107 réponses à ce sujet

[dirtywick]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

dirtywick wrote...
Moving the goalposts a bit.

You first said that any ideology has the SAME tendency to produce fanatics and suggest the ability to produce a fanatic at all is enough to invalidate my statement. Simply producing fanaticism while another produces it at a much higher rate based on ideology is a big difference, one I am trying to highlight.

And I stand by my point. All ideologies have the same tendency to produce fanatics. What those fanatics do is another thing all together.
All fanatism is based on ideology. There is no fanatic that does so without having some ideological backing and justification (at least in his own mind). A Taoist fanatic would be one that is uncritical of the Taois way of life. To say that a Taoist fanatic is not a fanatic because of his ideology, is a paradox.

I do not see any empirical evidence to suggest that some ideologies or religions produce more fanatics than others, by virtue of their own ideology. First, because there is no ideology or religion that explicitly tells you "be a fanatic". Second, that fanatism is usually born because of external events, like war, invasions, poverty...etc which causes some ideologies to seemingly produce more fanatics than others. But that is limited in a timeframe and for specifric reasons. Replace that ideology with any other and put them in the same circumstances, and they will produce the same amount of fanatics.

What you are saying is that some ideologies or religions are more fanatical than others. And that is paradox in my opinion. You might think of them as irrational. Or you might not agree with them. You might think some ideologies are more violent than others. But I dont see how any ideology can be more fanatical than others. 

I've already demonstrated that point though.  Define fanaticism any way you wish, and compare the percentage of members that fill the criteria you chose of...I'll even let you decide which... to Heaven's Gate or Jim Jones' cult both of which every single member committed ritualistic suicide (a 100% rate of fanaticism?  Not everyone is going to compare equally). It's my contention that unless you define fanaticism so broadly that any adherent to any ideology qualifies as a fanatic, essentially effectively meaningless, you'll find that these two particular cults produced a practically unrivaled amount of fanatics when compared directly to other organizations.

In any case, I don't doubt that every ideology has a possibility to produce fanatics, only that the dogma of some increases this possibility.  For instance, you state that there is no dogma of any religion or ideology that states "be a fanatic" (although not in those explicit terms, I'm sure you could find quite a few that are pretty close!) if there was a hypothetical religion that DID say that, would that religion be more likely to produce fanatics at a higher rate than one who did not?  If that piece of doctrine can, so can others that actually exist, albeit to a lesser extent.  And an ideology with fewer pieces of doctrine that promote fanaticism when compared to another should produce fewer fanatics.  Not all dogma is created equal. 

[KnightofPhoenix]

Kuravid wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

In their own view, they are enlightnening others. And seeing that the Qunari are superior in terms of technology, social and political structure and religion (the chantry's so called "monotheism" is a perversion that makes my skin crawl, like Christianity does no offense), then I don't think they are wrong. And many humans and elves have converted to the Qun. The Qunari have shown toleration to non-Qunaris as well. The same cannot be said about elves in ferelden or Thedas in6 general.

The way Qunari go about enlightening the rest of the world involves them invading that country, overthrowing its power and forcing everyone within it to either convert to the Qun, work in prison camps or to be executed if they refuse to do either. Perhaps I'm wrong, but they don't exactly scream "integration" to me.

Sure, the Qunari way seems to be extreme (though not unlike the Chantry way). But from what I read and know about the Qun (a knowledge which is limited of course, hopefully future installements can shade more light on the Qunari), it seems to be more enlightnened and wiser than the Chantry religion. Or it might be that I am curious. How they spread their ideology is a different issue. It can be argued that enlightnement has to be forced sometimes. I dont necessarily believe that, but I do not consider it completely unreasonable.

And if indeed conversion to the Qun was only done through force, than the Chantry wouldnt have problems reconverting those people and that has not happened. It shows that at least many of those converts did so out of conviction and not coersion. Rivain for instance, did not convert and remained Qun and reatined their own practises as well (which involves magic)
Furthermore, the codex says that the description of the Qunari invasion is in fact a tale. There is some truth in it. But we shoudl take it with a grain of salt.

[KnightofPhoenix]

dirtywick wrote...
I've already demonstrated that point though.  Define fanaticism any way you wish, and compare the percentage of members that fill the criteria you chose of...I'll even let you decide which... to Heaven's Gate or Jim Jones' cult both of which every single member committed ritualistic suicide (a 100% rate of fanaticism?  Not everyone is going to compare equally). It's my contention that unless you define fanaticism so broadly that any adherent to any ideology qualifies as a fanatic, essentially effectively meaningless, you'll find that these two particular cults produced a practically unrivaled amount of fanatics when compared directly to other organizations.

