Toleration

[Starbuck]

I'm unsure how these examples fit.
One must accept and tolerate that outside one's influence. One must be intolerant of that which may be detrimental if one has influence within or over the situation.

Thom Paine

When I created those two examples, I was trying to create one in which the individual has apparent agency to change the situation and another where that agency either doesn't exist or is less apparent.

I was thinking that toleration has a lot to do with the ability to actually change the circumstances. In other words, if I don't have the power to change/ alter something it's not really tolerance.

 

[Fearandloathing]

That is a good point, however I think the questions were meant more broadly.

Regardless, I'm quite sure the professor is trying to use a topic that is likely to incite disagreements in order to keep students focused on the lesson at hand. The reading associated with these questions followed Socratic Questioning. So I think it's more an exercise to get people to question deeply held beliefs.

See my previous quote.

 

[Starbuck]

"Tolerance" in and of itself has at least an elitist quality, that someone has the means to bestow this great "gift" upon one like a billionaire inviting one homeless man to a party for 50. That homeless man will go, because he's hungry and he will swallow his pride, allow himself to be used as a "feel good prop" while what he really needed was a meal and a one on one chat for an hour, what we all really want, eh?

That's an amazing response, and I agree completely, although I don't think we are there yet.

Right now, I think we have a lot of toleration to work through before we get to acceptance, societally speaking anyway. However, maybe that's a better approach to the whole thing. Especially when addressing the barriers to toleration and encouraging tolerance. Maybe its slightly disingenuous, but maybe the best way to gain toleration is through pushing for something more than toleration.

Perhaps, we will never reach a true level of acceptance, but through pushing for it we might actually reach a much higher level of tolerance.

Keep your tolerance, please don't encourage any more. It's intolerable.

Again, great response. I might hijack this idea, if you don't mind.

If its a real philosophy class, fill that in with a search a quote or two, maybe check out Zarathrustra, he's capricious enough for a Philo 101 prof.

If he has a sense of humor though, you're screwed.

If the first class is any indication of his sense of humor, I'm sure I'm safe.

I'll give the Nietzsche quote a try, however I'll have to be careful in how I deploy that. I'm going back to school pretty late in the game, and fortunately most people still confuse me for a high schooler, so I don't want to ruin that perception.

Simply put, I want to continue with the perception that I'm straight out of school.

 

[Starbuck]

See my previous quote.

I did, great post.

 

[Starbuck]

not the same thing. indifference is a lack of concern or interest. with intolerance you can be concerned but not make an effort to inhibit another persons actions or interfere in their lives because of it

I think, even with just inactive intolerance that contributes to active intolerance.

 

[Starbuck]

Tolerance is the concept that people won't be killed injured or jailed for something. Tolerance is a growing thing. At one time women wearing pants wasn't tolerated. Now it's hardly noticed. Molesting children isn't tolerated, nor is murder.

That is a good point, stuff that was once tolerated is now just part of society.

Out of curiosity, I wonder if at some point previous to it not being tolerated for women to wear pants, there was a time when it was acceptable for that to happen. Can toleration act like a pendulum?

At one point in history, Iran actually had a better record for gender equality than the United States. Sadly this is something that was largely undone in the 1970's, I wonder if there is actually a point at which something becomes irreversible?

 

[Starbuck]

Tolerance is leaving alone or bearing things that don't harm or effect you or other third parties.

What if it did harm a third party, yet you allowed it to continue?

Is that not tolerance?

Accordinly, it is not, as is often claimed,ideologically inconsistent to be intolerant of intolerance.

I can see where you are coming from, and I think this makes sense. Conversely, do you think it's possible to tolerate intolerance? Is that ideologically consistent?

 

[Cameron]

What if it did harm a third party, yet you allowed it to continue?

Is that not tolerance?

That is what I would call sufferance.

I can see where you are coming from, and I think this makes sense. Conversely, do you think it's possible to tolerate intolerance? Is that ideologically consistent?

To the extent intolerance hurts people, which it often does in a political form, it would be inconsistent to tolerate it.

 

[Thom Paine]

Agreed.

That makes a lot of sense, and you're definitely right about there being no definitive answer.

