Doubt

[OhYesIdid]

I'm not sure that this goes here, but whatever, it can be moved.
Maybe it was the way I was raised, but I don't think I can remember a time when I didn't admire someone with strong, unabashed beliefs. Even if they were wrong, the very fact that their faith held still in the face of attack was reason enough for praise.
Now I have changed.
I used to consider myself a hardline Marxist-Leninist (this is understandable, as such is the nature of my local Movement), until about a year ago, which is when I started reading up on Anarchism (you can blame Chomsky for that) and I think I identify more with such a radical theory, particularly because of the advantages of fighting capitalism by propping up communes that through the establishment of a "socialist state." However, this is not the thread for discussing politics, what I'm interested in is the community's opinions on Doubt. Specifically, on someone who is doubtful of his own principles (or at least, his version of them) versus someone who will stand by his beliefs no matter what. Does doubtfulness make someone untrustworthy to you? What's worse, to be staunchly wrong or to be never quite right?
And no, I did not add a poll to this thread as I would rather have an informed, or at the very least elaborated, discussion on an interesting issue once in a while.

[ColonelCossack]

I don't know that much about this kind of thing.

But I think it is important to firmly believe in what you're fighting for... otherwise you lose morale.

But then It's very important to avoid being completely indoctrinated, and especially not becoming a fetishist.

So I think you need to know what you're doing but when shit hits the fan don't blindly follow something without thinking about it. :cool:

[ВАЛТЕР]

Nothing wrong with changing your mind.
If you decide to continue fighting for something even though it is proven false then it doesn't make you brave but rather stupid.
Adapt to the situation at hand, if you decide to change one of your beliefs it makes you logical and up-to-date not indecisive, or a "flip-flopper". If you tomorrow decide that you are a maoist, then so be it, but do it out of your own reasons.

[Os Cangaceiros]

What's worse, to be staunchly wrong or to be never quite right?

is this a serious question

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I think so as long as you hold on to your beliefs and are able to keep an open mind to change than you are trustworthy.That being said I do not think I could trust someone that said one day they were a capitalist and the next day a socialist (or vise virsa) simply because if they flip-flop so easily then it can be difficult to trust them with information related to your ideology.Though I fins this more annoying than an actual problem.

[Rafiq]

Chomsky is a liberal piece of shit, I would much rather be a stalinoid then be a chomskyan any day.

I suggest you look into Marxism, where doubt is something that isn't really common.

[Magón]

Everyone needs some wiggle room for thought. Personally I've never liked those kinds of people who think that they're absolutely right, and nothing is going to change their mind, even if they are dead wrong (Republicans, Tea Party people, etc.) I find nothing praise worthy about those kinds of people, because they don't allow any wiggle room for thought when they come to a question about something, their whole way of thinking might not be able to explain well enough, or at all.

I don't hold any firm belief in one thing, because if I did, I'd be more of a slave than anything, to that way of thinking and doing/acting in the world. So I say it's better to be never quite right on something, than to be absolutely wrong on it.

[Agent Equality]

Chomsky is a liberal piece of shit, I would much rather be a stalinoid then be a chomskyan any day.

Wise words you put there :rolleyes: