In our class we will explore texts from Greek drama and philosophy, as well as biblical passages and world literature, to examine the importance of the individual's struggle in the search for the Good Life. Here in this blog, we will question the concepts of “courage,” “free speech” and “civil disobedience” as well as attempting to discover the characteristics of the hero/martyr/saint.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Fanaticism
So finally we are here crossing the line into fanaticism....
What then are the characteristics that transform the courageous individual into a fanatic?
It seems the characteristics that define fanaticism are that of disregarding the whole picture. As Voltaire describes, and example of a fanatic is the legislator with "too narrow views." I believe this idea of limited scope apply to all fanatics. They often focus too much on one minute point or goal or belief and forget the context in which it exists. They disregard the bigger idea so as to be focussed on their sole idea. In some senses, it seems that today's fanaticism has a definite negative connotation to it, often associated with the far extreme of courage. If courage is consistent, fanaticism is unmoving, obstinate. If courage is conscious, fanaticism is overly-aware, but only in tunnel vision. If courage holds true to its values regardless of cost, fanaticism takes this idea ever further and is willing to do anything to promote its own goals.
I agree with Phil in the view that fanaticism seems to be associated with negative connotations and since I believe that idea of courage has positive connotations, for me, courage and fanaticism seem to be two different extremes. I believe a fanatic is one that has lost all sense of rationality and as Voltaire describes it has a form of “religious madness, gloomy and cruel.” A fanatic is one who becomes too engrossed in one thing (whether it be goal, idea or person) making that their absolute, they believe that they are doing something for the good. A fanatic’s initial intentions can be good and to an extent courageous but I believe that a fanatic loses all sense of reason and it is this that distinguishes their act from being courageous, as courage is virtue and reason in itself. Anyways on a side note, as I read on I found this line very interesting and find that it is a perfect question to address when analyzing both the story of Abraham and Bess. “What can be said in answer to a man who says he will rather obey God than men, and who consequently feels certain of meriting heaven by cutting your throat?”
I believe fanaticism directly relates to Aristotle’s view on virtue in that virtue is the balance between two extremes. For courage these are cowardice and confidence. A courageous man becomes a fanatic when this balance is disrupted. The fanatic focuses only on his own beliefs and opinions and sees his way as the only right way. The fanatic goes to great lengths to apply his beliefs in society, and in this, he is horribly determined. In Voltaire’s discussion of fanaticism, he gave many examples in which the fanatic becomes the murderer.
Also, he describes fanatics as being “nearly always under the direction of knaves, who place the dagger in their hands.” This leads to the possibility that fanaticism is not only over-confidence, but also cowardice. These fanatics are taking the easy way out in their refusal to acknowledge other views. They are following the direction of a knave, not forming their own beliefs but blindly and wholeheartedly following the beliefs of another.
Fanaticism is over-confidence in the belief and application of an idea and cowardice in the failure to examine other perspectives. The transition from courageousness to fanaticism is a slick, slippery slope, for often it is easy not to consider the views of others.
I am going to try to be as careful as possible in my language here. Like Phil said, fanatics are blind as to the context in which they will one thing, but at the same time, I believe that they are concerned with those who do not will the same thing. Hence, they are aware that others do not believe as they do, but are uninterested in what those other beliefs are and, thus, blind to them. At the same time, a courageous individual should also be aware that there are those who might not agree with them. The difference between the two, however, is that the courageous individual should be aware of the differences and simply not care that they exist. The fanatic, on the other hand, despises the idea of someone not following their beliefs, and so feels the intense urge to reprimand them.
Having just written all this, I suppose I can whittle it down into a simple comparison: the courageous individual is conscious and unaffected by challenges to their ideals, while the fanatic is blind and upset at them.
When a courageous person transforms into a fanatic, I believe that the balance between the pathos and logos becomes unbalanced. When one is courageous, he/she still has the reasoning to carry out the task for a just cause whether it be just to him/her or to others. When one becomes fanatical, he/she loses almost all logic of a just cause for their task.
I recently watched an episode of the anime Cowboy Bebop, and I noticed this idea. There is a killer who kills with guns. He began killing for a just cause as a police officer. Scientists then kidnapped him and altered his genetic DNA. Years later, he began reverting to a child-like state where he killed for fun. He began as a courageous police officer with a just cause, but he then became a fanatical child-like lunatic who killed for fun. I think this exemplifies this transformation the best.
