The Paradox of Tolerance - Let's find a solution!
When discussing tolerance, it's inevitable to stumble upon this paradox. What if we get so tolerant that we tolerate the intolerant and in turn our civilization crumbles? The philosopher Karl Popper was first to point it out and explains it at length below:
What do you think? How can we come to a properly justified solution?
Karl Popper:Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.?—?In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
What do you think? How can we come to a properly justified solution?
Comments (40)
In tolerance there is the part of resisting, to putting up with. Just like in engineering, tolerance is about the permissible limits of variation in an object.
Hence unlimited tolerance is an oxymoron. Or as andrewk said above, complete indifference.
...that there is no limit to what will be tolerated...
I think you might be underestimating the situation in England, where hate-crimes are defined by the criterion that someone perceives your motivation to have been hatred towards a protected group. That your motivation were not motivated by hatred is irrelevant. And note, that the person who perceives the hate, may be a third party.
I have read that several police forces, particularly the Metropolitan police, that operates in London, has in the order of a thousand officers dedicated to patrolling social media, and make daily arrests.
If you're not the member of a protected group, the criteria are different.
Quoting andrewk
Well, how would you explain the likes of the hypertolerant post-modernists? They sure as hell aren't "immobile lumps"
.
The limit of what should be tolerated is a function of how and why the permission is given and by whom. For instance, Popper calls for a limit that is not identical to the one Marcuse argued for. Marcuse puts it this way:
Within the affluent democracy, the affluent discussion prevails, and within the established framework, it is tolerant to a large extent. All points of view can be heard: the Communist and the Fascist, the Left and the Right, the white and the Negro, the crusaders for armament and for disarmament. Moreover, in endlessly dragging debates over the media, the stupid opinion is treated with the same respect as the intelligent one, the misinformed may talk as long as the informed, and propaganda rides along with education, truth with falsehood. This pure toleration of sense and nonsense is justified by the democratic argument that nobody, neither group nor individual, is in possession of the truth and capable of defining what is right and wrong, good and bad. Therefore, all contesting opinions must be submitted to 'the people' for its deliberation and choice. But I have already suggested that the democratic argument implies a necessary condition, namely, that the people must be capable of deliberating and choosing on the basis of knowledge, that they must have access to authentic information, and that, on this. basis, their evaluation must be the result of autonomous thought.
The discussion for both Popper and Marcuse revolves around what is possible for a future society.
Thats what I would take the phrase to mean, that you wouod tolerate intolerance. You would be tolerating everything, nothing excluded.
I do not think it is a monstrous creation of language as you describe, though I know what you mean.
I think the phrase is coherent, but probably not very wise. That kind of tolerence seems foolish.
You'd defend tolerance if you're pro tolerance. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense to say that you're pro tolerance. If you don't defend tolerance you're not pro tolerance, you're just apathetic.
I don't agree with that. Maybe if you tell me the definition of tolerance that you're using.
That sounds like apathy, not tolerance. Tolerance doesn't conventionally amount to not having and expressing your own opinion.
Defending tolerance doesn't at all amount to forcing anything on anyone.
No, of course not. I just said that defending something doesn't at all amount to forcing anything on anyone. Think of a defense lawyer. They defend their clients. They don't--and can't --force beliefs on anyone.
Re a physical attack, you'd be conflating beliefs and actions. They're not the same thing.
It's not even possible to "force a belief" (and I just said that). The whole idea of that is nonsensical.
Here's a conventional definition of "tolerant":
"showing willingness to allow the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with."
Tolerance is never about letting people initiate physical attacks, murdering others, etc.
I don't know if you're an Aspie or not, but you can't approach topics like an Aspie (without it just amounting to inanity).
Quoting Terrapin Station
Exactly why tolerent people as defined can't defend themselves from Intolerant people
It's not an argument against something if you don't even know what people are talking about. You have to address what someone is saying. Not what they're not saying but how you can creatively or "literally" interpret a term.
Aspies tend to interpret things "literally."
That's just the issue though. You have to deal with what people actually have in mind, not something they don't have in mind but that you think the words "literally" say. The latter is the mistake that Aspies make. That's one of the primary characteristics of Aspergers.
I already told you at least twice above that no one is using "tolerance" to refer to just letting people murder others, say.
Thats what I understood the OP to be refering to, an extreme tolerance, so tolerant that you tolerate anything. Im not buying khaleds logic but I think he is using the word consistently with the discussions premiss.
The initial post says nothing about physical violence, initiating physical attacks, committing murders, etc.
Conventional talk of tolerance has nothing to do with that. It has to do with attitudes, beliefs customs, biases, biogtry, etc. It's an ideological issue, not a violence issue.
I took “unlimited tolerance” to include tolerance of violence etc, some kind of extreme tolerance. Not the way I would think of it, and not conventional but I dont know what else would be meant by “unlimited tolerance”.
Unlimited tolerance would presumably include tolerance of hate speech, Pro-Nazi views, pedophilia advocates--etc. Views considered more outrageous.
Yes, everything. Excluding nothing. At least, thats what I would think “unlimited” is intended to mean.
The initial poster seems to have tuned out of the conversation so im not even sure if there is much substance here, or what the end game of the OP might be.
Anyway, I understand your view. Similar if not very close to the free speech discussion.