It would seem that "militant" conveys the impression of being closed-minded—no matter what one is militant about. It is of course debatable whether or not that is what militancy means; nevertheless, that is the impression it gives. To be militant about a view is to hold that view come what may. And some people (like my dad, who is a militant atheist) certainly intend this meaning.
That being said, I don't find much value either epistemically or morally in being closed-minded. Very early in my philosophical development I learned to not only appreciate being proved wrong but to seek it out and embrace it. If something I believed was wrong, I wanted to know. A belief that is quarantined is not falsifiable. If reason dictates that one should not hold false views, then doesn't that carry a mandate to discover and weed out any false beliefs one might hold? And doesn't that, therefore, require vigilance in staying open to competing views and criticisms?
If human infallibility is a delusion, then I don't think anyone can afford militancy in their beliefs. In the words of G.K. Chesterton, "Bigotry is an incapacity to conceive seriously the alternative to a proposition. It has nothing whatever to do with belief in the proposition itself." This is of course my own perspective. I realize there may be people out there who do think it's impossible for their view to be wrong (be what it may). I lived with one, after all. I cannot agree with such people, but that hardly matters to them.
Here is a question that occurs to me: If you are militant about some view and engage people with differing views, are you not shoving your beliefs down their throat? Or are you merely exposing yourself to the ironic hypocrisy of thinking that they should be open to questioning their beliefs and ideas?
That being said, I don't find much value either epistemically or morally in being closed-minded. Very early in my philosophical development I learned to not only appreciate being proved wrong but to seek it out and embrace it. If something I believed was wrong, I wanted to know. A belief that is quarantined is not falsifiable. If reason dictates that one should not hold false views, then doesn't that carry a mandate to discover and weed out any false beliefs one might hold? And doesn't that, therefore, require vigilance in staying open to competing views and criticisms?
If human infallibility is a delusion, then I don't think anyone can afford militancy in their beliefs. In the words of G.K. Chesterton, "Bigotry is an incapacity to conceive seriously the alternative to a proposition. It has nothing whatever to do with belief in the proposition itself." This is of course my own perspective. I realize there may be people out there who do think it's impossible for their view to be wrong (be what it may). I lived with one, after all. I cannot agree with such people, but that hardly matters to them.
Here is a question that occurs to me: If you are militant about some view and engage people with differing views, are you not shoving your beliefs down their throat? Or are you merely exposing yourself to the ironic hypocrisy of thinking that they should be open to questioning their beliefs and ideas?
Man is a rational animal who always loses his temper when
called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason.
(Oscar Wilde)
called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason.
(Oscar Wilde)
