According to Sponville, tolerance "is intrisically limited; an infinite tolerance would mean the end of tolerance!" (161). He states that tolerance at base value means "to accept what could be condemned or allow what could prevented or combated" (159). However, he states that accepting the actions of intolerant would cause tolerance to be meaningless. I think that the same could be said of every other virtue, for a person cannot be tolerant of unjust who use the innocent and the haters who display their hatred in violence against others. Tolerance as a virtue acceptance is always used in relation to a specific situation and that situation must be evaluated via the other virtues before tolerance can be applied. I applaud Sponville for being very specific with his definition for tolerance. He states, "Whether a specific individual, group, or behavior should be tolerated depends…on how dangerous they really are" (161). Because tolerance is a virtue that can only be used in specific situations, it is a "small virtue that suits us" (172). The other reason Sponville says tolerance is a very graspable and human virtue is that it does not require anything internal on our part.
According to Sponville, we tolerate actions on the outside only because "we all feel so very incapable of love or respect toward our adversaries…" (172). I find this notion an interesting point of view, and the answer might turn to semantics again. Tolerance is at the bottom of a totem pole of "virtueness." Virtues, such as mercy, love, and compassion, that require an internal, emotional feeling seem to be at the top, and they are the hardest to learn. In essence, they cannot be learned per se, for they cannot be automatically manufactured and presented externally. Rather, these virtues must be practiced and the feeling may come eventually. Qualities like knowing and understanding another person are intellectual states. It seems as if Sponville places toleration even below those qualities - it "is therefore a passable solution" (172). Tolerance, like politeness, can be manufactured - it is action-based. Kant can tolerate someone's lecture on the greatness of utilitarianism by simply saying or doing nothing in response against the lecturer. This separation between loving, knowing, and tolerating is something we have already explored in blogs and in class, and I found it interesting how Sponville placed tolerance into the discussion. However, I agree that this action-based virtue of tolerance is important. What good is the feeling of love if the action is not present? Furthermore, just as tolerance is discerning between dangerous situations and harmless ones, so is love and friendship. Friendships, too, should end if they are conflicted by a universal virtue, like justice.
“Is it necessarily a sign of intolerance to think that certain things are intolerable?” “Does being tolerant mean tolerating everything?” (157) Comte-Sponville opens his chapter on tolerance with these questions asked of French students on the baccalaureate examination. He responds to these questions with a resounding, “No!” C-S suggests that "universal tolerance" is both immoral and self-contradictory, as the very essence of tolerance is “to accept what could be condemned or allow what could be prevented or combated. It means renouncing some of one’s power, strength, or anger.” (159) Allowing racism and torture to continue out of tolerance is clearly unethical. Tolerance requires a sacrifice on our part—a sacrifice of our own interests in order to maintain another individual's freedom to hold their own beliefs and take their own actions, as long as they are not harmful to others. Do you believe that tolerance always requires a sacrifice? Can one tolerate an event or action in order to ultimately receive a positive reinforcement? Is this truly considered tolerance?
Though tolerance is presented as a virtue and a positive character trait, C-S questions the reader at the chapter's end, "When we tolerate other people’s opinions, are we not implying that we consider them inferior or erroneous?" (170) He leaves the reader with a bitter taste in their mouth in respect to the concept of tolerance. “Tolerance is obviously not an ideal,” he quotes Abauzit. (171, 172) Tolerance is suggested to be a substitute virtue. When we fail the capacity to practice the virtues of love and respect toward our enemies and their opinions, we simply practice tolerance in order to remain civil, virtuous individuals. In other words, “tolerance is wisdom and virtue for all those—like ourselves—who are neither wise nor saintly.” (171) Do you agree with C-S's assertion that tolerance is simply a beginning virtue that we practice until we master the virtue of love, or do you believe that tolerance is a useful virtue that must itself be matured and developed? Why would C-S include such a "small" virtue so far into the text if it is simply a stepping-stone?
One last thought to ponder on the note of tolerance as a stepping-stone: Can tolerance and love be practiced simultaneously? I had to make a connection to love somehow. :)
I would just like to reiterate what this chapter starts out saying: “To philosophize is to think without the benefit of proof (if proofs exist, it is no longer philosophy), which is not to say that any thought and all ways of thinking are, philosophically speaking, equally valid” (157). This means that all of our opinions are right, and all of our opinions are wrong. Once one of us can prove our opinion, it’s no longer our philosophy. Thus as long as we write the papers, and analyze C-S and contribute our opinion, we are being philosophers and learning philosophy and thus deserve A’s. (Right?)
