Fanaticism

Use in the book

The high-seas image compares fanaticism and atheism as exaltations in which the shores disappear, leaving the object of losing sight unfinished. The later formulation explicitly allows both religious and irreligious fanaticism, then qualifies the intoxication as dark, harmful and furious. Its sequel distinguishes enthusiasm for an old religion from fanaticism for a new one and gives novelty, small numbers and private judgment a decisive role. These sweeping exclusions are Joubert’s historical argument, not a definition the lexicon endorses as universally true. The contrast with enthusiasm remains useful even where the account of institutions is debatable.

Places to read

1. I, p. 336, entry 2, ¶1Fanaticism and atheism are compared as exaltations losing sight of shore.
2. II, p. 879, entry 10, ¶1Religious or irreligious fanaticism is called destructive intoxication.
3. II, p. 879–880, entry 10, ¶2Novelty and private judgment distinguish fanaticism from enthusiasm in Joubert’s account.

Translation in this edition

The English translation preserves the unfinished losing-sight construction and the strict only/never formulations of the later note. Sens propre is private judgment here, not the literal meaning of a word. The new, cloudy, little-fermented wine remains an extended comparison.