Aaron says:

>If you believed cooked food was poison, naturally you would want to save
>people from it.  In this way, any efforts to educate the world could be well-
>intentioned.  That those people's experience of the world, or perspective,
>ignores aspects of reality does not dismiss the intent.

I tend to think similarly. No matter how odious, objectionable, hateful,
spiteful, misguided, etc., people can be, I believe that most people
(perhaps not all, but most) are well-intentioned.

The questions to me are, though:

- How do we distinguish between "normal" enthusiasm and fanaticism or
zealotry? Is it only a matter of degree or is there some key distinguishing
characteristic?

- What exactly is it that makes a fanatic fanatical? I.e., what is the
underlying psychological motivation (perhaps/probably unconscious)? And
especially how does that differ from someone we would call "reasonable" but
merely enthusiastic (say a skateboarder :-) )?

- Are there differences between fanatics and proselytizers? That is, if one
is a fanatic, does that automatically make them more prone to unwanted or
disrespectful, "evangelical" proselytizing that demonizes or puts down
those not in the fold? Or are there "benign" fanatics that are perfectly
happy doing what they do without the compulsively felt need to convert
everyone around them? If so, why is one type of fanatic benign and the
other "toxic" to the people around them?

Another way of framing all this:

Given enough experience with them, it's pretty easy for someone ELSE to
distinguish a fanatic. Why can't the fanatic THEMSELVES tell that they are
being fanatical? What is it like from the inside so that one believes they
are being reasonable while everyone else thinks they are way out of line
and crossing commonly accepted boundaries for normal or healthy behavior
between human beings?

--Ward Nicholson <[log in to unmask]>