I agree with C-S that tolerance has no place in science. “A science advances only be correcting its mistakes; it cannot be asked to tolerate them” (159). This is oh, so right. We would be nowhere if scientists weren’t always correcting their mistakes. Imagine if we still believed Ptolemy and that the Earth is the center of the universe? We would be very confused. Thank god, Copernicus came around and corrected the universe.
“The problem of tolerance arises only in matters of opinion, which is why it arises so often, indeed almost constantly. We know far less than we do not know, and everything we know depends, directly or indirectly, on something we do not know” (159). This is an excellent point. We only need to be tolerant of others when we don’t agree with them. We only need to be tolerant of laws when we don’t think they should be followed. But we as humans do not know everything, at least not yet. So we need to be tolerant of others until they are proven wrong. Unless we are the ones proven wrong then we must be the ones tolerated.
I definitely think that love and tolerance can be practiced at the same time. We must tolerate our loved one’s shortcomings, annoying habits, and quirks. Unless we can tolerate these things, I think it might be impossible to love. For how can you love and live and be around if you are constantly being annoyed?
I had never thought too much about how tolerance affects my life until reading this chapter and understanding that it actually plays a huge part in my own life philosophy and political views. When I was a Junior in high school, I chose to read the book 1984 by George Orwell. Until then, I was probably a somewhat “intolerant” person in my mind, not very willing to accept what others thought was ‘right’ or ‘okay’ if I completely disagreed with it. Therefore I was a basic supporter of more government power over people’s lives as long as I agreed with what it was enforcing. After reading 1984, my opinion couldn’t have changed more. Within the first couple of chapters of the book, I came to a major epiphany: I realized that as much as I disagreed with some people about certain major issues, I was so glad that those people were allowed to hold those views in our country. I realized that more important than what I think is politically, socially, or governmentally ‘right‘ was the freedom of every person to have his or her own opinion and to be able to live according to what they personally deem ‘right‘ as long as it does not harm anyone else. This is now the fundamental basis for my political views.
I realize NOW that this has a lot to do with tolerance. Comte-Sponville states, “Tolerance has value only when exercised against one‘s own interests and for the sake of someone else’s” (160). This quotation exemplifies what I mean. I may believe that a certain choice is wrong, but I believe strongly that everyone should have the right and the freedom to make his/her own choice. The choice another person makes my counter my own ‘interests‘ but as long as it is not harming myself or others, I must (if I am to be tolerant) allow them to make that choice. In doing thus, I am kind of celebrating that person’s freedom and my own, and practicing tolerance. It makes perfect sense from a utilitarian standpoint as well. If the tables were turned, I would want that concept applied to myself as well as any others, therefore the concept is quite universal as long as we keep in mind the added rule “as long as his/her choice is not harming others.”
As for tolerance requiring a personal sacrifice, I believe that in some ways, yes, every act of tolerance requires a bit of sacrifice. We all have some very intense personal beliefs that we hold very dear. If we see someone going against any of those beliefs, it can become very hard to bear and very difficult to allow. Tolerance, then, requires that we put aside those temptations to undermine that person’s autonomy and go on to practice a virtue that respects and upholds that person’s autonomy. Resisting these temptations is a sacrificial act; however, the amount of difficulty can change with each situation and even over time.
I also love the point Ellen makes when she says, "So we need to be tolerant of others until they are proven wrong. Unless we are the ones proven wrong then we must be the ones tolerated." We cannot assume that we know everything about anything (i.e. a situation, a person's beliefs, a person's motives, a person's background, etc.) and therefore we can't act as if we know everything. Therefore, we must be tolerant of others' beliefs and actions so long as they do not cause harm to others, because we must accept that we don't know everything. Comte-Sponville makes this point by stating, "We know far less than we do not know, and everything we know depends, directly or indirectly, on something we do not know" (159). Accepting that we don't know everything can also be a sacrifice within itself, making tolerance even harder, but still extremely important for a free society.
Thus far, tolerance is the only virtue that Comte-Sponville directly states should not be put into practice on a constant basis. He says, for example, that “Unlike love and generosity, which have no inherent boundaries or finitude except those imposed by our own personal incapacities, tolerance is intrinsically limited; an infinite tolerance would mean the end of tolerance!” (page 161) What he essentially implies is that being tolerant of everything in our lives would ultimately spawn intolerance; it makes no sense, for example, to tolerate any form of evil (C-S again uses the example of Nazism) because we simply should not accept the causes of suffering that affect our fellow human beings (page 160).