I agree with McCormick. Those who are fanatics have a set idea that will not change. They will not accept the fact that there is any other way to believe and get upset at anyone who tries to refute them. Then there is the courageous one who accepts the fact that others have different beliefs and opinions but does not respect them less because of it. The example that comes to mind is a fundamentalist, one who takes the Bible literally, one who will not come to the conclusion that others see the bible in different ways. They can’t fathom that anyone could believe anything different, so they become close-minded. A courageous person is the opposite; they are open-minded yet still a strong supporter of their beliefs.
Fanatic is one who has a cause without reason and an unhealthy stubbornness. People who often fight strongly for a cause without knowing all the information. A fanatic can easily be identified as one who would fail miserably in a debate. If he was ever to be questioned about his cause, he quite often could not give an argument. They strongly repeat the basics and often cannot explain or refute other arguments since they do not truly know their own cause. Fanatics often run in for a cause without thought or reasoning. One who is courageous knows all consequences and all sides of the story. Knowing all sides of the story, they remain standing strong with their beliefs and are will to face any danger for their cause. In my opinion this is the difference between a fanatic and a man of courage. One is blind and the other knowledgeable of all sides.
The courageous person keeps a open mind and a wide perspective, while the fanatic has only one goal in mind, and will sacrifice anything, even himself and others, to that end. I believe a courageous person will falter when asked to sacrifice others, unwillingly, to his cause, while a fanatic will sacrifice anyone and anything to his.
The fanatic is a courageous person who has lost sight of their true beliefs or goals. Their actions and thoughts are warped by a preoccupation with something besides their "good". A fanatic is not even aware of the distortion of their beliefs.
Reading Voltaire made me think of Bess O'Neal quite a bit. I also think Andrew's perspective is very interesting.
The difference between a courageous individual and a fanatic comes from motive. A courageous individual does something that they at least believe is for the betterment of society, whereas a fanatic performs out of obsession. A courageous individual knows when to pick their battles and when to back down. The fanatic must complete their goal no matter the cost. They develop almost an addiction to their cause, stopping at nothing to get a fix. Not to say that their acts do not take a sense of ignorance, which I believe to be a false interpretation of courage, so therefore some may consider fanatics courageous, but to be unable to deny themselves these act takes away any bit of courage that was originally in it.
Fanaticism is when an individual begins to believe that his virtues and morals are the universal truth or good. The individual will refuse to believe in any other morals that would seem to contradict his/her's. Thus, because of this state of mind, this individual may attempt to force his/her ideals upon others no matter what the opposing opinion is. This refusal of opposing ideals may lead to hotheadedness, which, in turn, can be confused with courage. Thus, outwardly, the difference between fanaticism and courage may be very fine. It is upon one's belief in one's morals does the difference become more apparent.
A courageous person becomes fanatic when their dedication to their cause defies reason. If someone cannot be reasoned with because they are blindly convinced of the motive for their own courage, they are a fanatic. For example: the hypothetical person in the voltaire reading who was slamming their head into the floor. That’s unreasonable. Humans have the ability to reason. That is the ultimate trump card species-wise. When someone acts bravely and encorporates reason, it is courage. When reason is surpassed or ignored (often for an abstract concept) it becomes fanaticism.
If courage must include reason, fanaticism is the lack of this reason in "courageous" actions. Fanaticism also usually results from an ignorance of the entirety of the issue at hand.
There is a fuzzy line between courageous and fanaticism. People who stand for a radical cause in the face of adversity are usually called courageous in the history books. In their time they are called rebels like Martin Luther King. Crossing the line into fanaticism occurs, in my opinion, when one leaves representing one's cause and moves into violence against teh opposing side. Occasionally violence is called for if, for instance, in self defense. However, when a courageous person initiates the violence, then it becomes fanaticism.
Many define courage as devoting oneself to an idea or goal they believe in. Fanaticism, however, is when courage crossed the line, or is amplified ten fold. Some examples of fanatics given by Voltaire were hard for me to understand, but I found the over all theme of the essay reflected in many other situations around me. When I think of a fanatic, I think of Penelope Taint from "The Amanda Show," Amanda Bynes comedy show back in the 90's. Penelope, in order to meet her "number one fan, please!", goes to such lengths as to scale buildings, wear disguises, eliminate other members of the cast, exploit her brother, even attack a bumbling security guard. This, to me, is fanaticism. If we replace Penelope with fanatical Christians and Amanda as God (for example,) one can more clearly see fanaticism for what it is: courage that surpasses the line of reason. A reasonable person wouldn't risk jail time or bodily harm just to meet a celebrity. Most people would write a letter. But a fanatic doesn't see things that way. They are so blinded by their desire to be devout to Amanda, or God, or whomever, that they do not care about what effect their actions have on those around them. Killing in the name of God? The fanatic would see this as a victory. Reasonable people would see otherwise. This is just one small example of how courage can be blurred in fanaticism. The results are not always pretty. Think about that the next time you decide to become someone's number one fan. AMANDA, PLEASE!
