Does tolerance stem from a recognition that other viewpoints may be correct? Does intolerance stem from a conviction that no other viewpoint is correct?
If so, does the difference between tolerant and intolerant people lie in the degree of certainty in their respective positions? Perhaps tolerant people are uncertain of their positions, while intolerant people are certain of their positions. The tolerant view the intolerant as arrogant in presuming that their position is certain, while the intolerant view the tolerant as equivocal and incapable of staking out firm positions.
Where do you stand? Are you tolerant, and if you are, does your tolerance stem from uncertainty?
The source of demarcation presented between practitioners of tolerance and intolerance seems too broad of a generalization. Though I agree that there are instances where the degree of tolerance (or intolerance) is dependent on the degree of certainty, there are more variables which come into play.
ReplyDeleteTwo people may be equally convinced of a certain value, but one may hold it in far higher regard than the other, thus making this value more important to him. All agree that both murder and gossip are “bad” activities; however society is much more tolerant towards a gossiper than a murderer.
You (both) seem to not understand that tolerance comes often from being realistic about the other person. Based on what they know and believe, what they say or do is perfectly reasonable for (or to) them. Expecting them to think, say or do as you do is unreasonable, unless or until they know and/or believe as you do.
ReplyDeleteSometimes, tolerating the intolerable is the only way to bring the offender close enough to listen, so they can be educated sufficiently to even consider your position.
Since there's always the chance that exchange of ideas could result in yourself, rather than the other person, changing position, it seems to me that a significant amount of intolerance actually comes from INsecurity with one's position, since intolerance greatly reduces the chance of that exchange, and thus can be seen as sometimes a protective measure for one's position.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJayScott: If tolerance was solely a result of ones being realistic of another’s background and condition, then the tolerance should be all-encompassing. However we find that people are tolerant of certain activities and not others, although the same background can be ascribed to be the source of all activities.
ReplyDeleteYou also seem to understand tolerance as the willingness to exchange ideas, you therefore write that tolerance may be a useful technique in educating the “offender” or intolerance may come from the insecurity of being convinced of the other position. There is an additional aspect of tolerance which comprises of an attitude, an outlook, the way one perceives opposing thoughts and ideas. Does one demonize beholders of conflicting approaches or not. It is very plausible that an intolerant individual may not shirk interaction and debate, yet within the confines of his home vilify his opposition.
I was referring primarily to tolerance of opposing ideologies. If you are 100% certain that murder for the sake of pleasure is wrong, can you be tolerant of an ideology that says murder for the sake of pleasure is right?
ReplyDelete