Introduction: The Measure that Saves the Community
Fanaticism is a distinct yet elusive phenomenon. While dictionaries point to uncritical belief and intolerance, in practice, fanaticism manifests primarily as a loss of proportion. This article analyzes how to distinguish justified heroism from dangerous hysteria. You will learn why commitment must be proportional to one's reasoning and what role state institutions play in protecting freedom. Understanding these mechanisms is crucial for building a Good State—one capable of protecting pluralism and cooling destructive emotions.
Wolniewicz’s Formula and the Ethics of the Golden Mean
Bogusław Wolniewicz proposed a mathematical measure of engagement: A ≈ D · R. According to this formula, the intensity of action (A) should correspond to the weight of the good (D) and the strength of the reason (R). Fanaticism begins where this proportion breaks. We distinguish between fanaticism of the pack, based on tribal xenophobia and "taste," and fanaticism of the idea—a monomania pursuing a single, absolute goal regardless of the cost.
Aristotle already noted that virtue is ethical excellence: the ability to find the golden mean as defined by reason. Similarly, Tadeusz Kotarbiński warned against revolutionary methods, which inherently bring violence and terror. True heroism differs from fanaticism by maintaining an awareness of risk and the multiplicity of goods, rather than blindly pursuing a "paradise on earth" through violence.
The Paradox of Tolerance and Institutional Paralysis
Tolerance is neither indifference nor cynicism, which merely looks after its own interests under the guise of common sense. It is a precise technique for the coexistence of different values. Karl Popper formulated the paradox of tolerance: unlimited tolerance leads to its disappearance if society does not defend itself against aggressive intolerance. Defending the rules of liberty is a duty, especially when an opponent rejects rational debate in favor of the argument of force.
In public life, a major obstacle is the political clique, which places tribal loyalty above truth and fears "betraying the circle" more than an error of reason. When politicians absolutize a single good (e.g., security) at the expense of others (e.g., privacy), they shatter the civic community. Such an ideocracy causes the state to stop being a common home and instead become a tool for one group to dominate the rest of society.
Institutions of Proportion and the Role of the Younger Generation
The stability of democracy depends on institutions of proportion, such as courts and tribunals. Their task is to cool political fervor and guard proportionality in situations where goods conflict. They protect citizens from Tocqueville’s soft despotism—a paternalistic power that, under the guise of care, takes over souls and limits individual autonomy. Decision-makers need a "toolkit of proportion" so that every law is the result of weighing reasons rather than a partisan frenzy.
The foundation of national renewal is the younger generation. It is you who can restore balance to Poland by rejecting tribal bastions in favor of rational pluralism. Stanisław Lem warned that making people happy according to a single pattern is the worst form of tyranny. The state should not be a private estate, but an instrument of communal life that respects the fact that the world of values is inherently polyphonic and complex.
Summary: In Search of Proportion
In a world dominated by ideological fires, can we find Aristotelian moderation? Building a community requires rejecting the deadly simplifications of fanaticism in favor of the painstaking art of weighing reasons and goods. Tolerance, understood as an awareness of the limits of coercion, remains the only way to preserve freedom. The challenge lies in not losing our sense of scale when emotions run high, and in building a state that is a common home of proportion rather than an arena for fanatical extremes.
📄 Full analysis available in PDF