In particular, I was fascinated by the logic of Karl Popper and feel that the quote included on page 162 exemplifies the “sometimes virtuous” nature of tolerance quite well. C-S and Popper both agree that it is oftentimes necessary for us to tolerate even those who are intolerant; C-S states that “it must be applicable unilaterally and include people who do not practice it themselves.” (page 161) Popper, however, explains that tolerance is in no way synonymous with passivity and argues that when intolerant groups pose a threat to society—either by direct harm or by furthering the spread of intolerance—that it is our responsibility to quell these movements, with force is necessary. I find it incredibly ironic, and certainly interesting, that tolerance is the first virtue that occasionally mandates that we be intolerant of those who are not proponents.
It can consequently be said that tolerance is unique in the sense that it is an enforceable virtue, whereas all others serve a more moral or religious purpose. Being intolerant can oftentimes lead to an infringement upon the rights of others, which ultimately progenies such atrocities as the Holocaust and the Rwandan genocide. As C-S explains throughout the chapter, it is a lack of tolerance that eventually leads to the creation of totalitarian states, which are the highest form of intolerance. His arguments lead me to believe that, in certain situations, we must ironically combat intolerance by being intolerant ourselves — a concept that I had never considered.
I like Ellen's logic about us all getting A's so long as we don't support our Opinions (because then it wouldn't be philosophy, right? which is the subject we need to be writing on). Tolerance is not exactly one of my favorite virtues. While it seems easy enough when thought about simplistically (see what I did there? Virtue of the Week tie in), i.e. that we should get along with one another and accept each other's differences, I feel as if it is never quite that simple. But, as C-S states, “Tolerance has value only when exercised against one‘s own interests and for the sake of someone else’s” (160), which I cannot agree with any more. There is, in no case, any instance of tolerance wherein you do it for yourself (unless you're in some kind of man vs. self conflict, I guess, in which case, you might need outside help anyway). Also, tolerance, for me, is usually associated with people falling short of my own expectations and standards (despite however tall or short those may be) and thus it is hard to believe, and tolerate, that other's can disappoint so. So it truly is a self-sacrifice because, more often than not, to tolerate such a let down, one must lower their standards and accept people's faults (whether or not you can relate). - John N
I agree with the the point that a few people have already made in the above posts that tolerance need not be practiced on a daily basis and that it is put into practice when we are not in agreement with others. When we come into conflict with differing opinions, tolerance comes into play. Like C-S and many people mentioned today in class, though, it is alright sometimes to be intolerant when it is necessary. I must second Andrea's statement that it is ironic that we sometimes must combat intolerance by being intolerant ourselves. I likewise never have thought of that before, and it is a very interesting point that C-S makes.
I also must agree with most of you and with Compte-Sponville in that I do not think tolerance is something that should be practiced always. And for obvious reasons, it should be considered a hindrance at times. As mentioned by C-S and in above posts, when it is atrocities that are asked to be tolerated, it is intolerance that would be the virtue.
This chapter is interesting to me in that it seems to somewhat deny postmodernist thought and yet uphold it to a certain extent at the same time. It denies it in that C-S clearly points out that there are some things that are intrinsically wrong and evil, while denying that there is an absolute truth of the universe. At first, I found this a little contradictory, but it is beginning to make more sense. I think. He is saying that there are absolute evil things and things that are never justifiable, like when people harm each other for example. However, he is also saying, that there is no absolute truth behind anything. Here is where the postmodernism comes into play. C-S questions our knowing of anything and questions our questioning of what we know and how little that amount is. In doing this, he concludes that the declaration of a dogmatic truth “leads to intolerance” (168) because it does not allow anyone else to be right and encourages, if not promotes, a degradation of others simply because of their beliefs. That would deny autonomy. I really like Kaylan’s statement that tolerance is “kind of celebrating that person’s freedom.” I completely agree. I think that tolerance is not just merely an act of simply being kind to someone on the surface despite having disagreements with them, but is really an acceptance of who that person is and what they believe without necessarily trying to force our own beliefs upon him or her.
I loved the quote that "an infinite tolerance would mean the end of tolerance." Tolerance, in my mind, is a virtue that really exemplifies Aristotle's golden mean: at the one extreme, you have an anarchy of morality where all ideas are permitted; at the other, an intellectual police state where none are. I think that with this virtue the middle is narrower than others--one must tolerate views while not necessarily accepting them.
One thing that I find interesting about tolerance is the degree that we must tolerate views that society finds obviously wrong. Should views that are racist be tolerated, or banned? They are obviously evil and toxic for society, and does not the interest of society dictate that perhaps it is better to not support at least some opposing views?
In Europe, they seem to have decided that tolerance is not absolute. In France, for example, they have banned the burka, which is a shot at fundamentalist Islam. In Germany, pretty much anything endorsing Nazism is illegal. Is such "intolerance" good or bad? I don't know, and I'm not sure this chapter gives an answer one way or the other.
Comte-Sponville writes that “Every believer, however convinced he is that he is right, must acknowledge that he cannot prove that he is right, must recognize that his position is no different from that of any of his adversaries, who are just as convinced as he is and just as incapable of convincing him” (165). As C-S discusses at some length in his chapter on tolerance, this is getting at the heart of what has long bothered me about organized religion. I highly value individual autonomy and the right of others to make their own opinion. How could we ever have a just society without this necessity? How do any of us have the right to tell others what they are to believe—in fact to believe that they are sinners for not believing as we do? I’d never before read the parts of John Paul II’s encyclical that C-S quotes in this chapter—never before read him say that “there can be no freedom apart from or in opposition to the truth” (168). I hate this kind of thinking. I was once told in a religion class that we should blindly follow the teachings of the Church because smarter, more spiritually-aware people have thought about these things and written about these things in more depth than I could ever hope to. I was asked in the class, don’t you trust your doctors to make medical decisions for you because they know more medicine than you do? In the same way, you should trust the Church’s theologians. I kept my mouth shut as I thought, of course I don’t blindly trust my doctors because they know more medicine than I do, and in the same way I do not blindly trust any theologian. Being commanded to think in a certain way feels like a personal affront—an attack on my most private self—my mind. Yet as much as I hate intolerance by others—intolerance directed at me, am I never guilty of it myself? C-S says that tolerance is one of the easiest of the virtues, an accessible virtue and well within our reach. I started to question this as I thought more about what C-S had to say about tolerance in relation to politics. Christianity pervades America’s government and body of laws. This usually doesn’t bother me much—I’m a Christian, and I tend to think this is the “right” path. (How could I believe without believing it is “right?”). Where is the line drawn? C-S writes that we need common laws—“Certainly we need them, but only in areas where commonality exists” (169). C-S writes this as if there is an easy answer—as if the question of where commonality exists is intuitively obvious. I disagree. The question of the legality of abortion has always bothered me for this reason. I believe it is wrong—but is this really clear-cut enough for me to decide for other people if it is wrong? How far does this extend? Is this a necessary commonality or simply intolerance? I always think of myself as a “tolerant” person—embracing differences, but being able to truly do this, without any judgment, is much easier said than done.
Like most of the virtues, I think that tolerance is a good and necessary thing. I really like Kaylan's point on tolerance as long as it doesn't harm you. Gay marriage is an example of this. However, there is the argument that gay marriage weakens the sanctity of marriage and the idea of family. People do argue that gay marriage is a detriment to society as a whole. So I wonder how proximate the damage to a person has to be before they no longer have the obligation to be tolerant of it. Pornography is something that is largely frowned upon, and there are a some groups who think that it should be illegal. But there are portions of the Bible that could easily be viewed as pornographic, and I doubt that those same groups would want to ban the Bible. I wouldn't want to ban the Bible, I like it. So, I have to be tolerant of pornography if I want to keep the Bible. I am somewhat split on the idea that tolerance requires sacrifice. In a way, I can see that maybe it is not easy to see people disagreeing with you, but on the other hand, it's not really your business. And it not being "your business" is another idea of tolerance that I have some degree of difficulty reconciling with. If we see somebody committing suicide, we are obligated to stop them. And suicide doesn't harm anybody except for that person (except the people who find the body and are in charge of cleaning up the mess. But there are ways to commit suicide that circumvent all of those drawbacks. Drowning in a river is a good example.). But, if we have an obligation to stop somebody from killing themselves, don't we have an obligation to stop somebody from doing something intrinsically evil, even if it doesn't harm us. Don't we have some degree of responsibility for the spiritual well-being of our neighbor? JJ Ruwe
According to Sponville, tolerance "is intrisically limited; an infinite tolerance would mean the end of tolerance!" (161). He states that tolerance at base value means "to accept what could be condemned or allow what could prevented or combated" (159). However, he states that accepting the actions of intolerant would cause tolerance to be meaningless. I think that the same could be said of every other virtue, for a person cannot be tolerant of unjust who use the innocent and the haters who display their hatred in violence against others. Tolerance as a virtue acceptance is always used in relation to a specific situation and that situation must be evaluated via the other virtues before tolerance can be applied. I applaud Sponville for being very specific with his definition for tolerance. He states, "Whether a specific individual, group, or behavior should be tolerated depends…on how dangerous they really are" (161). Because tolerance is a virtue that can only be used in specific situations, it is a "small virtue that suits us" (172). The other reason Sponville says tolerance is a very graspable and human virtue is that it does not require anything internal on our part.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Sponville, we tolerate actions on the outside only because "we all feel so very incapable of love or respect toward our adversaries…" (172). I find this notion an interesting point of view, and the answer might turn to semantics again. Tolerance is at the bottom of a totem pole of "virtueness." Virtues, such as mercy, love, and compassion, that require an internal, emotional feeling seem to be at the top, and they are the hardest to learn. In essence, they cannot be learned per se, for they cannot be automatically manufactured and presented externally. Rather, these virtues must be practiced and the feeling may come eventually. Qualities like knowing and understanding another person are intellectual states. It seems as if Sponville places toleration even below those qualities - it "is therefore a passable solution" (172). Tolerance, like politeness, can be manufactured - it is action-based. Kant can tolerate someone's lecture on the greatness of utilitarianism by simply saying or doing nothing in response against the lecturer. This separation between loving, knowing, and tolerating is something we have already explored in blogs and in class, and I found it interesting how Sponville placed tolerance into the discussion. However, I agree that this action-based virtue of tolerance is important. What good is the feeling of love if the action is not present? Furthermore, just as tolerance is discerning between dangerous situations and harmless ones, so is love and friendship. Friendships, too, should end if they are conflicted by a universal virtue, like justice.
“Is it necessarily a sign of intolerance to think that certain things are intolerable?” “Does being tolerant mean tolerating everything?” (157) Comte-Sponville opens his chapter on tolerance with these questions asked of French students on the baccalaureate examination. He responds to these questions with a resounding, “No!” C-S suggests that "universal tolerance" is both immoral and self-contradictory, as the very essence of tolerance is “to accept what could be condemned or allow what could be prevented or combated. It means renouncing some of one’s power, strength, or anger.” (159) Allowing racism and torture to continue out of tolerance is clearly unethical. Tolerance requires a sacrifice on our part—a sacrifice of our own interests in order to maintain another individual's freedom to hold their own beliefs and take their own actions, as long as they are not harmful to others. Do you believe that tolerance always requires a sacrifice? Can one tolerate an event or action in order to ultimately receive a positive reinforcement? Is this truly considered tolerance?
ReplyDeleteThough tolerance is presented as a virtue and a positive character trait, C-S questions the reader at the chapter's end, "When we tolerate other people’s opinions, are we not implying that we consider them inferior or erroneous?" (170) He leaves the reader with a bitter taste in their mouth in respect to the concept of tolerance. “Tolerance is obviously not an ideal,” he quotes Abauzit. (171, 172) Tolerance is suggested to be a substitute virtue. When we fail the capacity to practice the virtues of love and respect toward our enemies and their opinions, we simply practice tolerance in order to remain civil, virtuous individuals. In other words, “tolerance is wisdom and virtue for all those—like ourselves—who are neither wise nor saintly.” (171) Do you agree with C-S's assertion that tolerance is simply a beginning virtue that we practice until we master the virtue of love, or do you believe that tolerance is a useful virtue that must itself be matured and developed? Why would C-S include such a "small" virtue so far into the text if it is simply a stepping-stone?
One last thought to ponder on the note of tolerance as a stepping-stone:
Can tolerance and love be practiced simultaneously?
I had to make a connection to love somehow. :)
Happy reading.
I would just like to reiterate what this chapter starts out saying: “To philosophize is to think without the benefit of proof (if proofs exist, it is no longer philosophy), which is not to say that any thought and all ways of thinking are, philosophically speaking, equally valid” (157). This means that all of our opinions are right, and all of our opinions are wrong. Once one of us can prove our opinion, it’s no longer our philosophy. Thus as long as we write the papers, and analyze C-S and contribute our opinion, we are being philosophers and learning philosophy and thus deserve A’s. (Right?)
