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.
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.