Not Off THAT Track Yet.
If memory serves, I likely dealt with the topic of BIGOTRY in some other way, in the past. So if I am a little redundant here . . . sorry (I am told, often, that I repeat myself.) However, some topics merit repeating.
So today I am going to post several standard definition of BIGOT, & BIGOTRY:
From:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=7392&dict=CALD
bigot Show phonetics noun [C] DISAPPROVING
a person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs and who thinks that anyone who does not have the same beliefs is wrong:a religious bigot
He was known to be a loud-mouthed, opinionated bigot.
From: Merriam Webster
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/bigot
Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, hypocrite,
bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices- big·ot·ed /-g&-t&d/ adjective-
big·ot·ed·ly adverb
From:
http://www.infoplease.com/dictionary/bigotry
big•ot•ry
Pronunciation: (big'u-trē), [key] —n., —pl. -ries.
1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own. 2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.
I will skip the def. found over on Wiki, but their article linked up the word Zealot:
Zealotry denotes zeal in excess, referring to cases where activism and ambition in relation to an ideology have become excessive to the point of being harmful to others, oneself, and one's own cause. A zealous person is called a zealot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zealotry
Once again I seem to be doing one of my word daisy-chains, but they are all related, it seems. So I hope to find a last link in the chain (for now) soon. Ok then. I will move on to ideolouge.
ideologue
/iddilog, idi-/
• noun a person who follows an ideology in a dogmatic or uncompromising way.
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/ideologue?view=uk
Now for some analysis (and I am just riffing here; I am not working on a dissertation, except that of my entire life as lived and remembered.) We have, as a species (not only a nation) a rich selection of words for and related to the idea of being excessively prideful, excessively in love with, and excessively impressed with our own beliefs. So much so that it makes me consider (yet I stop short of concluding) that 'mentally-defective' might actually be common, if not the default setting for the species. However, that is not where my stream of consciousness is leading me here. I am more concerned now with the idea:
"Where The HELL Are the LINES?"
And by lines I mean, where is the clear line that seperates a reasonably rational adherent of some idea or ideology, from a Dogmatic Ideolouge? Does the ideology have to have some inherent irrationality, or is it more of a function of holding and advancing the ideology with too much PASSION?
Likewise, where is the line between rational, goal oriented activism, and Barborus Zealotry?
Given the meaning of zeal, leading to zealot, it seems that excessive passion is truly a key to that idea.
Moving now to bigotry, again the inherently same line of inquiry should be pursued. Or to jump to the chase, at what point does passionate belief become Irrational, Hateful Bigotry?
Honestly, I do not have the objective answers, and even if there was some elegant formula, some rational and (mostly) universal bright lines, there certainly would be opposition from some folk. As far as the closest thing to a good if not ideal standard and measure, I'd suggest that the quotes from Bertrand Russell I have posted, previously, serve as a very good example of where to start. Yes, I know lots of people from all points on the political/social/cultural compass would rather face the terrifing tortues of Torquemada's Spanish Inquisition (so they would say), rather than back off one inch from their passions.
And that leads to the (perhaps) bigger question:
why do people believe such bullshit in the first place? I don't mean their actual beliefs about sundry (and more often than not relatively trivial -- in the sense that it is not immediately an issue of life, death, and survival of self, family and nation) issues. I mean the bullshit about how passionately one, or anyone, thinks about and/or holds, or argues in support of their beliefs is at all:
valid,
sensible,
rational,
acceptable,
impressive,
or inherently meaningful in any way?
If I ever get a suitable brain flash that leads to that answer, I will let you know, dear reader. Meantime, I will be redundant yet again, and promote Bertrand Russell's rational skepticism, as posted below here.
So today I am going to post several standard definition of BIGOT, & BIGOTRY:
From:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=7392&dict=CALD
bigot Show phonetics noun [C] DISAPPROVING
a person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs and who thinks that anyone who does not have the same beliefs is wrong:a religious bigot
He was known to be a loud-mouthed, opinionated bigot.
From: Merriam Webster
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/bigot
Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, hypocrite,
bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices- big·ot·ed /-g&-t&d/ adjective-
big·ot·ed·ly adverb
From:
http://www.infoplease.com/dictionary/bigotry
big•ot•ry
Pronunciation: (big'u-trē), [key] —n., —pl. -ries.
1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own. 2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.
I will skip the def. found over on Wiki, but their article linked up the word Zealot:
Zealotry denotes zeal in excess, referring to cases where activism and ambition in relation to an ideology have become excessive to the point of being harmful to others, oneself, and one's own cause. A zealous person is called a zealot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zealotry
Once again I seem to be doing one of my word daisy-chains, but they are all related, it seems. So I hope to find a last link in the chain (for now) soon. Ok then. I will move on to ideolouge.
ideologue
/iddilog, idi-/
• noun a person who follows an ideology in a dogmatic or uncompromising way.
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/ideologue?view=uk
Now for some analysis (and I am just riffing here; I am not working on a dissertation, except that of my entire life as lived and remembered.) We have, as a species (not only a nation) a rich selection of words for and related to the idea of being excessively prideful, excessively in love with, and excessively impressed with our own beliefs. So much so that it makes me consider (yet I stop short of concluding) that 'mentally-defective' might actually be common, if not the default setting for the species. However, that is not where my stream of consciousness is leading me here. I am more concerned now with the idea:
"Where The HELL Are the LINES?"
And by lines I mean, where is the clear line that seperates a reasonably rational adherent of some idea or ideology, from a Dogmatic Ideolouge? Does the ideology have to have some inherent irrationality, or is it more of a function of holding and advancing the ideology with too much PASSION?
Likewise, where is the line between rational, goal oriented activism, and Barborus Zealotry?
Given the meaning of zeal, leading to zealot, it seems that excessive passion is truly a key to that idea.
Moving now to bigotry, again the inherently same line of inquiry should be pursued. Or to jump to the chase, at what point does passionate belief become Irrational, Hateful Bigotry?
Honestly, I do not have the objective answers, and even if there was some elegant formula, some rational and (mostly) universal bright lines, there certainly would be opposition from some folk. As far as the closest thing to a good if not ideal standard and measure, I'd suggest that the quotes from Bertrand Russell I have posted, previously, serve as a very good example of where to start. Yes, I know lots of people from all points on the political/social/cultural compass would rather face the terrifing tortues of Torquemada's Spanish Inquisition (so they would say), rather than back off one inch from their passions.
And that leads to the (perhaps) bigger question:
why do people believe such bullshit in the first place? I don't mean their actual beliefs about sundry (and more often than not relatively trivial -- in the sense that it is not immediately an issue of life, death, and survival of self, family and nation) issues. I mean the bullshit about how passionately one, or anyone, thinks about and/or holds, or argues in support of their beliefs is at all:
valid,
sensible,
rational,
acceptable,
impressive,
or inherently meaningful in any way?
If I ever get a suitable brain flash that leads to that answer, I will let you know, dear reader. Meantime, I will be redundant yet again, and promote Bertrand Russell's rational skepticism, as posted below here.
posted by Abstentus at 10:14 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home