ReplyDeleteI agree with C-S that tolerance has no place in science. “A science advances only be correcting its mistakes; it cannot be asked to tolerate them” (159). This is oh, so right. We would be nowhere if scientists weren’t always correcting their mistakes. Imagine if we still believed Ptolemy and that the Earth is the center of the universe? We would be very confused. Thank god, Copernicus came around and corrected the universe.
“The problem of tolerance arises only in matters of opinion, which is why it arises so often, indeed almost constantly. We know far less than we do not know, and everything we know depends, directly or indirectly, on something we do not know” (159). This is an excellent point. We only need to be tolerant of others when we don’t agree with them. We only need to be tolerant of laws when we don’t think they should be followed. But we as humans do not know everything, at least not yet. So we need to be tolerant of others until they are proven wrong. Unless we are the ones proven wrong then we must be the ones tolerated.
I definitely think that love and tolerance can be practiced at the same time. We must tolerate our loved one’s shortcomings, annoying habits, and quirks. Unless we can tolerate these things, I think it might be impossible to love. For how can you love and live and be around if you are constantly being annoyed?
I had never thought too much about how tolerance affects my life until reading this chapter and understanding that it actually plays a huge part in my own life philosophy and political views. When I was a Junior in high school, I chose to read the book 1984 by George Orwell. Until then, I was probably a somewhat “intolerant” person in my mind, not very willing to accept what others thought was ‘right’ or ‘okay’ if I completely disagreed with it. Therefore I was a basic supporter of more government power over people’s lives as long as I agreed with what it was enforcing. After reading 1984, my opinion couldn’t have changed more. Within the first couple of chapters of the book, I came to a major epiphany: I realized that as much as I disagreed with some people about certain major issues, I was so glad that those people were allowed to hold those views in our country. I realized that more important than what I think is politically, socially, or governmentally ‘right‘ was the freedom of every person to have his or her own opinion and to be able to live according to what they personally deem ‘right‘ as long as it does not harm anyone else. This is now the fundamental basis for my political views.
ReplyDeleteI realize NOW that this has a lot to do with tolerance. Comte-Sponville states, “Tolerance has value only when exercised against one‘s own interests and for the sake of someone else’s” (160). This quotation exemplifies what I mean. I may believe that a certain choice is wrong, but I believe strongly that everyone should have the right and the freedom to make his/her own choice. The choice another person makes my counter my own ‘interests‘ but as long as it is not harming myself or others, I must (if I am to be tolerant) allow them to make that choice. In doing thus, I am kind of celebrating that person’s freedom and my own, and practicing tolerance. It makes perfect sense from a utilitarian standpoint as well. If the tables were turned, I would want that concept applied to myself as well as any others, therefore the concept is quite universal as long as we keep in mind the added rule “as long as his/her choice is not harming others.”
As for tolerance requiring a personal sacrifice, I believe that in some ways, yes, every act of tolerance requires a bit of sacrifice. We all have some very intense personal beliefs that we hold very dear. If we see someone going against any of those beliefs, it can become very hard to bear and very difficult to allow. Tolerance, then, requires that we put aside those temptations to undermine that person’s autonomy and go on to practice a virtue that respects and upholds that person’s autonomy. Resisting these temptations is a sacrificial act; however, the amount of difficulty can change with each situation and even over time.
I also love the point Ellen makes when she says, "So we need to be tolerant of others until they are proven wrong. Unless we are the ones proven wrong then we must be the ones tolerated." We cannot assume that we know everything about anything (i.e. a situation, a person's beliefs, a person's motives, a person's background, etc.) and therefore we can't act as if we know everything. Therefore, we must be tolerant of others' beliefs and actions so long as they do not cause harm to others, because we must accept that we don't know everything. Comte-Sponville makes this point by stating, "We know far less than we do not know, and everything we know depends, directly or indirectly, on something we do not know" (159). Accepting that we don't know everything can also be a sacrifice within itself, making tolerance even harder, but still extremely important for a free society.
Thus far, tolerance is the only virtue that Comte-Sponville directly states should not be put into practice on a constant basis. He says, for example, that “Unlike love and generosity, which have no inherent boundaries or finitude except those imposed by our own personal incapacities, tolerance is intrinsically limited; an infinite tolerance would mean the end of tolerance!” (page 161) What he essentially implies is that being tolerant of everything in our lives would ultimately spawn intolerance; it makes no sense, for example, to tolerate any form of evil (C-S again uses the example of Nazism) because we simply should not accept the causes of suffering that affect our fellow human beings (page 160).
