What is tolerance?

[Lorikeet]

I'm not understanding the logic of your objection here: I said that a weak person could be intolerant. And you're saying that a weak person is a member of a collective, and is admitting he's weak. But you've said nothing about how this relates to tolerance... So I'm unclear on your objection.

yes...to need to belong to a group is a sign of weakness.
Belonging to a group empowers you.
Your strength is multiplied through participation.
Now the group does not tolerate other groups.

The fact that you need to belong to a group is because you are weak.

Intolerance can be selective.
The individual remains tolerant of what maintains the group.
The size of the groups is important.
Inter-group intolerance can have severe consequences in small groups. Less so in large groups.

If I do not like A and he is part of a group of five, we have big problems.
But if I dislike A in a 1000 person group, and cannot tolerate his presence, then the issue is not as severe.

Are you saying he can only be intolerant if he is "supported by weak people." I can't see why that would be obvious. Why can't an individual who is weak simply be intolerant, too?

Without support, he dies...especially if he belongs ot a species that has evolved cooperative survival strategies.

All social behaviour is a product of necessity.

No, I think that's obviously not the case. Some is because of other advantages that society brings. It's not hard to imagine what gains one can get from being in a society, as opposed to having to do everything yourself.
[/quote]Society is a collective.
That you depend on it indicates weakness.

Necessity....means one conceals his true feelings from those he depends upon.

Social species all adopted cooperatives because they were not sufficient to independently survive and reproduce.
Even anti social species, like bears, must become periodically tolerant for procreation to succeed.
The act of heterosexual procreation necessitates extreme tolerance, on the side of the female.
She must endure the approach, presence, and penetration of another.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not understanding the logic of your objection here: I said that a weak person could be intolerant. And you're saying that a weak person is a member of a collective, and is admitting he's weak. But you've said nothing about how this relates to tolerance... So I'm unclear on your objection.

yes...to need to belong to a group is a sign of weakness.
Belonging to a group empowers you.
Your strength is multiplied through participation.
Now the group does not tolerate other groups.

The fact that you need to belong to a group is because you are weak.

But you're not actually saying these people are tolerant. On the contrary, you're saying that they're intolerant, but can only act on their intolerance once they're in a group.

But if so, then it's the strong that are really capable of tolerance. The weak don't actually have tolerance at any point, whether before or after they're in the group. They feel intolerant before, and act intolerant after. That's what you seem to be arguing for.

If so, then it's the strong that can be tolerant. The weak really can never afford to be tolerant.

Intolerance can be selective.

So can tolerance. Tolerating one thing doesn't entail tolerating everything else. I don't think anybody believes it does.

If I do not like A and he is part of a group of five, we have big problems.
But if I dislike A in a 1000 person group, and cannot tolerate his presence, then the issue is not as severe.

Again, that's not obvious. I mean, it's possibly easier to ignore him in a big group, but in a small group, any intolerance is likely to be detected and resented -- if not by the individual that's not being tolerated, then by his peers, perhaps.

Are you saying he can only be intolerant if he is "supported by weak people." I can't see why that would be obvious. Why can't an individual who is weak simply be intolerant, too?

Without support, he dies...especially if he belongs ot a species that has evolved cooperative survival strategies.

An intolerant person doesn't get kicked out of a group, unless the group itself is intolerant of intolerance. Either way, it doesn't depend on the size of the group, but their attitude.

All social behaviour is a product of necessity.

No, I think that's obviously not the case. Some is because of other advantages that society brings. It's not hard to imagine what gains one can get from being in a society, as opposed to having to do everything yourself.

Society is a collective.
That you depend on it indicates weakness.

No, I don't think so. It may well indicate no more than convenience. There's a lot that can be done with the assistance of other people that cannot be done alone. It just seems sensible to make use of division of responsibilities to ease everybody's load. Failure to take others into account doesn't seem like any particular "strength."

Social species all adopted cooperatives because they were not sufficient to independently survive and reproduce.

It's simpler than that. People cooperate because it makes things better. And as for reproduction, it always requires a male, a female, and eventually, children. So every family constitutes a small-scale society, really. And even strong men have families. In fact, it takes a strong man to really have one and keep it provisioned, protected and healthy.

The act of heterosexual procreation necessitates extreme tolerance, on the side of the female.
She must endure the approach, presence, and penetration of another.

Wow. That's a pretty jaded view of interpersonal relations. The opposite sex is only "endured," not "enjoyed"? And the "approach" is not pleasurable and flattering? And the "presence" is an imposition, not companionship or acceptance? And sexual joy is merely a "penetration"?

That doesn't sound like a lot of fun. I don't think reproduction would happen at all, were that how everybody sees it.

[Lorikeet]

But you're not actually saying these people are tolerant. On the contrary, you're saying that they're intolerant, but can only act on their intolerance once they're in a group.

I'm saying, our tolerance is relative to the degree of our independence, and our independence is determined by our power.

But if so, then it's the strong that are really capable of tolerance. The weak don't actually have tolerance at any point, whether before or after they're in the group. They feel intolerant before, and act intolerant after. That's what you seem to be arguing for.

The strong do not tolerate...only the weak.
Where they do is where they feel vulnerable.

So can tolerance. Tolerating one thing doesn't entail tolerating everything else. I don't think anybody believes it does.

Exactly, so the context and the degree of our strengths determines what and when and where we cannot tolerate.

Again, that's not obvious. I mean, it's possibly easier to ignore him in a big group, but in a small group, any intolerance is likely to be detected and resented -- if not by the individual that's not being tolerated, then by his peers, perhaps.

So?
In small groups being intolerant of another will have severe consequences.
Not so much in large groups.

When we reach present day societies we are intolerant because we have backing, and alternatives....and to the degree of our power.
'Fuck you money,' for example indicates wealth providing the individual with the power to not tolerate.

No, I don't think so. It may well indicate no more than convenience. There's a lot that can be done with the assistance of other people that cannot be done alone. It just seems sensible to make use of division of responsibilities to ease everybody's load. Failure to take others into account doesn't seem like any particular "strength."

Why are you jumping around?
Specialization is not the issue here.
Specialization occurs in large groups. Even here, one specialist tolerates another because he has become dependent on him, and the tolerance is reciprocated.

Power = independence.
Independence = no need to tolerate another.
Given that none of us is omnipotent, we are all dependent to a degree and in different ways on others.

Wow. That's a pretty jaded view of interpersonal relations. The opposite sex is only "endured," not "enjoyed"? And the "approach" is not pleasurable and flattering? And the "presence" is an imposition, not companionship or acceptance? And sexual joy is merely a "penetration"?

As Schopenhauer said, pleasure is a negative state.
The mechanisms to overcome the fight/flight mechanism is hormonal intoxication.
Sexual pleasure is experienced because of the relief of stress experienced when energies held back are released.

For female sexual roles copulation places them in a very vulnerable position.....so nature has evolved mechanism and a feminine disposition to make it possible.
Hormonal intoxication being one such mechanism.

Enjoyment of another is not the issue here.
We enjoy another because he compensates for what we lack, or because he shares our values, motives, desires etc.
As feeble life forms we need others. We both enjoy and tolerate them.
A loved one can also be intolerable in certain contexts.
As hormonal effects dissipate our tolerance declines....and if there's not more than sexual intoxication, the relationship becomes intolerable.
Eros and agape.
If there's a friendship, agape, then the relationship is based on shared vulnerabilities.

That doesn't sound like a lot of fun. I don't think reproduction would happen at all, were that how everybody sees it.

Objectivity is unaffected by personal desires or interests or feelings or pleasures.

[Immanuel Can]

But you're not actually saying these people are tolerant. On the contrary, you're saying that they're intolerant, but can only act on their intolerance once they're in a group.

I'm saying, our tolerance is relative to the degree of our independence, and our independence is determined by our power.

I don't think that weak people are more tolerant. I think that it takes strength in order to afford to be tolerant. I wouldn't even call what weak people do "tolerance" at all because they neither want to do it nor have any choice but to do it.

I think a tolerant person has to have strength. Only those who are secure can really afford to be tolerant. Which is not to say they have to tolerate just anything and everything -- but I don't see that what weak people do is ever genuine tolerating at all.

But if so, then it's the strong that are really capable of tolerance. The weak don't actually have tolerance at any point, whether before or after they're in the group. They feel intolerant before, and act intolerant after. That's what you seem to be arguing for.

The strong do not tolerate...only the weak.

The opposite is true, I'd say.

I don't think that what you're seeing as "tolerance" on the part of the weak deserves that honourific at all.

Again, that's not obvious. I mean, it's possibly easier to ignore him in a big group, but in a small group, any intolerance is likely to be detected and resented -- if not by the individual that's not being tolerated, then by his peers, perhaps.

So?
In small groups being intolerant of another will have severe consequences.
Not so much in large groups.

Maybe the opposite. If you confront or challenge somebody at a party, are you always guaranteed to make yourself popular by doing it? Hardly. You might get less flak from doing it more privately.

No, I don't think so. It may well indicate no more than convenience. There's a lot that can be done with the assistance of other people that cannot be done alone. It just seems sensible to make use of division of responsibilities to ease everybody's load. Failure to take others into account doesn't seem like any particular "strength."

Why are you jumping around?

I'm not aware that I am "jumping around" at all.

Given that none of us is omnipotent, we are all dependent to a degree and in different ways on others.

Sure. But that's kind of obvious, isn't it? What's that got to do with tolerance?

Wow. That's a pretty jaded view of interpersonal relations. The opposite sex is only "endured," not "enjoyed"? And the "approach" is not pleasurable and flattering? And the "presence" is an imposition, not companionship or acceptance? And sexual joy is merely a "penetration"?

As Schopenhauer said, pleasure is a negative state.

Shopenhauer was never accused of being a cheerful fellow.

Sexual pleasure is experienced because of the relief of stress experienced when energies held back are released.

Ugh. So mechanical. So self-focused. So oblivious to one's companion. No, I can't agree with that assessment. That seems far too reductional an account of what's really happening -- at least, in a healthy relationship.

For female sexual roles copulation places them in a very vulnerable position.....so nature has evolved mechanism and a feminine disposition to make it possible.

Men too. Just in a different way.

If there's a friendship, agape, then the relationship is based on shared vulnerabilities.

"Agape" isn't "friendship," actually. You're thinking of "philia," maybe; philia is more often associated with the sort of "affectionate regard" between friends. And agape does not depend on the "vulnerabilities" of either party, but on the beneficence of the one practicing it.

[Lorikeet]

Agape is part of philia.

Eros = lust, irrational.
Agape = rational, based on shared values, objectives.
Agape is necessary for philia.

Affection between friends is agape.
Friendship with no agape is an acquittance.
But if we wish to put it on a scale using the Hellenic model, then agape is above philia....and eros is something completely different...although the Greeks did use eros to describe great affection, leading to the myth that they were all homosexuals.
For instance, a teacher and his student were bonded by erotic affections....yet they did not have sex.
A teacher what a student's erastes - lover.

Finally...
Tolerance is determined by power.
The weak can become intolerant only if they are backed by a power - a collective.

[Immanuel Can]

Agape is part of philia.

No, it's actually not. Agape goes well beyond anything that philia describes.

Agape = rational, based on shared values, objectives.

Sorry: that's just not a correct definition. See https://www.dictionary.com/e/greek-words-for-love/. The differences in the Greek are certainly interesting, and they're worth your investigation, for sure...because recognizing that all "love" isn't the same is a pretty important realization. But I think, and the dictionaries also suggest, that you've maybe misunderstood the distinction the Greek words draw out.

Finally...Tolerance is determined by power.

I would say not.

First, it's not necessarily tied to power at all: a weak person can be intolerant, just as a strong one can be intolerant. Power doesn't determine it. Secondly, even though he may not necessarily opt to be tolerant, a strong person has more capacity to be tolerant, because he has less to fear from somebody being different from him. So I think that view is highly debatable, and certainly not obviously true.

I think that what you're trying to say is that a weak person may be afraid to be intolerant, and so may hide his/her intolerance unless he/she is backed by a collective -- and that might be right. But the weak person who does this was never actually tolerant in the first place: she just lacked the power or means to act on her spite, perhaps. She felt it, but she couldn't do anything about it.

But certainly it's not true that tolerance is a virtue of the weak.

[Lorikeet]

No, it's actually not. Agape goes well beyond anything that philia describes.

Agape and philia are rational.
Agape is above philia.

Sorry: that's just not a correct definition.

Sacrificing yourself for a friand is based on agape.
Shared values, shared identities, shared objectives.

First, it's not necessarily tied to power at all: a weak person can be intolerant, just as a strong one can be intolerant.

Only if he is backed by power.
A slave must endure.
Sorry, your postmodern values concerning tolerance are based no slavishness.
An aristocrat does not tolerate he discriminates.
When and if he does, he is exposing a weakness.

Secondly, even though he may not necessarily opt to be tolerant, a strong person has more capacity to be tolerant, because he has less to fear from somebody being different from him.

And here's the postmodern angle.
More tolerant of difference?

Weakness tolerates difference because it is afraid of being excluded.
If we imagine a god he would not tolerate anything, because if he did, he would not be omnipotent.
The degree of difference we tolerate is determined by our power.

So, the progressive movement form homogenous to heterogenous societies expresses a weakness - decline.
Romans tolerated slaves from across the empire to live among them because they needed.....weakness.

Magnanimity is an expression of excess.....but also an expression of an inner lack.
A rick man is generous to those below him because he needs something form them - their approval, acknowledgment, support, servitude, whatever...
We tolerate individuals in one circumstance because we need them in another.
We tolerate because we depend. We reciprocate to preserve our relationships of dependence.

[Lorikeet]

Originally, like I said, erotas was used to describe the feelings developing between students and teachers, with no sexual component.
So eros, agape, philia describe emotional intensity, producing bonding and even a shared identity, an expansion of identity.

Today eros is used to describe lust, which is wrongly called love because love must include agape and philia.

We love our friends, but not as much as we love our children and our parents, yet sometimes we might love them even more.
we sacrifice ourselves to our children because they share our genes.....and we may sacrifice ourselves to our friends because we share ideals.

In modern Greek agape is often used to describe feelings towards one's friends.
Philia is less intense, less passionate.....less erotic.
Friendships can be based on ephemeral interests, common investments, requiring to agape, no love, but only trust.
Clarifying what the Greeks implied by philo-sophia.

Trust is the core component.
The three forms of love are founded on degrees of trust.

Distrusting the alien, the different, is not only natural it is rational.
Trust, like love, must be built over time....and it can be broken in a minute.

Agape describes a friendship based on trust that has been tried and tested over many years or in many adverse circumstances.
This is why the strongest friendships develop during times of war, or when two strangers are forced to place their lives in another's hands.
Such friendships can be stronger than any you can have with a relative.

Love is a bonding mechanism, developing codependence.
The three types of Hellenic love describe the three levels of intensity.... corresponding to the platonic triad - Plato's psyche:
Reason/ Will/Passion

Eros = Passion
Reason = Agape
Will = Philia

These correspond to
Body = Eros
Will = Philia
Mind = Agape

[Sculptor]

Agape is part of philia.

No, it's actually not. Agape goes well beyond anything that philia describes.

Agape is the lowest form of philia.
It is the ultimate expression of self love.

[Immanuel Can]

Sorry, your postmodern values concerning tolerance are based no slavishness.

You're incorrect, I fear. I'm not a Postmodernist. And I don't advocate what passes for "tolerance" today, but really isn't.

I think the real problem is that you seem to be using a defintion of "tolerance" that I think is flawed. You seem to be mistaking it for the same sort of relativism and brainless ideology of "inclusion" that marks capitulation to the political ethos of our day. And that is indeed both weak and foolish. But real "tolerance" means the ability to "put up with" things with which one disagrees, and not be threatened by them or feel a desperate need to exterminate them. And only a strong person can do that.

But maybe if you give me a more concrete example of what you're talking about, we'll find we don't disagree that much. What's on your mind?

[Lorikeet]

Postmodernism permeates the Americanopshere.
You are a postmodern and you don't even know it.
It goes back to Abrahamic superstitions concerning the conflict between mind/body.

Tolerance is not a sign of strength, as your delusional ideology tells you, but a sign of weakness.
If it were then it would not be enforced but would be adopted with no coercion and on brainwashing. It would be the rule.
Tolerance does not mean kindness, nor does it mean generosity.

I may be kind and generous to a dog, but I will not tolerate it in my home.
Pretending to be like another is not a sign of strength.
Lying to yourself and another is a sign of weakness.

I can be kind to a dog without pretending it is like me, or that it deserves what I offer it.
When I am kind to it, and offer it my food, and my home, I am revealing a weakness....a need.
I sympathize with tis weakness.
Anyone who tolerates is driven by a weakness.
You are postmodern in the sense that you are dominated by Abrahamic ethics.
Wokeness is directly connected to Abrahamism and Gnosticism.

[Lorikeet]

You are confusing ephemeral tolerance with long term tolerance.
I can tolerate a homeless bum in my house, for a few hours, give him some food, some water, maybe even offer him bed for a night, but will i tolerate him moving in?
Even my ephemeral generosity is founded on a weakness -= sympathizing with his plight, urging me to help just as 8I would hope I would be helped in my hour of need.
My vulnerability makes me tolerant.

