The last couple of years, there's been significant number of people and media India talking about "intolerance" becoming a part of an ugly side of Indian Society. While some part of the issues and incidents highlighted are political in nature, I think that in several cases, unfortunately there is merit to these allegations.
What is even more concerning is that this phenomenon seems to be rearing its ugly head across the globe. In Asia, Europe, America, ...
A few days ago, it came to the fore in Charlottesville, US.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/13/us/charlottesville-virginia-overview.html?mcubz=0
And this is when it becomes important for us to understand the Paradox of Tolerance and make a decision. Who are we and what do we want to do?
“
The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.
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. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
”
- Karl R. Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/25998-the-so-called-paradox-of-freedom-is-the-argument-that-freedom
For the audio-visual minded, here's an explanation of the paradox.
What is PARADOX OF TOLERANCE?
All of this leads to a fundamental question. Why should we be just tolerant. Can we not be accepting. And like most thoughts, someone, somewhere has already answered it. Extremely well.
Tolerance is a dirty word
Andrew Sayer - TEDxSemesterAtSea
And while we are on paradoxes, it would be great to check out 25 of them in 6 minutes.
25 CRAZIEST Paradoxes That Will Blow Your Mind
What is even more concerning is that this phenomenon seems to be rearing its ugly head across the globe. In Asia, Europe, America, ...
A few days ago, it came to the fore in Charlottesville, US.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/13/us/charlottesville-virginia-overview.html?mcubz=0
And this is when it becomes important for us to understand the Paradox of Tolerance and make a decision. Who are we and what do we want to do?
“
The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.
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. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
”
- Karl R. Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/25998-the-so-called-paradox-of-freedom-is-the-argument-that-freedom
For the audio-visual minded, here's an explanation of the paradox.
What is PARADOX OF TOLERANCE?
All of this leads to a fundamental question. Why should we be just tolerant. Can we not be accepting. And like most thoughts, someone, somewhere has already answered it. Extremely well.
Tolerance is a dirty word
Andrew Sayer - TEDxSemesterAtSea
And while we are on paradoxes, it would be great to check out 25 of them in 6 minutes.
25 CRAZIEST Paradoxes That Will Blow Your Mind
No comments:
Post a Comment