Degrees of X-ist-ness follow-up
May. 2nd, 2008 05:02 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackIn the last post, I suggested a hierarchy of being pro-X.
1. Thinking that X.
2. Thinking that X needs campaigning for.
3. Actively doing something about that
4. That being a defining feature of yourself
5. Thinking that X is one of few most important issues in society.
It seems many people felt (5) was extremely wrong, I'm not quite sure how to phrase it differently. There's a continuum from thinking X is true/good and I'm an X-ist, to X is overwhelmingly important. Almost any cause has extremists, and they have to go somewhere on the scale, and they go in (5), but (5) also includes people who justifiably believe in the overwhelming importance of X.
I got bogged down in deciding to what extent X actually was overwhelmingly important. Should have avoided specifying it? What should category (5) be? Should it refer to an how important X is seen to be? Or how important X is seen relative to how important it really is? But that is so subjective. Or should it separate out into a hierarchy of how important X is? But that could require any gradation.
But the point is, I think it's also of relevance to another contentious definition: atheism.
1. Not believing in a God.
2. Thinking atheism is important, wanting other people to be atheist, or thinking that non-religiousness is in some ways damaged by society.
3. Actively doing something about that
4. That being a defining feature of yourself
5. Thinking that this is one of few most important issues in society.
The difference here is that technically atheism refers only to (1), but people drift meanings of words a lot, and so extend "atheist" down the intuitive scale. I think this is why people understand what you mean if you say someone is "very atheist", despite the fact that taken literally, that has no meaning. I think this is why "more atheist" means "thinking atheism is important more" rather than "believing in God less" (because the latter is meaningless).
And it also puts an intuitive meaning to "fundamentalist atheist". Regardless of what fundamentalism originally meant, now people use it in a way so that "fundamentalist atheist" means "atheist (5)".
Eg. Richard Dawkins seems to be (1), (2), (3) and (4), and my confliction about him can be directly attributed to the difference between (4) and (5). I agree with him that atheism is important and respect him for (3) and (4), devoting himself to supporting a message that I agree with. But I disagree with him that (5) religion is a fundamental problem in the society. (That's closer to the truth in America, maybe, but still, I don't think it of all religion.)
1. Thinking that X.
2. Thinking that X needs campaigning for.
3. Actively doing something about that
4. That being a defining feature of yourself
5. Thinking that X is one of few most important issues in society.
It seems many people felt (5) was extremely wrong, I'm not quite sure how to phrase it differently. There's a continuum from thinking X is true/good and I'm an X-ist, to X is overwhelmingly important. Almost any cause has extremists, and they have to go somewhere on the scale, and they go in (5), but (5) also includes people who justifiably believe in the overwhelming importance of X.
I got bogged down in deciding to what extent X actually was overwhelmingly important. Should have avoided specifying it? What should category (5) be? Should it refer to an how important X is seen to be? Or how important X is seen relative to how important it really is? But that is so subjective. Or should it separate out into a hierarchy of how important X is? But that could require any gradation.
But the point is, I think it's also of relevance to another contentious definition: atheism.
1. Not believing in a God.
2. Thinking atheism is important, wanting other people to be atheist, or thinking that non-religiousness is in some ways damaged by society.
3. Actively doing something about that
4. That being a defining feature of yourself
5. Thinking that this is one of few most important issues in society.
The difference here is that technically atheism refers only to (1), but people drift meanings of words a lot, and so extend "atheist" down the intuitive scale. I think this is why people understand what you mean if you say someone is "very atheist", despite the fact that taken literally, that has no meaning. I think this is why "more atheist" means "thinking atheism is important more" rather than "believing in God less" (because the latter is meaningless).
And it also puts an intuitive meaning to "fundamentalist atheist". Regardless of what fundamentalism originally meant, now people use it in a way so that "fundamentalist atheist" means "atheist (5)".
Eg. Richard Dawkins seems to be (1), (2), (3) and (4), and my confliction about him can be directly attributed to the difference between (4) and (5). I agree with him that atheism is important and respect him for (3) and (4), devoting himself to supporting a message that I agree with. But I disagree with him that (5) religion is a fundamental problem in the society. (That's closer to the truth in America, maybe, but still, I don't think it of all religion.)
no subject
Date: 2008-05-03 12:24 am (UTC)My counterexample: "X is one of few most important issues in society. Y needs campaigning for. Everyone else in society is working hard at solving X. My expertise lies in solving Y. Therefore, I will contribute to Y instead of X."
I am X(5) but not X(3).
no subject
Date: 2008-05-06 02:43 pm (UTC)