What is tolerance?

[Walker]

Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.

Quote - Aristotle (1).jpg

As with impotence, impotent understanding is what kills societies.

[phyllo]

Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.

Quote - Aristotle (1).jpg

Shouldn't Aristotle have an understanding of the middle ground?

[Walker]

Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.

Quote - Aristotle (1).jpg

Shouldn't Aristotle have an understanding of the middle ground?

The statue of the fasting Buddha displays total acceptance (tolerance) of Now, without attempting to interfere with stillness of body and mind, not even to eat or drink. Without the need to consciously correct discomfort, but rather only choicelessly brought to the point where he could only accept whatever is (absolute tolerance), fasting Buddha accepted the changing sensations of the present and whatever they led to. Those sensations led to the detailed understanding of appetite, hunger, thirst, need and want. Immersed in the liberation of satori and free of the need to change anything at all (total tolerance), he inevitably observed his life ebbing away, and from this he concluded, the Middle Way ... and realized that an occasional snack and the resulting sensations caused by the joining of outer to inner, were also a part of reality in the human realm.

[phyllo]

That's great but the point is that the quote is not something that Aristotle is likely to have written. And in fact, if you research it, the quote is not in any of his existing writings.

He would consider some level of tolerance to be good, as long as it was a mean between the extremes of tolerating everything and tolerating nothing.

[Gary Childress]

That's great but the point is that the quote is not something that Aristotle is likely to have written. And in fact, if you research it, the quote is not in any of his existing writings.

He would consider some level of tolerance to be good, as long as it was a mean between the extremes of tolerating everything and tolerating nothing.

This is a good point. Perhaps anything can be taken to the extreme. The Greeks of course had their famous maxim of "Keep the middle way". That's also a theme of the Buddha from what I recall of what I learned of Buddhism. On the other hand, there is Christianity which seems to advocate for extreme passivity and toleration as far as I can reckon of Christs own acts. Ghandi was also very much a pacifist.

Extreme kindness and charitableness can be argued or debated as to whether or not a person is virtuous to have such extremes. I don't think the same really goes for extreme maleficence, however. It seems like few would argue that extreme maleficence can be any kind of virtue. It seems like the worst that can be said of kindness is that it can be taken too far but it is always more virtuous than hostility. Extreme hostility is just an all around a recipe for disaster, I suspect.

[Walker]

Ghandi was also very much a pacifist.

Gandhi is also considered to be one the greatest politicians in history. As such, he must have figured that passive resistance used for the purpose of civil disobedience, which he studied from the writings of the American, Thoreau, would have the greatest effect against the British, and he was right. He knew what strategy would have the desired effect upon the British, at that point of time in the history of the world. How did he know? Indeed.

Because he was a great politician, do you think he would have used the same tactics of passive resistance if trying to separate from a culture untouched by the Age of Enlightenment, for instance, a culture intolerant of other religions?

[Gary Childress]

Ghandi was also very much a pacifist.

Because he was a great politician, do you think he would have used the same tactics of passive resistance if trying to separate from a culture untouched by the Age of Enlightenment, for instance, a culture intolerant of other religions?

That's a good question that I don't know the answer to.

[Walker]

Ghandi was also very much a pacifist.

Because he was a great politician, do you think he would have used the same tactics of passive resistance if trying to separate from a culture untouched by the Age of Enlightenment, for instance, a culture intolerant of other religions?

That's a good question that I don't know the answer to.

No one knows. The purpose of the question is to rationally infer and show your work.

[Immanuel Can]

Because he was a great politician, do you think he would have used the same tactics of passive resistance if trying to separate from a culture untouched by the Age of Enlightenment, for instance, a culture intolerant of other religions?

That's a good question that I don't know the answer to.

No one knows. The purpose of the question is to rationally infer and show your work.

In truth, almost all of the appeal to "justice" upon which so much relies today is parasitic on Lockean Protestant morality. Try it in Syria, or Cuba, or China, or animistic cultures, where that tradition is not part of their past, and see how far cries for "fairness," "equity," or "racial fairness" or "social justice" get you. You'll get blank stares. They're not part of the assumptions of the common man or woman there. And the conscience about any duty to provide them is not part of the ethos.

The irony is that Western Socialism today gets all of its traction from the post-Protestant social conscience of our ethos. Ghandi himself, though a Hindu, was greatly influenced by his education in this ethos, and knew how to appeal to the Western conscience. That's what made his methods successful. It's doubtful they'd have worked at all if the opposition hadn't been at least nominally Protestant. One cannot imagine Ghandi taming the Muslims, the Sikhs, or even the Hindus themselves with an appeal based on passive resistance and the suffering of the innocent. India itself is all too at-ease with the inequity and human suffering...especially when it's the suffering of a different "race" or "caste," or that of one one's enemies.