I feel like courage and fanaticism are fundamentally very simalar. However, i believe fanaticism also involves the violation of more of societies rules and norms, for seemingly illogical reasons.
I read a quote by george santayana that says "fanaticism is redoubling your effort when you have forgotton your aim." it made alot of sense to me and I feel that this definition is the truer to the the character of the fanatic than any definition i could articulate.
A fanatic is a courageous person minus wisdom and selflessness. They have bravery, fortitude, persistance, etc., but they lack the wisdom to know when to stop or adapt. Similarly, they are so convinced that their way is right that they are too selfish to consider other points of view.
A fanatic tries to force ideas on people, whereas a courageous person lets his ideas be known, but allows people to decide for themselves what to believe in. My perception of a fanatic is one who would invade another country to spread (religious) beliefs. I have the Crusades in mind. Fanatics are so convinced that they are right in their worldviews that they believe they are doing everyone a favor by forcing their ideas down their throats. The main difference, to me, is that a fanatic resorts to violence.
"Fanaticism is the effect of a false conscience, which makes religion subservient to the caprices of the imagination, and the excesses of the passions."
He goes on to talk about legislators with "too narrow views" and religious fanatics that contradict eachother.
I'm having a little trouble dissecting what this first statement means, better yet, much of what Voltaire means to say.
So I'm thinking that the gist of what he's saying is that fanaticism happens when someone (someone in power) takes their belief/cause, often carried on the back of religion, and stretches it out of context. The fanatic does not see how his or her actions are not beneficial to any other than his "select society," nor does he or she care. The fanatic isolates and harms others in offense; the courageous does this only in defense, if at all. For a moment, I paused to think about Andrew's answer. I think it holds true that sometimes those identified as fanatics are so because they are not in our group. It becomes difficult to truly discern the offensive and defensive.
Those the majority deems as fanatics are those who will the destruction of anyone or anything outlying their view. The courageous fight to be included.
A fanatic is neither good nor evil. A fanatic is a tool shaped by cirucumstances or people. They act as if programmed, neither adapting or evolving or even considering that which they follow. In non-intellectual matters, a fanatic exhibits all the qualities of the courageous. However when it comes to questioning beliefs they are are as helpless as a child told to disbelieve his parents. As such they cannot contemplate the morality of their actions and lack the opportunity to have virtue if not the ability to show courage.
The difference between a courageous individual and a fanatic is that one is bound by the limits of right and wrong, and the other is either too overconfident or narrow-minded to adhere to that limit. A fanatic wants to cross that line drawn by society and all things good for his/her beliefs.They are so wrapped up in their cause, that they forget the main purpose and the main goal of all causes which is the betterment the world.
The line between courage and fanaticism is slim. If a courageous individual is one who uses her rationality in making decisions she deems best, the fanatic individual has almost a perceived rationality, or a rationality that seems to belong outside the self. In other words, the individual uses her rationality, but in a skewed manner. Instead of evaluating her choices herself, she bases them off of what she sees as an "outside," without question. The fanatic uses flawed reasoning.
A fanatic has courage in that they stand up for one thing that they believe in and stick to it, but the courageous man would never expend all his efforts on one purpose. Rather, he would use his virtue on many different occasions and at many different opportunities. The fanatic, however, would be blinded by the one thing they stand behind and therefore would not see it as being selfish; or possibly even courageous.
A fanatic is one who is very narrow minded in his/her approach when dealing with certain situations. This individual disregards almost all outside criticisms and opinions because they are so set in their own mindset that nothing can change it. When their views are challenged, fanatics feel threatened and usually respond with violence or anger instead of using a rational approach. The fanatic is so devoted to his/her cause that this devotion could be perhaps viewed as a blindness which truly affects the fanatic's perception of the outside world.
