4 ms·

It seems like Paul is confusing intolerance of intolerance with heresy in this essay. Further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https

by bryant 5y ago

It seems like Paul is confusing intolerance of intolerance with heresy in this essay. Further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance Expression of just about anything is met with fairly minimal consequence at least in much of the US, but nonetheless, there's a difference between not accepting something versus being intolerant of it. E.g not accepting [way of living] in one's own daily life v. not tolerating it in the world around oneself. Are both of these rejections abhorrent? Probably. But the line is crossed when someone transcends a refusal of acceptance in one's personal sphere into a refusal of tolerance of such in the world around them. (I had a specific thing in the brackets, but pulling a page from Paul's essay, I figured I'd blot it out to make it a neutral point. Fill the blank with [religion] or [suspect classification] or [politics] and it still holds.)

ByteJockey 5y ago
I think you're the one who is confused here. The paradox of tolerance was not conceived to describe people who merely hold opinions. To quote Popper (this is also quoted in the wiki link you posted): > 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 most 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. Which is fair. If someone is going to respond to you by beating and shooting you, you shouldn't have to tolerate them. The justification for the intolerance of the intolerant is that the intolerant use violence to get their way. But rounding up a mob because someone holds an opinion is not what Popper is describing. It is much closer to hunting down heretics.
- snerbles 5y ago
  In practice it seems Popper's Paradox is frequently cited as a justification of force against heretics, accompanied by claims that the heresy is in and of itself a form of violence.
- eganist 5y ago
  > But rounding up a mob because someone holds an opinion is not what Popper is describing. It is much closer to hunting down heretics. Neither was I. Nor do I think Paul should be "rounded up" either. Just that I believe his mode of thinking is flawed. I expressed an opinion just as he did.
  - ByteJockey 5y ago
    > Neither was I. Then I may have misinterpreted your statement. Would you mind elaborating on exactly which part of the essay confuses the paradox of intolerance with heresy?

by bryant 5y ago

ByteJockey 5y ago

I think you're the one who is confused here. The paradox of tolerance was not conceived to describe people who merely hold opinions. To quote Popper (this is also quoted in the wiki link you posted): > 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 most 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. Which is fair. If someone is going to respond to you by beating and shooting you, you shouldn't have to tolerate them. The justification for the intolerance of the intolerant is that the intolerant use violence to get their way. But rounding up a mob because someone holds an opinion is not what Popper is describing. It is much closer to hunting down heretics.

snerbles 5y ago
In practice it seems Popper's Paradox is frequently cited as a justification of force against heretics, accompanied by claims that the heresy is in and of itself a form of violence.
eganist 5y ago
> But rounding up a mob because someone holds an opinion is not what Popper is describing. It is much closer to hunting down heretics. Neither was I. Nor do I think Paul should be "rounded up" either. Just that I believe his mode of thinking is flawed. I expressed an opinion just as he did.
- ByteJockey 5y ago
  > Neither was I. Then I may have misinterpreted your statement. Would you mind elaborating on exactly which part of the essay confuses the paradox of intolerance with heresy?