The paradox of tolerance
In 1945, the philosopher Karl Popper laid out the "paradox of tolerance":
"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 other words, the essence of a purely tolerant society, that espoused by liberals and the recipient of a significant fillip in the 1960s 'Decade of Protest', is posed an existential threat by those with intolerant views. Popper's conundrum was, how can a tolerant society both tolerate the intolerant and also uphold and protect its own tolerance? His answer was that, in this case, the evisceration of intolerance is permitted, and indeed necessary to maintain the sanctity of these values.
In 1971, John Rawls reconsidered the paradox of tolerance. He, however, countered Popper's support for the unacceptability of intolerance, instead claiming that to resist intolerance would undermine a tolerant society, settling the issue by resorting to the lowest common denominator.
Ultimately, Rawls's opinion is philosophically more cogent, but the consequences of such a stance are easy, and concerning, to evaluate.
In the current epoch, and faced with patent intolerance which poses a grave threat to western society and its values, how should we come to terms with the paradox of tolerance? Should the views and prejudices of fundamentalists (such as Islamism, Putin's New Authoritarianism) be buttressed against through indirect resistance (education, global influence), or is more active annihilation of intolerance made necessary as it increasingly encroaches upon internal society?
"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 other words, the essence of a purely tolerant society, that espoused by liberals and the recipient of a significant fillip in the 1960s 'Decade of Protest', is posed an existential threat by those with intolerant views. Popper's conundrum was, how can a tolerant society both tolerate the intolerant and also uphold and protect its own tolerance? His answer was that, in this case, the evisceration of intolerance is permitted, and indeed necessary to maintain the sanctity of these values.
In 1971, John Rawls reconsidered the paradox of tolerance. He, however, countered Popper's support for the unacceptability of intolerance, instead claiming that to resist intolerance would undermine a tolerant society, settling the issue by resorting to the lowest common denominator.
Ultimately, Rawls's opinion is philosophically more cogent, but the consequences of such a stance are easy, and concerning, to evaluate.
In the current epoch, and faced with patent intolerance which poses a grave threat to western society and its values, how should we come to terms with the paradox of tolerance? Should the views and prejudices of fundamentalists (such as Islamism, Putin's New Authoritarianism) be buttressed against through indirect resistance (education, global influence), or is more active annihilation of intolerance made necessary as it increasingly encroaches upon internal society?
Scroll to see replies
TL;DR: don't be tolerant of intolerance.
The biggest problem "the West" (god I hate that term, it's so irrational; everywhere is west of somewhere) seems to have is confusing between those who are tolerant and those who are intolerant, so sometimes society directs its' intolerance at those who are actually the tolerant ones. Modern example being the hate towards the Muslims that aren't trying to blow **** up purely because they share similar beliefs to those who do wants to blow **** up.
The biggest problem "the West" (god I hate that term, it's so irrational; everywhere is west of somewhere) seems to have is confusing between those who are tolerant and those who are intolerant, so sometimes society directs its' intolerance at those who are actually the tolerant ones. Modern example being the hate towards the Muslims that aren't trying to blow **** up purely because they share similar beliefs to those who do wants to blow **** up.
Original post by PariahEmir
In 1945, the philosopher Karl Popper laid out the "paradox of tolerance":
"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 other words, the essence of a purely tolerant society, that espoused by liberals and the recipient of a significant fillip in the 1960s 'Decade of Protest', is posed an existential threat by those with intolerant views. Popper's conundrum was, how can a tolerant society both tolerate the intolerant and also uphold and protect its own tolerance? His answer was that, in this case, the evisceration of intolerance is permitted, and indeed necessary to maintain the sanctity of these values.
In 1971, John Rawls reconsidered the paradox of tolerance. He, however, countered Popper's support for the unacceptability of intolerance, instead claiming that to resist intolerance would undermine a tolerant society, settling the issue by resorting to the lowest common denominator.
Ultimately, Rawls's opinion is philosophically more cogent, but the consequences of such a stance are easy, and concerning, to evaluate.
In the current epoch, and faced with patent intolerance which poses a grave threat to western society and its values, how should we come to terms with the paradox of tolerance? Should the views and prejudices of fundamentalists (such as Islamism, Putin's New Authoritarianism) be buttressed against through indirect resistance (education, global influence), or is more active annihilation of intolerance made necessary as it increasingly encroaches upon internal society?
"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 other words, the essence of a purely tolerant society, that espoused by liberals and the recipient of a significant fillip in the 1960s 'Decade of Protest', is posed an existential threat by those with intolerant views. Popper's conundrum was, how can a tolerant society both tolerate the intolerant and also uphold and protect its own tolerance? His answer was that, in this case, the evisceration of intolerance is permitted, and indeed necessary to maintain the sanctity of these values.
In 1971, John Rawls reconsidered the paradox of tolerance. He, however, countered Popper's support for the unacceptability of intolerance, instead claiming that to resist intolerance would undermine a tolerant society, settling the issue by resorting to the lowest common denominator.
Ultimately, Rawls's opinion is philosophically more cogent, but the consequences of such a stance are easy, and concerning, to evaluate.
In the current epoch, and faced with patent intolerance which poses a grave threat to western society and its values, how should we come to terms with the paradox of tolerance? Should the views and prejudices of fundamentalists (such as Islamism, Putin's New Authoritarianism) be buttressed against through indirect resistance (education, global influence), or is more active annihilation of intolerance made necessary as it increasingly encroaches upon internal society?
What made hating people who are genetically gay tolerant? So give us that crap of less tolerant, it's removing the flaws of the past.
Original post by Drunk Punx
TL;DR: don't be tolerant of intolerance.
The biggest problem "the West" (god I hate that term, it's so irrational; everywhere is west of somewhere) seems to have is confusing between those who are tolerant and those who are intolerant, so sometimes society directs its' intolerance at those who are actually the tolerant ones. Modern example being the hate towards the Muslims that aren't trying to blow **** up purely because they share similar beliefs to those who do wants to blow **** up.
The biggest problem "the West" (god I hate that term, it's so irrational; everywhere is west of somewhere) seems to have is confusing between those who are tolerant and those who are intolerant, so sometimes society directs its' intolerance at those who are actually the tolerant ones. Modern example being the hate towards the Muslims that aren't trying to blow **** up purely because they share similar beliefs to those who do wants to blow **** up.
It might be an inaccurate term but its meaning is widely understood so is useful.
And okay - but what about the instances when there is no confusion and the intolerant group is correctly identified? Do we make an exception for our values or not?
Original post by ckfeister
What made hating people who are genetically gay tolerant? So give us that crap of less tolerant, it's removing the flaws of the past.
This didn't make enough sense for me to answer.
Original post by PariahEmir
It might be an inaccurate term but its meaning is widely understood so is useful.
And okay - but what about the instances when there is no confusion and the intolerant group is correctly identified? Do we make an exception for our values or not?
This didn't make enough sense for me to answer.
And okay - but what about the instances when there is no confusion and the intolerant group is correctly identified? Do we make an exception for our values or not?
This didn't make enough sense for me to answer.
Why are gay people hated in the first place? Tolerance on hating gay people thats MAN MADE due to " religion " is acceptable? Tolerance is the future to heal the problems of the past.
Original post by PariahEmir
In 1945, the philosopher Karl Popper laid out the "paradox of tolerance":
"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 other words, the essence of a purely tolerant society, that espoused by liberals and the recipient of a significant fillip in the 1960s 'Decade of Protest', is posed an existential threat by those with intolerant views. Popper's conundrum was, how can a tolerant society both tolerate the intolerant and also uphold and protect its own tolerance? His answer was that, in this case, the evisceration of intolerance is permitted, and indeed necessary to maintain the sanctity of these values.
In 1971, John Rawls reconsidered the paradox of tolerance. He, however, countered Popper's support for the unacceptability of intolerance, instead claiming that to resist intolerance would undermine a tolerant society, settling the issue by resorting to the lowest common denominator.
Ultimately, Rawls's opinion is philosophically more cogent, but the consequences of such a stance are easy, and concerning, to evaluate.
In the current epoch, and faced with patent intolerance which poses a grave threat to western society and its values, how should we come to terms with the paradox of tolerance? Should the views and prejudices of fundamentalists (such as Islamism, Putin's New Authoritarianism) be buttressed against through indirect resistance (education, global influence), or is more active annihilation of intolerance made necessary as it increasingly encroaches upon internal society?
"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 other words, the essence of a purely tolerant society, that espoused by liberals and the recipient of a significant fillip in the 1960s 'Decade of Protest', is posed an existential threat by those with intolerant views. Popper's conundrum was, how can a tolerant society both tolerate the intolerant and also uphold and protect its own tolerance? His answer was that, in this case, the evisceration of intolerance is permitted, and indeed necessary to maintain the sanctity of these values.
In 1971, John Rawls reconsidered the paradox of tolerance. He, however, countered Popper's support for the unacceptability of intolerance, instead claiming that to resist intolerance would undermine a tolerant society, settling the issue by resorting to the lowest common denominator.
Ultimately, Rawls's opinion is philosophically more cogent, but the consequences of such a stance are easy, and concerning, to evaluate.
In the current epoch, and faced with patent intolerance which poses a grave threat to western society and its values, how should we come to terms with the paradox of tolerance? Should the views and prejudices of fundamentalists (such as Islamism, Putin's New Authoritarianism) be buttressed against through indirect resistance (education, global influence), or is more active annihilation of intolerance made necessary as it increasingly encroaches upon internal society?
But it always comes down to greatly differing values between groups of people. Where ones group has views with the potential to negatively effect the peaceful existence of another, should this not be challenged? If these views turn to wilful action, should it not be prevented? I think education and global influence are the most effective measures, as annihilation of intolerant views only breeds greater, more dangerous intolerance when people with such views feel threatened. You can apply this to when different cultures meet: different cultures can clash when they stay separate and do not learn to understand one another. But different cultures can have differing ethics and morales, which can be a problem with multiculturalism if the migrating group doesn't make an effort to conform.
To decrease intolerance stability is needed. People need to feel safe, secure and un-threatened in an environment they feel comfortable in. When war and corruption are stamped out, life prospects and self-worth have improved, then maybe intolerance will slowly die out. (religion, elitism etc
)Original post by PariahEmir
It might be an inaccurate term but its meaning is widely understood so is useful.
And okay - but what about the instances when there is no confusion and the intolerant group is correctly identified? Do we make an exception for our values or not?
And okay - but what about the instances when there is no confusion and the intolerant group is correctly identified? Do we make an exception for our values or not?
I would say yes.
To repeat what I said earlier: don't be tolerant of intolerance. If you don't bring people up on their intolerance, they will think that their behaviour is fine, and nothing will change.
But then, that depends on what "our values" are, doesn't it? Freedom of speech is a great thing, but it's not so great when it's being used by people to irrationally hate on others.
I would not deny them that freedom of speech, however. If they're free to say whatever they like, I'm free to call them a dick
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Eboracum7
To decrease intolerance stability is needed. People need to feel safe, secure and un-threatened in an environment they feel comfortable in. When war and corruption are stamped out, life prospects and self-worth have improved, then maybe intolerance will slowly die out. (religion, elitism etc )
To decrease intolerance stability is needed. People need to feel safe, secure and un-threatened in an environment they feel comfortable in. When war and corruption are stamped out, life prospects and self-worth have improved, then maybe intolerance will slowly die out. (religion, elitism etc
)The problem with that environment being that a) there is no money to be made and b) governments lose their biggest tool for controlling people; fear. Until you overthrow Capitalism and the State (add Religion in there as well) thrre will always be peverse incentives to increase division, hatred and intolerance among the peoples of the world.
Original post by mojojojo101
The problem with that environment being that a) there is no money to be made and b) governments lose their biggest tool for controlling people; fear. Until you overthrow Capitalism and the State (add Religion in there as well) thrre will always be peverse incentives to increase division, hatred and intolerance among the peoples of the world.
Oh yes, that's why it might never happen. Money and power are the darkest of temptations. You can't change the inherent selfish nature of a lot of people and it is these kinds of people who are often rewarded and rise up. You might say that current systems are rigged to favour such people, but I doubt there's any system of governance that they wouldn't find a way to leash.
Original post by ckfeister
Why are gay people hated in the first place? Tolerance on hating gay people thats MAN MADE due to " religion " is acceptable? Tolerance is the future to heal the problems of the past.
The implementation of homophobia-driven actions (insults, hate-crimes) is illegal in the UK already. Religion doesn't alter this.