It seems the characteristics that define fanaticism are that of disregarding the whole picture. As Voltaire describes, and example of a fanatic is the legislator with "too narrow views." I believe this idea of limited scope apply to all fanatics. They often focus too much on one minute point or goal or belief and forget the context in which it exists. They disregard the bigger idea so as to be focussed on their sole idea. In some senses, it seems that today's fanaticism has a definite negative connotation to it, often associated with the far extreme of courage. If courage is consistent, fanaticism is unmoving, obstinate. If courage is conscious, fanaticism is overly-aware, but only in tunnel vision. If courage holds true to its values regardless of cost, fanaticism takes this idea ever further and is willing to do anything to promote its own goals.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Phil in the view that fanaticism seems to be associated with negative connotations and since I believe that idea of courage has positive connotations, for me, courage and fanaticism seem to be two different extremes. I believe a fanatic is one that has lost all sense of rationality and as Voltaire describes it has a form of “religious madness, gloomy and cruel.” A fanatic is one who becomes too engrossed in one thing (whether it be goal, idea or person) making that their absolute, they believe that they are doing something for the good. A fanatic’s initial intentions can be good and to an extent courageous but I believe that a fanatic loses all sense of reason and it is this that distinguishes their act from being courageous, as courage is virtue and reason in itself.
ReplyDeleteAnyways on a side note, as I read on I found this line very interesting and find that it is a perfect question to address when analyzing both the story of Abraham and Bess. “What can be said in answer to a man who says he will rather obey God than men, and who consequently feels certain of meriting heaven by cutting your throat?”
I believe fanaticism directly relates to Aristotle’s view on virtue in that virtue is the balance between two extremes. For courage these are cowardice and confidence. A courageous man becomes a fanatic when this balance is disrupted. The fanatic focuses only on his own beliefs and opinions and sees his way as the only right way. The fanatic goes to great lengths to apply his beliefs in society, and in this, he is horribly determined. In Voltaire’s discussion of fanaticism, he gave many examples in which the fanatic becomes the murderer.
ReplyDeleteAlso, he describes fanatics as being “nearly always under the direction of knaves, who place the dagger in their hands.” This leads to the possibility that fanaticism is not only over-confidence, but also cowardice. These fanatics are taking the easy way out in their refusal to acknowledge other views. They are following the direction of a knave, not forming their own beliefs but blindly and wholeheartedly following the beliefs of another.
Fanaticism is over-confidence in the belief and application of an idea and cowardice in the failure to examine other perspectives. The transition from courageousness to fanaticism is a slick, slippery slope, for often it is easy not to consider the views of others.
I am going to try to be as careful as possible in my language here. Like Phil said, fanatics are blind as to the context in which they will one thing, but at the same time, I believe that they are concerned with those who do not will the same thing. Hence, they are aware that others do not believe as they do, but are uninterested in what those other beliefs are and, thus, blind to them. At the same time, a courageous individual should also be aware that there are those who might not agree with them. The difference between the two, however, is that the courageous individual should be aware of the differences and simply not care that they exist. The fanatic, on the other hand, despises the idea of someone not following their beliefs, and so feels the intense urge to reprimand them.
ReplyDeleteHaving just written all this, I suppose I can whittle it down into a simple comparison: the courageous individual is conscious and unaffected by challenges to their ideals, while the fanatic is blind and upset at them.
Courageous individuals are from our camp, while fanatics are from another.
ReplyDeleteWhen a courageous person transforms into a fanatic, I believe that the balance between the pathos and logos becomes unbalanced. When one is courageous, he/she still has the reasoning to carry out the task for a just cause whether it be just to him/her or to others. When one becomes fanatical, he/she loses almost all logic of a just cause for their task.
ReplyDeleteI recently watched an episode of the anime Cowboy Bebop, and I noticed this idea. There is a killer who kills with guns. He began killing for a just cause as a police officer. Scientists then kidnapped him and altered his genetic DNA. Years later, he began reverting to a child-like state where he killed for fun. He began as a courageous police officer with a just cause, but he then became a fanatical child-like lunatic who killed for fun. I think this exemplifies this transformation the best.
I agree with McCormick. Those who are fanatics have a set idea that will not change. They will not accept the fact that there is any other way to believe and get upset at anyone who tries to refute them. Then there is the courageous one who accepts the fact that others have different beliefs and opinions but does not respect them less because of it. The example that comes to mind is a fundamentalist, one who takes the Bible literally, one who will not come to the conclusion that others see the bible in different ways. They can’t fathom that anyone could believe anything different, so they become close-minded. A courageous person is the opposite; they are open-minded yet still a strong supporter of their beliefs.