In any case, I don't doubt that every ideology has a possibility to produce fanatics, only that the dogma of some increases this possibility.  For instance, you state that there is no dogma of any religion or ideology that states "be a fanatic" (although not in those explicit terms, I'm sure you could find quite a few that are pretty close!) if there was a hypothetical religion that DID say that, would that religion be more likely to produce fanatics at a higher rate than one who did not?  If that piece of doctrine can, so can others that actually exist, albeit to a lesser extent.  And an ideology with fewer pieces of doctrine that promote fanaticism when compared to another should produce fewer fanatics.  Not all dogma is created equal. 

If a religion promotes ritualistic suicide, then thats not fanatism. Thats stupidity perhaps, but not fanatism. Fanatism simply means to lack any critical sense. If one decides to kill himself in a ritualistic way after cirtically evaluating it and then was convinced by it, then he is not a fanatic. An idiot perhaps, but not a fanatic.

Believers in ideologies or religions do not have to be fanatics, so my definition isnt broad. One can still believe in anything after critically evaluating it. If they believe in something simply because his family does it, or his culture, or because it must be so, without actually thinking about it, is a fanatic.

Again, I have not found any empirical evidence to suggest that there is one ideology that produces more fanatics simply because of its content. It might produce more idiots, sure. But thats different.
 
I never said all dogmas are equal. But all of them can produce the same amount of fanatics if subjected to the same conditions. AS for an ideology promoting fanatism. thats from an outsider view. A religion or idelogy usually promotes itself as the correct view and that is normal. But I have yet to see any such ideology that says: dont think about anything, we are right that all you need to know. If there is such an ideology, then it would be based on pure blind faith. But I have yet to see any ideology like this. And the Qun doesnt seem to be that way.

The only philosophy that I have a hard time thinking that it can produce fanatics is skepticism. It is based on continuous questioning and I donèt know if it makes sense to say one is a skepitical fanatic.

[Kuravid]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
 It can be argued that enlightnement has to be forced sometimes. I dont necessarily believe that, but I do not consider it completely unreasonable.

I'm not exactly sure how to respond to this, because I don't know what you mean. Are you implying that enlightenment is something that only certain people possess knowledge of, and because of that it is their duty to enforce it upon those who are unwilling to accept their way of living? And if you don't think that, do you believe that it is at least acceptable to do so? Also what gives the Qun the unique right to do this?

EDIT: I actually meant to write "what gives the Qun the unique right to do this, and not say, the Chantry?"

Modifié par Kuravid, 03 décembre 2009 - 11:17 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Kuravid wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
 It can be argued that enlightnement has to be forced sometimes. I dont necessarily believe that, but I do not consider it completely unreasonable.

I'm not exactly sure how to respond to this, because I don't know what you mean. Are you implying that enlightenment is something that only certain people possess knowledge of, and because of that it is their duty to enforce it upon those who are unwilling to accept their way of living? And if you don't think that, do you believe that it is at least acceptable to do so? Also what gives the Qun the unique right to do this?

I say it is not unreasonable to think so. I do not know if they possess that knowledge or not. But they think so, so are acting coherently. Imagine if you thought that you acquired a truth that no one else knows and everyone has to abide by, wouldnt you seek to force it on everyone, at least after trying to convince them.

Do I think its acceptable. Well it has been done in our history all the time. I obviously would not like it if someone was forcing their faith on me and I would resist. But I would not know for sure who is right and who is wrong. Or if any of us is right or wrong.

Well the Qunari accept non-Qunari converts, so they dont seem to think that the way of the Qun is exclusive to their race.  

And your last question is an illustration to how confused life is. Both have the right. And both do not at the same time.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 03 décembre 2009 - 11:20 .

[Valmy]

ftprtt8 wrote...
They use this army to control the mages, which are one of the most powerful forces in this world.

And that is bad why?  You saw the havoc one little boy could wreck.

[Valmy]

The Chantry may not be all goodness and light and fluffy bunnies but I fail to see how that makes them the enemy. They are a political and cultural force not any better or evil than any of the others in the land. It has its strong points and its weak points. Your biased assesment simply ignores the good points and mentions the bad points and you are not even right about those. There was alot more to the Elf situation, for example, than simply that they didn't believe in the Maker. The Dwarves don't believe in the Maker but the Chantry has left them alone...at least until they started persecuting their believers.

[JaegerBane]

Valmy wrote...

ftprtt8 wrote...
They use this army to control the mages, which are one of the most powerful forces in this world.

And that is bad why?  You saw the havoc one little boy could wreck.

If the chantry didn't take such an extreme view of magic and bung any magic user off to the Circle with or without permission of their families that little boy would have had training that would have helped him deal with that thing.

It's little more than recursive logic to try and claim that the Chantry are vindicated in their actions because of what Connor did. Look at what happened with Uldred. If the Chantry didn't take such a heavy handed approach, do you honestly think he would have even started down that path?