Extremism is defined as “the quality or state og being extreme” or “the advocacy of extreme measures or views”
Amidst a conversation with my friend I had a realization:
In the pragmatic world we live in, it is logically impossible and contradictory to hold extremist viewpoints or to act extremely when wishing for the best possible outcome.
*Note that this assertion is regarding overall and general actions/viewpoints within humanity
Obviously it would be blatantly asinine to act so-called “moderately” in life-or-death situations (extreme situations)
But in general you cannot act/think extremely without damaging the result
This is nothing more than a thought I had one day and I havent had discussions about it nor researched further.
Well it’s all relative isn’t it? If I’m all the way west then I’m exretemely west to you but you’re also extremely east to me. Nobody goes around saying “I have this extreme belief” they simply see their belief as logical and sensical.
As for life or death situations, anything can be a life or death situation depending on the person. To some, embarrassement is death, to some humiliation is death, to some being fired and so on.
Yes, what counts as extreme is a question of context and I can imagine a number of situations where extreme behaviour in the context of a public library would be fine on the street.
That’s not really a definition because it’s circular, you can’t use the word extreme to define extreme. I guess an extreme act might be one that is disproportionate or goes beyond what would ordinarily be considered a temperate or measured response in a given context.
In general, I think Aristotle would agree with you and he’d perhaps say something like actions that fall into excess or deficiency tend to undermine the good, because virtue consists in responding appropriately to the circumstances. A teleological view.
I’m not sure I share this view, but I think it is often true.
I tend to think that mostly when people choose extreme actions, it’s because they find themselves in extreme or life-threatening situations. In those circumstances, extreme responses may become the default. And they may sometimes work.
Are you perhaps thinking of extremists in an identity politics context?
Those who speak of harmony and consensus should beware of what one might call the industrial chaplain view of reality. The idea, roughly speaking, is that there are greedy bosses on one side and belligerent workers on the other, while in the middle, as the very incarnation of reason, equity and moderation, stands the decent, soft-spoken, liberal-minded chaplain who tries selflessly to bring the two warring parties together. But why should the middle always be the most sensible place to stand? Why do we tend to see ourselves as in the middle and other people as on the extremes? After all, one person’s moderation is another’s extremism. People don’t go around calling themselves a fanatic, any more than they go around calling themselves Pimply. Would one also seek to reconcile slaves and slave masters, or persuade native peoples to complain only moderately about those who are plotting their extermination? What is the middle ground between racism and anti-racism?
I searched up the official definition and that was the first one that came up, although I agree that at first glance it seems circular. However as you mentioned shortly after an extreme act is something that goes “far beyond what is usual, ordinary or disproportionate.”
I just assumed you were familiar with the definiton of extreme, which it seems you did, therefore I didnt clarify further.
As for the rest of your reply, I think you misunderstood my argument.
I am not discussing why people partake in extreme actions - I am simply arguing that extreme responses to general situations will never lead to the best outcome.
I think it is very obvious that humans make wrong decisions all the time and just because something seems relatively extreme to them but in reality isn’t doesnt mean that acting extremely is the correct choice.
As for your last question I am not thinking of extremists in one certain context, although it applies to everything
Just because something is relative doesnt mean that there isn’t a correct choice, although I do agree it is relative like almost everything is.
If someone has an extreme belief there logic and reason must be wrong. Let me give you an example within a political context:
I personally identify the most with Classical Liberalism as an ideology, however I understand that in the practical world there are flaws in the ideology. Therefore if I want the best possible result for lets say a country I cannot fully commit to one idea/fufill Liberalism to it’s fullest. One of the flaws in Liberalism is that it doesnt account for the fact that the free markets if not monitored correctly could end up in the wrong hands and giving too much power to one individual (this is a very simplified flaw of many). Therefore, I would argue that Social Liberalism is the best combination overall for a country (just look at the most succesful country model in the world).
As for your last claim, once again the best possible response to these situations won’t be extreme unless they are extreme of course. So if a homeless person gets fired then they will likely obtain a better result using all their time and energy finding a new job (extreme action), than a wealthy man getting fired would have acting extremely.