Original post by Eboracum7
To decrease intolerance stability is needed. People need to feel safe, secure and un-threatened in an environment they feel comfortable in. When war and corruption are stamped out, life prospects and self-worth have improved, then maybe intolerance will slowly die out. (religion, elitism etc )
To decrease intolerance stability is needed. People need to feel safe, secure and un-threatened in an environment they feel comfortable in. When war and corruption are stamped out, life prospects and self-worth have improved, then maybe intolerance will slowly die out. (religion, elitism etc
)A utopian paragon of a peaceful society founded upon liberal and pluralistic values would not satisfy fundamental Islamists. As long as their views remain antithetical to this, and the justification for that reading of the scripture survives, then there will always be new waves. The available solutions are therefore (i) affect to obliterate adherence to this strain of theology militarily or (ii) attempt to undermine its credence through education and superior theologising.
Ironically, both of these steps undermine tolerance and fall into the trap perceived by Popper.
Original post by PariahEmir
The implementation of homophobia-driven actions (insults, hate-crimes) is illegal in the UK already. Religion doesn't alter this.
A utopian paragon of a peaceful society founded upon liberal and pluralistic values would not satisfy fundamental Islamists. As long as their views remain antithetical to this, and the justification for that reading of the scripture survives, then there will always be new waves. The available solutions are therefore (i) affect to obliterate adherence to this strain of theology militarily or (ii) attempt to undermine its credence through education and superior theologising.
Ironically, both of these steps undermine tolerance and fall into the trap perceived by Popper.
A utopian paragon of a peaceful society founded upon liberal and pluralistic values would not satisfy fundamental Islamists. As long as their views remain antithetical to this, and the justification for that reading of the scripture survives, then there will always be new waves. The available solutions are therefore (i) affect to obliterate adherence to this strain of theology militarily or (ii) attempt to undermine its credence through education and superior theologising.
Ironically, both of these steps undermine tolerance and fall into the trap perceived by Popper.
If one of us actually came up with a workable solution with no drawbacks for anyone, that'd be more than a nobel peace prize right there.
Original post by PariahEmir
The implementation of homophobia-driven actions (insults, hate-crimes) is illegal in the UK already. Religion doesn't alter this.
A utopian paragon of a peaceful society founded upon liberal and pluralistic values would not satisfy fundamental Islamists. As long as their views remain antithetical to this, and the justification for that reading of the scripture survives, then there will always be new waves. The available solutions are therefore (i) affect to obliterate adherence to this strain of theology militarily or (ii) attempt to undermine its credence through education and superior theologising.
Ironically, both of these steps undermine tolerance and fall into the trap perceived by Popper.
A utopian paragon of a peaceful society founded upon liberal and pluralistic values would not satisfy fundamental Islamists. As long as their views remain antithetical to this, and the justification for that reading of the scripture survives, then there will always be new waves. The available solutions are therefore (i) affect to obliterate adherence to this strain of theology militarily or (ii) attempt to undermine its credence through education and superior theologising.
Ironically, both of these steps undermine tolerance and fall into the trap perceived by Popper.
Yes, to heal our past, and should not be reversed.
That you tolerate intolerance until intolerance overrules tolerance?
That's what so few ultra liberals will even confront candidly.
That's what so few ultra liberals will even confront candidly.
Original post by Drunk Punx
TL;DR: don't be tolerant of intolerance.
The biggest problem "the West" (god I hate that term, it's so irrational; everywhere is west of somewhere) seems to have is confusing between those who are tolerant and those who are intolerant, so sometimes society directs its' intolerance at those who are actually the tolerant ones. Modern example being the hate towards the Muslims that aren't trying to blow **** up purely because they share similar beliefs to those who do wants to blow **** up.
The biggest problem "the West" (god I hate that term, it's so irrational; everywhere is west of somewhere) seems to have is confusing between those who are tolerant and those who are intolerant, so sometimes society directs its' intolerance at those who are actually the tolerant ones. Modern example being the hate towards the Muslims that aren't trying to blow **** up purely because they share similar beliefs to those who do wants to blow **** up.
Muslims blowing **** up is just one part. The entirety of Islam is the other. Culture and way of life as seen to exist in Islamic countries is contrary to everything we stand for.
Original post by PariahEmir
In the current epoch, and faced with patent intolerance which poses a grave threat to western society and its values, how should we come to terms with the paradox of tolerance? Should the views and prejudices of fundamentalists (such as Islamism, Putin's New Authoritarianism) be buttressed against through indirect resistance (education, global influence), or is more active annihilation of intolerance made necessary as it increasingly encroaches upon internal society?
