It was pointed out to me a while back that the paradox of tolerance is only a paradox if you consider tolerance to be a philosophical position.
In fact, we don’t treat it like that. We treat it as a social contract, in which context it is no paradox at all to say that if you aren’t tolerant then other people aren’t obliged to tolerate you in turn
The term paradox was used because it comes from the “so much for the tolerant X” instances during mid XXth century. It’s the incorrect assumption that tolerance is somehow a foundational principle of some ideology, mainly left, socialist and communist ideology; just because they were protesting intolerant policy and stances from the right. The right stupidly believes that this means that the left advocates for unlimited tolerance of everything as an extension of fundamental freedoms, like free speech and free thought.
This was at a time when the debate on the lawful limits of freedom in democracies was raging. In comes Karl Popper and produces the formal philosophical formulation of the paradox. He starts at freedom and demonstrates that in order for a free open and peaceful society to exist, then they must be tolerant, but, they must not held tolerance as a tenet, instead being intolerant of any intolerance. It is important as the first philosophical formulation of liberal democratic thinking. It actually distances itself from communism because, according to Popper, communism and even socialism will always end up in bloodshed, violence, and suffering.
The concept of social contract was not unknown to Popper, but it was not necessary for his argument to make sense. For, since Weber, it’s understood as a given that wherever humans happen to live in community, some form of social contract will exist. Popper is not concerned with the existence of the contract, but to argue about its content.
That realization was life-changing for me. It finally gave me the clarity to walk away from toxic relationships, knowing they were the ones holding back any real growth.
The only downside is that trying to explain this to someone intolerant just gets you labeled, quote, “a stupid science bitch who can’t make them smarter.”
It was pointed out to me a while back that the paradox of tolerance is only a paradox if you consider tolerance to be a philosophical position.
In fact, we don’t treat it like that. We treat it as a social contract, in which context it is no paradox at all to say that if you aren’t tolerant then other people aren’t obliged to tolerate you in turn
The term paradox was used because it comes from the “so much for the tolerant X” instances during mid XXth century. It’s the incorrect assumption that tolerance is somehow a foundational principle of some ideology, mainly left, socialist and communist ideology; just because they were protesting intolerant policy and stances from the right. The right stupidly believes that this means that the left advocates for unlimited tolerance of everything as an extension of fundamental freedoms, like free speech and free thought.
This was at a time when the debate on the lawful limits of freedom in democracies was raging. In comes Karl Popper and produces the formal philosophical formulation of the paradox. He starts at freedom and demonstrates that in order for a free open and peaceful society to exist, then they must be tolerant, but, they must not held tolerance as a tenet, instead being intolerant of any intolerance. It is important as the first philosophical formulation of liberal democratic thinking. It actually distances itself from communism because, according to Popper, communism and even socialism will always end up in bloodshed, violence, and suffering.
The concept of social contract was not unknown to Popper, but it was not necessary for his argument to make sense. For, since Weber, it’s understood as a given that wherever humans happen to live in community, some form of social contract will exist. Popper is not concerned with the existence of the contract, but to argue about its content.
This here - the social contract view needs to be widely adopted
Agreed. Respect for what is essentially the golden rule is the bare minimum to be accepted by a rational society.
That realization was life-changing for me. It finally gave me the clarity to walk away from toxic relationships, knowing they were the ones holding back any real growth.
The only downside is that trying to explain this to someone intolerant just gets you labeled, quote, “a stupid science bitch who can’t make them smarter.”
science bitches are the best kind
smart is sexy!