellent candidates for intergalactic exploration missions!
Palzang