Cornell law professor Robert Hockett argues that "to tolerate" and "to not tolerate" are infinitives (verb forms) that require a direct object to make any real

Cornell law professor Robert Hockett argues that "to tolerate" and "to not tolerate" are infinitives (verb forms) that require a direct object to make any real sense. Some infinitives don't need a direct object — like "to dance" or "to sigh." Other infinitives do — like "to hit" and "to give." No one simply gives in the abstract. They always give something. Likewise, Hockett argues, no one simply tolerates in the abstract. They always tolerate (or don't tolerate) something. A consequence of Hockett's way of speaking about tolerance is that no one can ever really be said to be "tolerant" or "intolerant" generally — that is, without any qualifiers. They can be tolerant of this, they can be tolerant of that, but they can't simply be tolerant. Indeed, the only direct object they can't be tolerant of is "everything" — which would mean the same as being tolerant with no direct object, which would encompass intolerance, which would be paradoxical. Oh, sure there might be some people who are intolerant of just about everything ... but even "just about everything" constitutes a direct object, if a broad one. As long as it's "just about everything" and not "everything" (which would encompass intolerance itself), then there is no paradox. --- Catholic archbishop Fulton Sheen on the false understanding of tolerance that permeates our culture, from his 1932 book: "There is no other subject on which the average mind is so much confused as the subject of tolerance and intolerance. "Tolerance is always supposed to be desirable because it is taken to be synonymous with broadmindedness. Intolerance is always supposed to be undesirable, because it is taken to be synonymous with narrow-mindedness. "This is not true, for tolerance and intolerance apply to two totally different things. Tolerance applies only to persons, but never to principles. Intolerance applies only to principles, but never to persons. "We must be tolerant to persons because they are human; we must be intolerant about principles because they are divine. We must be tolerant to the erring, because ignorance may have led them astray; but we must be intolerant to the error, because Truth is not our making, but God's."