ReplyDeleteFanatic is one who has a cause without reason and an unhealthy stubbornness. People who often fight strongly for a cause without knowing all the information. A fanatic can easily be identified as one who would fail miserably in a debate. If he was ever to be questioned about his cause, he quite often could not give an argument. They strongly repeat the basics and often cannot explain or refute other arguments since they do not truly know their own cause. Fanatics often run in for a cause without thought or reasoning. One who is courageous knows all consequences and all sides of the story. Knowing all sides of the story, they remain standing strong with their beliefs and are will to face any danger for their cause. In my opinion this is the difference between a fanatic and a man of courage. One is blind and the other knowledgeable of all sides.
ReplyDeleteThe courageous person keeps a open mind and a wide perspective, while the fanatic has only one goal in mind, and will sacrifice anything, even himself and others, to that end. I believe a courageous person will falter when asked to sacrifice others, unwillingly, to his cause, while a fanatic will sacrifice anyone and anything to his.
ReplyDeleteThe fanatic is a courageous person who has lost sight of their true beliefs or goals. Their actions and thoughts are warped by a preoccupation with something besides their "good". A fanatic is not even aware of the distortion of their beliefs.
ReplyDeleteReading Voltaire made me think of Bess O'Neal quite a bit. I also think Andrew's perspective is very interesting.
The difference between a courageous individual and a fanatic comes from motive. A courageous individual does something that they at least believe is for the betterment of society, whereas a fanatic performs out of obsession. A courageous individual knows when to pick their battles and when to back down. The fanatic must complete their goal no matter the cost. They develop almost an addiction to their cause, stopping at nothing to get a fix. Not to say that their acts do not take a sense of ignorance, which I believe to be a false interpretation of courage, so therefore some may consider fanatics courageous, but to be unable to deny themselves these act takes away any bit of courage that was originally in it.
ReplyDeleteFanaticism is when an individual begins to believe that his virtues and morals are the universal truth or good. The individual will refuse to believe in any other morals that would seem to contradict his/her's. Thus, because of this state of mind, this individual may attempt to force his/her ideals upon others no matter what the opposing opinion is. This refusal of opposing ideals may lead to hotheadedness, which, in turn, can be confused with courage. Thus, outwardly, the difference between fanaticism and courage may be very fine. It is upon one's belief in one's morals does the difference become more apparent.
ReplyDeleteA courageous person becomes fanatic when their dedication to their cause defies reason. If someone cannot be reasoned with because they are blindly convinced of the motive for their own courage, they are a fanatic. For example: the hypothetical person in the voltaire reading who was slamming their head into the floor. That’s unreasonable.
ReplyDeleteHumans have the ability to reason. That is the ultimate trump card species-wise. When someone acts bravely and encorporates reason, it is courage. When reason is surpassed or ignored (often for an abstract concept) it becomes fanaticism.
If courage must include reason, fanaticism is the lack of this reason in "courageous" actions. Fanaticism also usually results from an ignorance of the entirety of the issue at hand.
ReplyDeleteThere is a fuzzy line between courageous and fanaticism. People who stand for a radical cause in the face of adversity are usually called courageous in the history books. In their time they are called rebels like Martin Luther King. Crossing the line into fanaticism occurs, in my opinion, when one leaves representing one's cause and moves into violence against teh opposing side. Occasionally violence is called for if, for instance, in self defense. However, when a courageous person initiates the violence, then it becomes fanaticism.
ReplyDeleteMany define courage as devoting oneself to an idea or goal they believe in. Fanaticism, however, is when courage crossed the line, or is amplified ten fold.
ReplyDeleteSome examples of fanatics given by Voltaire were hard for me to understand, but I found the over all theme of the essay reflected in many other situations around me.
When I think of a fanatic, I think of Penelope Taint from "The Amanda Show," Amanda Bynes comedy show back in the 90's. Penelope, in order to meet her "number one fan, please!", goes to such lengths as to scale buildings, wear disguises, eliminate other members of the cast, exploit her brother, even attack a bumbling security guard. This, to me, is fanaticism. If we replace Penelope with fanatical Christians and Amanda as God (for example,) one can more clearly see fanaticism for what it is: courage that surpasses the line of reason. A reasonable person wouldn't risk jail time or bodily harm just to meet a celebrity. Most people would write a letter. But a fanatic doesn't see things that way. They are so blinded by their desire to be devout to Amanda, or God, or whomever, that they do not care about what effect their actions have on those around them. Killing in the name of God? The fanatic would see this as a victory. Reasonable people would see otherwise.