ReplyDeleteIn particular, I was fascinated by the logic of Karl Popper and feel that the quote included on page 162 exemplifies the “sometimes virtuous” nature of tolerance quite well. C-S and Popper both agree that it is oftentimes necessary for us to tolerate even those who are intolerant; C-S states that “it must be applicable unilaterally and include people who do not practice it themselves.” (page 161) Popper, however, explains that tolerance is in no way synonymous with passivity and argues that when intolerant groups pose a threat to society—either by direct harm or by furthering the spread of intolerance—that it is our responsibility to quell these movements, with force is necessary. I find it incredibly ironic, and certainly interesting, that tolerance is the first virtue that occasionally mandates that we be intolerant of those who are not proponents.
It can consequently be said that tolerance is unique in the sense that it is an enforceable virtue, whereas all others serve a more moral or religious purpose. Being intolerant can oftentimes lead to an infringement upon the rights of others, which ultimately progenies such atrocities as the Holocaust and the Rwandan genocide. As C-S explains throughout the chapter, it is a lack of tolerance that eventually leads to the creation of totalitarian states, which are the highest form of intolerance. His arguments lead me to believe that, in certain situations, we must ironically combat intolerance by being intolerant ourselves — a concept that I had never considered.
I like Ellen's logic about us all getting A's so long as we don't support our Opinions (because then it wouldn't be philosophy, right? which is the subject we need to be writing on). Tolerance is not exactly one of my favorite virtues. While it seems easy enough when thought about simplistically (see what I did there? Virtue of the Week tie in), i.e. that we should get along with one another and accept each other's differences, I feel as if it is never quite that simple. But, as C-S states, “Tolerance has value only when exercised against one‘s own interests and for the sake of someone else’s” (160), which I cannot agree with any more. There is, in no case, any instance of tolerance wherein you do it for yourself (unless you're in some kind of man vs. self conflict, I guess, in which case, you might need outside help anyway). Also, tolerance, for me, is usually associated with people falling short of my own expectations and standards (despite however tall or short those may be) and thus it is hard to believe, and tolerate, that other's can disappoint so. So it truly is a self-sacrifice because, more often than not, to tolerate such a let down, one must lower their standards and accept people's faults (whether or not you can relate).
ReplyDelete- John N
I agree with the the point that a few people have already made in the above posts that tolerance need not be practiced on a daily basis and that it is put into practice when we are not in agreement with others. When we come into conflict with differing opinions, tolerance comes into play. Like C-S and many people mentioned today in class, though, it is alright sometimes to be intolerant when it is necessary. I must second Andrea's statement that it is ironic that we sometimes must combat intolerance by being intolerant ourselves. I likewise never have thought of that before, and it is a very interesting point that C-S makes.
ReplyDeleteI also must agree with most of you and with Compte-Sponville in that I do not think tolerance is something that should be practiced always. And for obvious reasons, it should be considered a hindrance at times. As mentioned by C-S and in above posts, when it is atrocities that are asked to be tolerated, it is intolerance that would be the virtue.
ReplyDeleteThis chapter is interesting to me in that it seems to somewhat deny postmodernist thought and yet uphold it to a certain extent at the same time. It denies it in that C-S clearly points out that there are some things that are intrinsically wrong and evil, while denying that there is an absolute truth of the universe. At first, I found this a little contradictory, but it is beginning to make more sense. I think. He is saying that there are absolute evil things and things that are never justifiable, like when people harm each other for example. However, he is also saying, that there is no absolute truth behind anything. Here is where the postmodernism comes into play. C-S questions our knowing of anything and questions our questioning of what we know and how little that amount is. In doing this, he concludes that the declaration of a dogmatic truth “leads to intolerance” (168) because it does not allow anyone else to be right and encourages, if not promotes, a degradation of others simply because of their beliefs. That would deny autonomy. I really like Kaylan’s statement that tolerance is “kind of celebrating that person’s freedom.” I completely agree. I think that tolerance is not just merely an act of simply being kind to someone on the surface despite having disagreements with them, but is really an acceptance of who that person is and what they believe without necessarily trying to force our own beliefs upon him or her.
