Stop and think. Myślenie przeciw fanatyzmowi
Stop and think. Thinking against fanaticism

Summary/Abstract: Piotr Kowzan’s polemic proved that the issue of fanaticism remains an important educational problem, but also more broadly: a social one. Formulating a response to a polemic allows for rethinking and clarifying some themes. It also turns out to be important to return to the very definition of fanaticism as well as to point out that the problem is important because fanaticism threatens primarily people of value: those who perceive values and are actively engaged in their realization. In our response to the polemic, we try to point out three issues that are important in our opinion. Firstly, we emphasize that fanaticism is always harmful, and although this harmfulness is not always significant, even in the best case, fanaticism is harmful at least to the fanatic himself. Secondly, we oppose the claim that countering fanaticism can be as destructive as fanaticism itself. Thirdly, we maintain the claim that the basic symptoms of fanaticism are: an inability to make any compromises and a rejection of the very possibility of making an exception to an accepted rule of action. In conclusion, we recall Hannah Arend’s vitally important call to maintain a balance between activity and reflexivity.

• Details
• Contents