[Gary Childress]

Because he was a great politician, do you think he would have used the same tactics of passive resistance if trying to separate from a culture untouched by the Age of Enlightenment, for instance, a culture intolerant of other religions?

That's a good question that I don't know the answer to.

No one knows. The purpose of the question is to rationally infer and show your work.

I apologize for disappointing.

[Gary Childress]

That's a good question that I don't know the answer to.

No one knows. The purpose of the question is to rationally infer and show your work.

In truth, almost all of the appeal to "justice" upon which so much relies today is parasitic on Lockean Protestant morality. Try it in Syria, or Cuba, or China, or animistic cultures, where that tradition is not part of their past, and see how far cries for "fairness," "equity," or "racial fairness" or "social justice" get you. You'll get blank stares. They're not part of the assumptions of the common man or woman there. And the conscience about any duty to provide them is not part of the ethos.

The irony is that Western Socialism today gets all of its traction from the post-Protestant social conscience of our ethos. Ghandi himself, though a Hindu, was greatly influenced by his education in this ethos, and knew how to appeal to the Western conscience. That's what made his methods successful. It's doubtful they'd have worked at all if the opposition hadn't been at least nominally Protestant. One cannot imagine Ghandi taming the Muslims, the Sikhs, or even the Hindus themselves with an appeal based on passive resistance and the suffering of the innocent. India itself is all too at-ease with the inequity and human suffering...especially when it's the suffering of a different "race" or "caste," or that of one one's enemies.

According to my education, tolerance and organized religion make bad bedfellows. I don't know that holding the Bible up as the source of all good is truly an accurate account of matters. All cultures have had to come to terns with existence in the form of moral codes and social practices. To say that Christianity is the last word on matters is perhaps chauvinist. Many cultures have contributed to the moral landscape and human society. The Greek pagans were EXTREMELY influential in the Western tradition. Tribal cultures had a lot of influence in political organization on European settlers who encountered them in the Americas. The list goes on.

I think humanity can do better than the Bible. And I see no necessity in reverting to Christianity in order to be sympathetic and understanding toward other living beings. In many cases that I was made aware of in my education, Christianity played a role in some cruel practices such as The Inquisition and "re-education" programs forced on gays, American Indians, peoples of other cultures and other deviants who were otherwise harmless that Christianity deemed "unholy".

But, then again, every few generations there seem to be shifts in paradigms. So perhaps I'm a product of civic movements of the 50s and 60s. I'm willing to admit that. In my view you are a product of a "Christian education." More or less indoctrinated to revere the Bible as the ultimate and final source you can turn to for wisdom. There's a lot of wisdom in various human cultures and a lot of wisdom to be gleaned from taking all cultures into account, in my experience.

\_(*_*)_/

[Walker]

That's a good question that I don't know the answer to.

No one knows. The purpose of the question is to rationally infer and show your work.

I apologize for disappointing.

Gary, I did not introduce the topic of Gandhi. You introduced the topic of Gandhi. That your understanding and interest in your own topical example of Gandhi extends no further than it does, has nothing to do with me. In a similarly shallow vein, neither does your expressed limited understanding of Christianity have anything to do with IC. It’s all yours Gary, including the projections and expressed disappointments with perceived reality. As a neutral, neural witness, my proposal was merely to provide a springboard for you, an elicitation so to speak, for you to dive into your own expressed interest in Gandhi, but not into the shallow end of the Condemnation & Blame Pool (CBP).

[Walker]

Sorry, can't resist (i.e., must). While contemplating this topic, I realize that I've always tolerated this song, because of the singer. Lots of folks can sing but it's the distinctive voice that gets remembered in the hit parade, once again proof that in life it's the singer and not the song. For example, the ancient rishis first knew Patanjali's song, but his sincere and objective voice that sang their song was sweeter, so he gets credit (for being a scientist, among other things). Same can be said for the rockers of the 60's who swept over the old saccharine sentimentality of the 50's.

I’m Sorry (Remastered)
Brenda Lee
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elrFu9V40PM

[Walker]

That's a good question that I don't know the answer to.

No one knows. The purpose of the question is to rationally infer and show your work.