I loved the quote that "an infinite tolerance would mean the end of tolerance." Tolerance, in my mind, is a virtue that really exemplifies Aristotle's golden mean: at the one extreme, you have an anarchy of morality where all ideas are permitted; at the other, an intellectual police state where none are. I think that with this virtue the middle is narrower than others--one must tolerate views while not necessarily accepting them.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that I find interesting about tolerance is the degree that we must tolerate views that society finds obviously wrong. Should views that are racist be tolerated, or banned? They are obviously evil and toxic for society, and does not the interest of society dictate that perhaps it is better to not support at least some opposing views?
In Europe, they seem to have decided that tolerance is not absolute. In France, for example, they have banned the burka, which is a shot at fundamentalist Islam. In Germany, pretty much anything endorsing Nazism is illegal. Is such "intolerance" good or bad? I don't know, and I'm not sure this chapter gives an answer one way or the other.
Comte-Sponville writes that “Every believer, however convinced he is that he is right, must acknowledge that he cannot prove that he is right, must recognize that his position is no different from that of any of his adversaries, who are just as convinced as he is and just as incapable of convincing him” (165). As C-S discusses at some length in his chapter on tolerance, this is getting at the heart of what has long bothered me about organized religion. I highly value individual autonomy and the right of others to make their own opinion. How could we ever have a just society without this necessity? How do any of us have the right to tell others what they are to believe—in fact to believe that they are sinners for not believing as we do? I’d never before read the parts of John Paul II’s encyclical that C-S quotes in this chapter—never before read him say that “there can be no freedom apart from or in opposition to the truth” (168). I hate this kind of thinking. I was once told in a religion class that we should blindly follow the teachings of the Church because smarter, more spiritually-aware people have thought about these things and written about these things in more depth than I could ever hope to. I was asked in the class, don’t you trust your doctors to make medical decisions for you because they know more medicine than you do? In the same way, you should trust the Church’s theologians. I kept my mouth shut as I thought, of course I don’t blindly trust my doctors because they know more medicine than I do, and in the same way I do not blindly trust any theologian. Being commanded to think in a certain way feels like a personal affront—an attack on my most private self—my mind.
ReplyDeleteYet as much as I hate intolerance by others—intolerance directed at me, am I never guilty of it myself? C-S says that tolerance is one of the easiest of the virtues, an accessible virtue and well within our reach. I started to question this as I thought more about what C-S had to say about tolerance in relation to politics. Christianity pervades America’s government and body of laws. This usually doesn’t bother me much—I’m a Christian, and I tend to think this is the “right” path. (How could I believe without believing it is “right?”). Where is the line drawn? C-S writes that we need common laws—“Certainly we need them, but only in areas where commonality exists” (169). C-S writes this as if there is an easy answer—as if the question of where commonality exists is intuitively obvious. I disagree. The question of the legality of abortion has always bothered me for this reason. I believe it is wrong—but is this really clear-cut enough for me to decide for other people if it is wrong? How far does this extend? Is this a necessary commonality or simply intolerance? I always think of myself as a “tolerant” person—embracing differences, but being able to truly do this, without any judgment, is much easier said than done.
Like most of the virtues, I think that tolerance is a good and necessary thing. I really like Kaylan's point on tolerance as long as it doesn't harm you. Gay marriage is an example of this. However, there is the argument that gay marriage weakens the sanctity of marriage and the idea of family. People do argue that gay marriage is a detriment to society as a whole. So I wonder how proximate the damage to a person has to be before they no longer have the obligation to be tolerant of it. Pornography is something that is largely frowned upon, and there are a some groups who think that it should be illegal. But there are portions of the Bible that could easily be viewed as pornographic, and I doubt that those same groups would want to ban the Bible. I wouldn't want to ban the Bible, I like it. So, I have to be tolerant of pornography if I want to keep the Bible.
ReplyDeleteI am somewhat split on the idea that tolerance requires sacrifice. In a way, I can see that maybe it is not easy to see people disagreeing with you, but on the other hand, it's not really your business. And it not being "your business" is another idea of tolerance that I have some degree of difficulty reconciling with. If we see somebody committing suicide, we are obligated to stop them. And suicide doesn't harm anybody except for that person (except the people who find the body and are in charge of cleaning up the mess. But there are ways to commit suicide that circumvent all of those drawbacks. Drowning in a river is a good example.). But, if we have an obligation to stop somebody from killing themselves, don't we have an obligation to stop somebody from doing something intrinsically evil, even if it doesn't harm us. Don't we have some degree of responsibility for the spiritual well-being of our neighbor?
JJ Ruwe