Philosophy Now Forum

.





The paradox of tolerance arises when a tolerant person holds antagonistic views towards intolerance, and hence is intolerant of it. The tolerant individual would then be by definition intolerant of intolerance.


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."


"We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."





.

double speak...

-Imp

Tolerance is an attitude we have towards people and ideas, not a thing or idea in itself, so it cannot either appear or disappear.

A person who exhibits tolerance might stop being tolerant, but not because a lump of 'intolerance' has come from outside and negated their tolerance. That I should be tolerant of you does not depend on you been tolerant of me.

You confuse this, by then making a quite different argument by writing of a 'tolerant society'. It is different because a 'society' embodies a particular set of attitudes, in laws or just norms. If it didn't embody some set of attitudes then it would not be a society.

That being the case, all societies must be 'intolerant', in the weak sense that if they weren't then they would have nothing to define them. The society of socialists is necessarily a society of socialists; if it included (was intolerant of) non-socialists then it would be a different society. A society of English people is necessarily a society of people with an association to England, and so on.

What we understand by a tolerant society is one which is made up of lots of societies, that overlap. Where you can be a member of more than one society; English and a socialist, or a socialist but not English, or English but not a socialist. There is really no problem at all with this.

By contrast, when somebody demands We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant, what they are saying is that membership of their society should have defined limits; an individual is either clearly in it, or you are outside it. That is what is known politically as 'fascism'. Perhaps we can now expect a lot more of that sort of thinking in the USA.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:"We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."

This all sounds very convoluted. I think you're trying too hard to be smart.

I'm guessing that each of us are tolerant of some things... and intolerant of other things.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:The paradox of tolerance arises when a tolerant person holds antagonistic views towards intolerance, and hence is intolerant of it. The tolerant individual would then be by definition intolerant of intolerance.


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."


"We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."

The way to deal with stuff like that is simply to reject needing to follow some principle "absolutely," for its own sake. So then you could be tolerant of everything but intolerance if you want, and there's no problem.

Londoner wrote:Tolerance is an attitude we have towards people and ideas, not a thing or idea in itself, so it cannot either appear or disappear.

Wait, attitudes can't appear or disappear?

A person who exhibits tolerance might stop being tolerant, but not because a lump of 'intolerance' has come from outside and negated their tolerance.

If they stop being tolerant and start being intolerant instead, it would be an "attitude" change as you'd put it. Well, and it's an "attitude" change even if they stop being tolerant and they're simply indifferent/neutral instead, too, I suppose.

That I should be tolerant of you does not depend on you been tolerant of me.

That would depend on each individual and their personal criteria for being tolerant.

It is different because a 'society' embodies a particular set of attitudes, in laws or just norms. If it didn't embody some set of attitudes then it would not be a society.

Societies are just sets of people interacting with each other.

Aside from that, given your view, why wouldn't a tolerant society simply be a society that embodies the attitude of tolerance?

I'm sure our discussion will go far on all of those.

Terrapin Station wrote:Wait, attitudes can't appear or disappear?

The very next sentence, one you actually quote, says in what sense an attitude can disappear. Why can't you read stuff through before jumping in?

Londoner wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:Wait, attitudes can't appear or disappear?

The very next sentence, one you actually quote, says in what sense an attitude can disappear. Why can't you read stuff through before jumping in?

So if that second sentence is saying that the attitude can disappear, why would you write in the first sentence that it can not?

Terrapin Station wrote:
So if that second sentence is saying that the attitude can disappear, why would you write in the first sentence that it can not?

Read the sentence in bold in the opening post.

Londoner wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:
So if that second sentence is saying that the attitude can disappear, why would you write in the first sentence that it can not?

Read the sentence in bold in the opening post.

Ah, I didn't realize that you were commenting on Bill's claim that tolerance could disappear wholesale.

I didn't actually read his post that closely, because what I typically do if I bother opening one of his threads is this:

Scan

Scan

Is he saying anything that's not completely moronic or where he's not just acting like an a$$hole . . . Is there any way to turn this nonsense into anything like a philosophy discussion I'd be interested in?

Scan

Scan

Etc.

I do that with a few regulars, including that DontAskMe guy or whatever his name is.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.
The paradox of tolerance arises when a tolerant person holds antagonistic views towards intolerance, and hence is intolerant of it. The tolerant individual would then be by definition intolerant of intolerance.

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."

"We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."
.

I find that, with logic and double negation, intolerance of intolerance means tolerance, truly. It's when you tolerate intolerance that you are in fact intolerant yourself. And so on...