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. — Karl Popper
I actually do understand the words. Allow me to try this: does "unlimited tolerance" imply absolute - or even any - intolerance (as something itself to be tolerated)?...that there is no limit to what will be tolerated... — DingoJones
No should about it. That which makes no discrimination at all is dead, displaying the active discernment of a stone. Your application is a moral one, which really has nothing to do with discrimination qua.We should of course discriminate — Crazy Diamond
Mis-attributed, instead by Evelyn Beatrice Hall, as her paraphrase/summary of a piece of Voltaire's thinking. I, myself, am not smart enough to know this. But smart enough to suspect that maybe Voltaire did not, and would not have, said it, and apparently he did not.Voltaire's famous quote, "I disagree with what you say but I will fight for your right to say it", should be infamous. — Crazy Diamond
Freedom of the press is not simple. Indeed, it means different things in England and America, and for all I know, even different things in different countries, so that there are as many differing claims of freedom of the press as there are countries. I'm partial to the American model, though it's not perfect - and perhaps freedom of the press is imperfectible, and finds its perfection in the lack of it. A discrimination to be made here is between your model, which implicitly allows control by non-abusive power, and the American, which, within the bounds defined as free, is protected from any control. And there are, even in America, things that, if you say them, can put you in the way of criminal and civil penalties.The freedom of the press has only ever meant freedom from control by abusive power, — Crazy Diamond
Apparently "hate speech" is speech you would control. How? And at what cost? I gather that in England part of the control is through prior restraint: mere publishing can be a crime. In America publish away and take your chances! — tim wood
There is no dilemma. Unlimited tolerance equates to complete indifference - to being an immobile lump. Nobody that has thought about it advocates unlimited tolerance. — andrewk
I actually do understand the words. Allow me to try this: does "unlimited tolerance" imply absolute - or even any - intolerance (as something itself to be tolerated)? — tim wood
the problem is that tolerance prevents you from defending yourself, — khaled
not it wouldn't make sense to defend tolerance if you're pro tolerance because that would mean you're not tolerant towards the intolerant which makes YOU intolerant. — khaled
expressing your opinion is fine but trying to force it on someone else is not. Because that would mean you don't tolerate their beliefs and want to change them — khaled
ok cool so since you can't force your beliefs on others that is identical to not being able to defend yourself is it not? — khaled
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.