In truth, almost all of the appeal to "justice" upon which so much relies today is parasitic on Lockean Protestant morality. Try it in Syria, or Cuba, or China, or animistic cultures, where that tradition is not part of their past, and see how far cries for "fairness," "equity," or "racial fairness" or "social justice" get you. You'll get blank stares. They're not part of the assumptions of the common man or woman there. And the conscience about any duty to provide them is not part of the ethos.

The irony is that Western Socialism today gets all of its traction from the post-Protestant social conscience of our ethos. Ghandi himself, though a Hindu, was greatly influenced by his education in this ethos, and knew how to appeal to the Western conscience. That's what made his methods successful. It's doubtful they'd have worked at all if the opposition hadn't been at least nominally Protestant. One cannot imagine Ghandi taming the Muslims, the Sikhs, or even the Hindus themselves with an appeal based on passive resistance and the suffering of the innocent. India itself is all too at-ease with the inequity and human suffering...especially when it's the suffering of a different "race" or "caste," or that of one one's enemies.

One cannot imagine Ghandi taming the Muslims, the Sikhs, or even the Hindus themselves with an appeal based on passive resistance and the suffering of the innocent.

That's the way I figure it.

The only way it could happen would be taming through being subjugated, and going underground in the hopes that the truth of justice will prevail. That's the long game of faith, proven by the persistence of Christianity.

I figure that every age has its Gandhi, whether or not the age so effectively permits the manifestation of Gandhi's qualities. I think the marvel of Gandhi is how his lengthy legend is the embodiment of a sort of immortality caused by a condition that was the confluence of all elements that comprised that situation of revolution, elements that were just as necessary for the situation to exist, as Gandhi was a necessary element for the situation to unfold.

He was the incarnation of fearless determination combined with political pragmatism. Many are also that, but as you say his knowledge was a combination of East and West brought about by other elements within that time of revolution and independence, and human sensibility towards horrible violence in the world.

The question is, did Gandhi have the wisdom to understand this? I think so, and he probably marveled at the placement of his particular incarnation within the unfolding reality. What exactly was Gandhi? He was a replication of past elements in a particular combination comprising that particular outcome. He was an incarnation of those qualities that likely existed in past combination.

[Immanuel Can]

No one knows. The purpose of the question is to rationally infer and show your work.

In truth, almost all of the appeal to "justice" upon which so much relies today is parasitic on Lockean Protestant morality. Try it in Syria, or Cuba, or China, or animistic cultures, where that tradition is not part of their past, and see how far cries for "fairness," "equity," or "racial fairness" or "social justice" get you. You'll get blank stares. They're not part of the assumptions of the common man or woman there. And the conscience about any duty to provide them is not part of the ethos.

The irony is that Western Socialism today gets all of its traction from the post-Protestant social conscience of our ethos. Ghandi himself, though a Hindu, was greatly influenced by his education in this ethos, and knew how to appeal to the Western conscience. That's what made his methods successful. It's doubtful they'd have worked at all if the opposition hadn't been at least nominally Protestant. One cannot imagine Ghandi taming the Muslims, the Sikhs, or even the Hindus themselves with an appeal based on passive resistance and the suffering of the innocent. India itself is all too at-ease with the inequity and human suffering...especially when it's the suffering of a different "race" or "caste," or that of one one's enemies.

According to my education, tolerance and organized religion make bad bedfellows.

They do. Stay away from organized religion, is my advice. Personal faith is quite a different matter, of course. Would that everybody knew the difference.

I don't know that holding the Bible up as the source of all good is truly an accurate account of matters.

I wasn't, as a matter of fact. I was pointing out that the belief in things like human rights and equality are not common to all cultures, and not, in fact, common to most cultures. Social justice pleas absolutely lose their traction in any ethos that does not believe women to be the equals of men, or universal humanity to be more important than tribal loyalty, or truth and honesty to be more important than communal solidarity, or slavery to be immoral...all things we get from our post-Protestant ethos.

Many of us in the West may no longer believe in the Protestantism part, but for now -- and probably not for much longer -- we still hold onto the 'ghost' presence of the values we were taught from that ethos. For example, we still continue to believe in values like truthfulness, equality, human rights, and so on, even while no longer holding onto the fundamental metaphysical beliefs from which these values were first derived. But many other people never had that ethos at all. We need to know that.

It's one lesson America surely should have learned at 9-11: not everybody thinks the American way. Not only do they not all believe in things like human rights, universal beneficence, democracy, justice and so on, some folks are so adamantly opposed to these things that they will liquify themselves and thousands of innocents in order to prove how vastly different their own received values are.