Overall I agree it is relative like basically anything and it all depends on context.
This passage is making an argument against the assumption that “the middle” is automatically the wisest, fairest or most reasonable position in any conflict:
Why assume the middle is inherently sensible?
Good question - and yeah you shouldn’t.
I think I agree with everything stated, but you misunderstand my point.
What I am saying is that for every decision there is a “correct” choice that will lead to the best possible outcome. That choice doesn’t change just because someone’s logic or perspective can’t see it. That choice will never be extreme (general situations) because of the pragmatic world we live in. You literally cannot be extreme when wishing for the best outcome - I suppose one way to define extreme could be something that only leans one way, as the pagmatic world would provide too much of a consequence because of the lacking “complexity” of the choice.
So I am not basing my definiton of complexity on humans relativity, rather the relation to the pragmatic laws of the world.
Maybe my first post made this unclear, but I am hoping this clarifies
Thanks for clarifying. And I don’t deny that you might be right sometimes. But it doesn’t apply across the board, precisely because of what Eagleton points out: a choice is extreme where what is correct is contested. Slavery vs. abolition is inescapably framework-relative. Abolition is correct according to a framework of egalitarianism and human welfare, but incorrect in according to the framework of economics.
In a nutshell, there is nowhere to stand outside of these contested positions.
EDIT: To make the further point explicit, abolishing slavery was indeed the correct way to go, but I say that from a certain standpoint, presuming a certain framework. It’s the right one, but its rightness comes from the framework, not from outside it.
I agree with everything you said, although I still do not think this defeats my argument.
Eagleton’s point while true doesn’t contradict me, because the “correct” choice isn’t defined by what others think.
So I would argue that no matter what the best decision will never be extreme because you have to account for so many factors/consequences.
What I am arguing isn’t practical because it’s almost impossible to make the best possible choice. Instead I am simply concluding that the best choice cannot be extreme, which doesnt mean it has to be moderate, but there is a big distinction between extreme and moderate.
To utilize your example - I presume you think that abolishing slavery is a very obvious decision? It is for me at least.
Therefore the decision isn’t extreme because to everyone who holds that belief it is a very basic decision. The same could be said about someone who believes the opposite.
Do you mean we decide when we are extreme or not ? Mostly people face palm hours, days or centuries later at themselves or their peers. Does free will count as an argument element here ? I think the easiest to say is for many or most stupidity is immortal.
I believe you’re overreading whatever text this OP budded off from. I can’t deny \bot, not enough material in the OP to work on. However consider the dissonant dyad (eternalism, nihilism). Is there anything one might describe as inconsistent in them?
For example, it’s arguably too late for us to remain pragmatic about the necessity to reduce the use of fossil fuels. Pragmatic solutions (e.g. legal, political, economic etc) are too slow, inefficient, or push the problems elsewhere (e.g. batteries). It’s fairly clear, I think, that the situation calls for extreme solutions, e.g. changed life styles, circular economy.
Moreover, there’s no contradition between the best outcome in a pragmatic world and the extreme solutions it calls for.
Extreme actions tend to bring on extreme, but opposite reactions. Often the reaction is magnified.
There is a case of this relating to slavery in the US. One extreme action, in which an abolitionist attempted to seize a federal arsenal, initiated a sequence of events that started a civil war. Though the death toll was huge, the outcome of the war was that slavery was finally eliminated in the country.
So whether the crescendo of violence initiated by extremism is ultimately beneficial or not, is a matter of fate. It could be good or bad.
I mostly agree with what you are saying mag, but i dont think that its logically follows that extreme views always damages the outcome. If a view is extreme or not, it doesnt tell us whether its true or false. So if the evidence strongly supports one extreme then that position could definitely produce the best outcome. So i think that what matters more is the quality of the reasoning and evience, rather than how moderate or extreme the position looks.
However, i do agree with your poitn overall that in practice, moderation will usually lead to better outcomes. and more extreme positions usually are less likely to create better outcomes.