instructive and valuable contribution toward clarifying the subject. thank you very much
@kimfreeborn
4 жыл бұрын
Philosopher Karl Popper defined the paradox in 1945 in The Open Society and Its Enemies.[1] 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.
@minskdhaka
3 жыл бұрын
But then we get into arguments over who is the intolerant one who is being targeted. I don't want to put words into your mouth, but your argument is usually advanced as a stick to bludgeon Muslims with. I, as a Muslim who spent 15 years in Quebec, actually see a certain strain of Quebec nationalists as being intolerant to a disturbing degree. They are in power now, and have passed a law banning religious Jewish men, Muslim women and Sikh men from wearing their "religious symbols" (kippahs, hijabs and turbans) in certain professions (teacher, judge, police officer, prison guard). In so doing, they are taking away people's constitutionally guaranteed right to the free exercise of religion. So yes, let's use this Popper quote that you've put here as a rallying cry to use every legal and peaceful method to stop tolerating the intolerance being perpetrated by the Quebec government. I'm pretty sure this is the opposite of what you meant, but the quote lends itself nicely to that.
@kimfreeborn
3 жыл бұрын
@@minskdhaka Actually that is what I meant. And it was perfectly obvious.
@jemandoondame2581
3 жыл бұрын
@@minskdhaka If you want to understand Tolerance read Rainer Forst's writing on tolerance and democracy.
@JohnCenaFan6298
2 жыл бұрын
Sounds gae and reeks of lack of introspection. If only we had a society which engages in rational argument. No problem. Except one side doesn't and in fact has and will place into law ways of not allowing certain speech. Corporations and various measures are put into place to ostracize contrary thought. Imagine being Popper and assuming rationality from people who do not even believe in objective morality or virtue. So much for fairness if it's not necessary to be charitable and so much for truth either if u are not guided by virtue Also, yes, i would prefer Sharia Law to secularism. Dear God it's cringe enough listening to progressive liberals
@LMR72
2 жыл бұрын
@@minskdhaka The law must be neutral, if you can't even set your religious symbols aside when you act as a judge or police officer, you are clearly not fit for that job.
@hemlock527
2 жыл бұрын
"the diversity view recognises there are a plurality of goals, and you have to SOMEHOW balance them". Agreed, but is the new left "scapegoating" the difficulty of the "somehow" onto the so-called "uneducated" classes who arguably live with the more challenging aspects of the "somehow"?
Пікірлер: 12