In the current epoch, and faced with patent intolerance which poses a grave threat to western society and its values, how should we come to terms with the paradox of tolerance? Should the views and prejudices of fundamentalists (such as Islamism, Putin's New Authoritarianism) be buttressed against through indirect resistance (education, global influence), or is more active annihilation of intolerance made necessary as it increasingly encroaches upon internal society?
This was already solved by John Locke in an "Essay concerning toleration" and "A letter concerning toleration".
He was not the first on this subject, but he has made an analisys concerning lots of particular situations. Moreover, shince he was British, you should know him.
Every British citizen should know John Locke.
Read and study. He has found solutions for many problems which were existant back then, and which seem to be back:
http://www.oxfordscholarlyeditions.com/view/10.1093/actrade/9780199575732.book.1/actrade-9780199575732-div2-27
In the Essay he solves the problem mentioned in Popper's paradox. Locke observed that if tolerant government will be tolerant towards those who are intolerant, he'll actually protect those who's aim is to destroy the government as soon as they can. Therefore, a government which is tolerant towards intolerants, prepares own destruction, destruction of tolerant society and removal of tolerance in general. Conclusion: Intolerants must be destroyed, before they can destroy the government.
http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/locke/toleration.pdf
(edited 7 years ago)
Neoconservatism has a good answer to this.
I recently concluded that intolerance of intolerance does not constitute intolerance itself.
Original post by PTMalewski
This was already solved by John Locke in an "Essay concerning toleration" and "A letter concerning toleration".
He was not the first on this subject, but he has made an analisys concerning lots of particular situations. Moreover, shince he was British, you should know him.
Every British citizen should know John Locke.
Read and study. He has found solutions for many problems which were existant back then, and which seem to be back:
http://www.oxfordscholarlyeditions.com/view/10.1093/actrade/9780199575732.book.1/actrade-9780199575732-div2-27
In the Essay he solves the problem mentioned in Popper's paradox. Locke observed that if tolerant government will be tolerant towards those who are intolerant, he'll actually protect those who's aim is to destroy the government as soon as they can. Therefore, a government which is tolerant towards intolerants, prepares own destruction, destruction of tolerant society and removal of tolerance in general. Conclusion: Intolerants must be destroyed, before they can destroy the government.
http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/locke/toleration.pdf
He was not the first on this subject, but he has made an analisys concerning lots of particular situations. Moreover, shince he was British, you should know him.
Every British citizen should know John Locke.
Read and study. He has found solutions for many problems which were existant back then, and which seem to be back:
http://www.oxfordscholarlyeditions.com/view/10.1093/actrade/9780199575732.book.1/actrade-9780199575732-div2-27
In the Essay he solves the problem mentioned in Popper's paradox. Locke observed that if tolerant government will be tolerant towards those who are intolerant, he'll actually protect those who's aim is to destroy the government as soon as they can. Therefore, a government which is tolerant towards intolerants, prepares own destruction, destruction of tolerant society and removal of tolerance in general. Conclusion: Intolerants must be destroyed, before they can destroy the government.
http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/locke/toleration.pdf
1) You can be well aware of who a philosopher is without knowing everything they ever wrote.
2) That still in no way solves the paradox. Exact same faux-reconciliation as Popper's. Even worse as he purports to have solved it congruously.
Original post by Cato the Elder
Neoconservatism has a good answer to this.
Please explain
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- There is no Fermi Paradox.
- Can someone please mark my 8 mark language question for English Language, thanks!
- Until now, paradoxically, oil exporter Nigeria had to import its oil derivatives (mai
- February Book of the Month Official Discussion: TSR Book Club
- HNC electrical engineering maths question
- Do I have the profile for a top PhD in Finance in the US?
- what goes through a guys head?
- Science books similar to Cosmos and A Brief History of Time?
- Higher English Folio Essay
- Chemistry alevels pag 1.2 extension
- How long will it take to lower my alcohol tolerance
- Explore how Shakespeare presents attitudes to the supernatural
- Piercing Advice
- Need help with analysis in English Lit A Level
- Idk wtf to do with my life...
- How much is it normal to drink as a student?
- Shared Uni Rooms London
- anyone else play the Sims 4?
- st andrews racism/classism
- I don’t like anyone
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 5 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 5 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?
