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.