This is just one small example of how courage can be blurred in fanaticism. The results are not always pretty. Think about that the next time you decide to become someone's number one fan. AMANDA, PLEASE!
I feel like courage and fanaticism are fundamentally very simalar. However, i believe fanaticism also involves the violation of more of societies rules and norms, for seemingly illogical reasons.
ReplyDeleteI read a quote by george santayana that says "fanaticism is redoubling your effort when you have forgotton your aim." it made alot of sense to me and I feel that this definition is the truer to the the character of the fanatic than any definition i could articulate.
A fanatic is a courageous person minus wisdom and selflessness. They have bravery, fortitude, persistance, etc., but they lack the wisdom to know when to stop or adapt. Similarly, they are so convinced that their way is right that they are too selfish to consider other points of view.
ReplyDeleteA fanatic tries to force ideas on people, whereas a courageous person lets his ideas be known, but allows people to decide for themselves what to believe in. My perception of a fanatic is one who would invade another country to spread (religious) beliefs. I have the Crusades in mind. Fanatics are so convinced that they are right in their worldviews that they believe they are doing everyone a favor by forcing their ideas down their throats. The main difference, to me, is that a fanatic resorts to violence.
ReplyDelete"Fanaticism is the effect of a false conscience, which makes religion subservient to the caprices of the imagination, and the excesses of the passions."
ReplyDeleteHe goes on to talk about legislators with "too narrow views" and religious fanatics that contradict eachother.
I'm having a little trouble dissecting what this first statement means, better yet, much of what Voltaire means to say.
So I'm thinking that the gist of what he's saying is that fanaticism happens when someone (someone in power) takes their belief/cause, often carried on the back of religion, and stretches it out of context. The fanatic does not see how his or her actions are not beneficial to any other than his "select society," nor does he or she care.
The fanatic isolates and harms others in offense; the courageous does this only in defense, if at all.
For a moment, I paused to think about Andrew's answer. I think it holds true that sometimes those identified as fanatics are so because they are not in our group. It becomes difficult to truly discern the offensive and defensive.
Those the majority deems as fanatics are those who will the destruction of anyone or anything outlying their view. The courageous fight to be included.
A fanatic is neither good nor evil. A fanatic is a tool shaped by cirucumstances or people. They act as if programmed, neither adapting or evolving or even considering that which they follow. In non-intellectual matters, a fanatic exhibits all the qualities of the courageous. However when it comes to questioning beliefs they are are as helpless as a child told to disbelieve his parents. As such they cannot contemplate the morality of their actions and lack the opportunity to have virtue if not the ability to show courage.
ReplyDeleteThe difference between a courageous individual and a fanatic is that one is bound by the limits of right and wrong, and the other is either too overconfident or narrow-minded to adhere to that limit. A fanatic wants to cross that line drawn by society and all things good for his/her beliefs.They are so wrapped up in their cause, that they forget the main purpose and the main goal of all causes which is the betterment the world.
ReplyDeleteThe line between courage and fanaticism is slim. If a courageous individual is one who uses her rationality in making decisions she deems best, the fanatic individual has almost a perceived rationality, or a rationality that seems to belong outside the self. In other words, the individual uses her rationality, but in a skewed manner. Instead of evaluating her choices herself, she bases them off of what she sees as an "outside," without question. The fanatic uses flawed reasoning.
ReplyDeleteA fanatic has courage in that they stand up for one thing that they believe in and stick to it, but the courageous man would never expend all his efforts on one purpose. Rather, he would use his virtue on many different occasions and at many different opportunities. The fanatic, however, would be blinded by the one thing they stand behind and therefore would not see it as being selfish; or possibly even courageous.
ReplyDeleteA fanatic is one who is very narrow minded in his/her approach when dealing with certain situations. This individual disregards almost all outside criticisms and opinions because they are so set in their own mindset that nothing can change it. When their views are challenged, fanatics feel threatened and usually respond with violence or anger instead of using a rational approach. The fanatic is so devoted to his/her cause that this devotion could be perhaps viewed as a blindness which truly affects the fanatic's perception of the outside world.
ReplyDelete