So, again, the degree of my weakness determines the degree of my tolerance.

If you were truly tolerant of difference, then you would not be fighting any virus that enters your body, or any ideology that threatens your worldview. But you are toelrant.....only in theory, when it has no severe cost on your lifestyle and well-bering.
You are an Americanized mind.
That shit about tolerating difference, exposed you.
This is a classic position of postmodernism...that it is strength whereas intolerance is a weakness.
You know, that crap about xenophobia, like homophobia and transphobia....all phobias, because courageous people, like you, are open to anything and everything.
In which case I would urge you to accept a homeless person and his family into your home to prove how powerful you truly are.
Video evidence will be accepted.

A body's power is proven by its ability to deal with viruses and alien interventions, preserving its order.
The living body is intolerant of difference - see why female's must be hormonally intoxicated to tolerate the intrusions of an alien entity into her body, and why rape is so traumatic to females and to males, and why even the foetus must be protected from the female's autoimmune defences for the duration of gestation - resulting in morning sickness.
It is why females must evolve the psychology and the physical traits to endure this intrusion....and even desire and enjoy it.

But you are...as open as a whore to such intrusions.
Ideologically intoxicated as you are.

[Lorikeet]

Given that you are so "strong and tolerant," would you tolerate Islamic fundamentalists as neighbours or in positions of institutional power?
Would you tolerate Nazis taking over positions of power?
Would you tolerate Marxists running your government, and not just mouthing off in town squares on internet forums?

How about paedophiles and necrophiles in your town, freely walking around indulging their fetishes?
How tolerantly strong would you remain then?

I suspect that you are like Peter Kropotkin, one of those American brain-dead minds that only tolerates diversity when its superficial, and not when its actual. Actual diversity is intolerable to them. Theoretical diversity, on the market shelves, and in uber menus, they embrace wholeheartedly and with such courage.
You know, you love Korean cuisine and Indians wearing their exotic wardrobes, walking around in your malls, worshiping whatever gods they like, but not so much if they practice their traditional values and lifestyles, and insist on living in accordance with them.
How about races and sexes being actually diverse and not socially constructed and superficial? Would you tolerate that truth?
I bet you're one of those who loves superficial diversity, is so very tolerant with the idea of shallow differences but insists on an underlying uniformity.
Your "strength" is only strong enough to endure superficial differences, but not actual ones.

How empowering is diversity?
How is America doing, now that it has adopted a more diverse immigration policy?
How long do you think it has left?
How about Britain and France, now that they've diversified and opened their borders to millions of Muslims?
How French and British are they...or have they been Americanised, enjoying the benefits of tolerating diversity?

Why do you not insist that Israel also open its borders to ethnically and religiously diverse migrants, proving how strong it truly is?
Why do people like you only insist that Europeans do so?

Fuckin' hypocrites.

[Lorikeet]

Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.

Quote - Aristotle (1).jpg (32.13 KiB) Viewed 138 times

[Walker]

“Bueller, Bueller.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQX78Pqgdak

- Ferris lies to the waiter, solely to benefit himself by displaying to his friends his ability to get what he wants.
- Ferris is a sly Hector rather than a nagging, blunt Karen.
- In his final comment to the waiter, Ferris fails to mention that Ferris' own understanding of the world and his self-concept is what makes his own self-tolerance of his own duplicitous actions, possible.
- With only his youth and inexperience as a guide, in his final comment to the waiter, Ferris likely makes the assumption that the waiter’s understanding of the world, and interaction with the world, is also limited to the waiter’s personal self-benefit, which may or may not be true.
- What Ferris fails to mention is that the waiter’s societal role is what makes their relationship possible, and it’s also what makes the waiter’s tolerance of personal insults, possible.
- Understanding his societal role of “customer is always right,” gives Ferris societal power over the waiter, to use or abuse as is his wont, however I think that his wont is to be tolerant of intolerance, when the purpose is solely for his own benefit.
- As an athlete, OJ Simpson broke the salary barrier. When asked if he was worth all that money he said that you’re worth what you can get.
- Ferris’s self-worth, flavoured with self-righteousness, is made possible by assuming that everyone he meets is on his side, even if they think they’re not, and if they prove they are not, then they are fair game for Ferris to dip into his arsenal of any means necessary to get what he wants.
- The waiter's tolerance of Ferris' intolerance of the dress code and reservation policy of the establishment, is made possible by the waiter's societal role.

Perhaps, a one sentence sound-bite of a principle can be derived from that?