3 ms·

I kind of dislike that view. It's very narrow minded. It also depends on your definition of tolerance. Tolerance in my opinion is inherently something on a slid

by lugg 8y ago

I kind of dislike that view. It's very narrow minded. It also depends on your definition of tolerance. Tolerance in my opinion is inherently something on a sliding scale. In other words, to be tolerant you must by definition find certain things tolerable [to some degree]. I would posit that being tolerant and intolerant to intolerance is not a mutually exclusive stste. You can be both to varying degrees. In fact, being somewhat intolerant of intolerance is probably a prerequisite to being truly tollerant. That middle ground is what we need to protect and preserve. Acting like you must be one of the other is something a clever 5 year old would do.

rgoulter 8y ago
My understanding: the line Popper draws is "allow any opinion if it's willing to engage in rational argument and kept in check by public opinion". Popper's definition is quoted in the Wikipedia article: """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 this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.""" (It's fine to disagree with Popper about where a good line to draw is; I think Popper's going for "maximum tolerance", and is noting that tolerating 'intolerant = unwilling to engage in rational argument' would reduce tolerance).
- lugg 8y ago
  I was less talking about where the line was and more just confused by whether it was a paradox or not. I'm still not sure I get it but I think my understanding of a paradox was incorrect. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-a-paradox-and-a-logical-contradiction https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-a-parad... Strictly speaking I think it is a paradox. Where I got stuck is whether tolerance and intolerance are concepts in absolute. I dont think think they are absolute terms and in fact can be used to describe partial states, in other words, they can be used in this form but not [always] result in a logical contradiction which is where the paradox is coming from in this situation.

by lugg 8y ago

rgoulter 8y ago

My understanding: the line Popper draws is "allow any opinion if it's willing to engage in rational argument and kept in check by public opinion". Popper's definition is quoted in the Wikipedia article: """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 this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.""" (It's fine to disagree with Popper about where a good line to draw is; I think Popper's going for "maximum tolerance", and is noting that tolerating 'intolerant = unwilling to engage in rational argument' would reduce tolerance).

lugg 8y ago
I was less talking about where the line was and more just confused by whether it was a paradox or not. I'm still not sure I get it but I think my understanding of a paradox was incorrect. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-a-paradox-and-a-logical-contradiction https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-a-parad... Strictly speaking I think it is a paradox. Where I got stuck is whether tolerance and intolerance are concepts in absolute. I dont think think they are absolute terms and in fact can be used to describe partial states, in other words, they can be used in this form but not [always] result in a logical contradiction which is where the paradox is coming from in this situation.