I completely agree that the definition, or at least application, of the word toleration in today's world is very cloudy. Personally, toleration as requiring two conditions to exist:

1. You must either disagree with, or feel discomfort from, an activity or idea.

2. You must have the agency to either change or stop this activity or idea.​

I don't think a lot of starving people in Haiti were 'tolerating' abject poverty. They were enduring and/ or surviving abject poverty, whereas I would tolerate the use of marijuana through participating in a vote that approves of it's legalization.

Through thinking about the topic for the past week, I've found that the definition of toleration is pretty black & white, but feel that the barriers are a bit cloudy, which is where your point that "there are no barriers to tolerance other than one's own mind" comes in. For the life of me, I've only been able to come up three barriers:

1. Ignorance, for obvious reasons.

2. The need for validation.

3. A feeling of a lack of control in one's own life.​

I really like, or dislike to tell you the truth, your thought about tolerating someone else's intolerance. If we were living in a country that didn't have the agency to stop or alter the intolerance of those in power in some Middle East nations, it would be easy to pawn this off on in ability. However, maybe we do have the power to change the way things are happening over there, does that make us complicit in their activities.

Or are we, as you've said, accepting their lack of toleration for our own self-serving reasons?

Regardless, thanks for the response.

Interesting thoughts on tolerance... though exercising agency to cause change is a possibly intolerant action.

As for "barriers", for lack of a better descriptive, ignorance is remedied over time as civilization matures; the other two are part and parcel of the human psyche and will most probably exist as long as mankind.

As an aside concerning the Middle East example, As a nation with the ability to influence some outcomes we are complicit in the actions if we interject ourselves too soon; conversely if we do not exercise our abilities at some point, we are also complicit by our lack of action. There is no defined line in the sand in this type of instance. Damned if we do; damned if we don't.

Tolerance is not an easily delineated point. Tolerance is an interpreted ideal with all the solidity of Jello gelatin.

Confuse you opponent ... smile

Have a great eve Starbuck

Thom Paine

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

I'll give the Nietzsche quote a try, however I'll have to be careful in how I deploy that. I'm going back to school pretty late in the game, and fortunately most people still confuse me for a high schooler, so I don't want to ruin that perception.

Simply put, I want to continue with the perception that I'm straight out of school.

Why cheat yourself out of a better educational experience by being deceitful? Are you trying to think like you are straight out of high school?

 

[Starbuck]

That is what I would call sufferance.

That's an interesting thought, I wonder who gets to draw the line between tolerance and sufferance.

To the extent intolerance hurts people, which it often does in a political form, it would be inconsistent to tolerate it.

I agree.

 

[Starbuck]

Why cheat yourself out of a better educational experience by being deceitful? Are you trying to think like you are straight out of high school?

Interesting point.

The way I see it, the class is designed for people straight out of high school. Perhaps over the duration of the course I don't mind people knowing that I'm not straight out of high school, but I want my participation in the class and it's discussions to be predicated upon my ideas as opposed to my experience. In other words, I don't want to be the old dude in the class.

The only benefit I could see from having people know that I'm older and have been around, is that they'll listen to me more. I don't necessarily want that, as I'd rather have the opportunity to blend in.

Maybe that makes sense, I'm not quite sure if I'm being totally rational about that. First time as a student in a long time, so I'm pretty new at this game.

 

[Starbuck]

Why cheat yourself out of a better educational experience by being deceitful? Are you trying to think like you are straight out of high school?

I don't know if it's necessarily being deceitful, so much as controlling peoples first impressions. In a philosophy class, I'd like to be judged based upon the merit of my ideas, as opposed to the depth of my experience.

 

[Starbuck]

Interesting thoughts on tolerance... though exercising agency to cause change is a possibly intolerant action.

I suppose you're got a point there, but where to draw the line?

Tolerance is not an easily delineated point. Tolerance is an interpreted ideal with all the solidity of Jello gelatin.

Confuse you opponent ... smile

Have a great eve Starbuck

Thom Paine

Likewise, thanks for the lively conversation.

 

[no_name]

Tolerance: Let's agree to disagree.

 

[opendebate]

Competition is something that I didn't really consider before. Perhaps competition could be a manifestation of a variety of factors, but it sounds like you're referring to something more instinctual. Do you think that a certain level of intolerance is built into the set of human instincts as part of a basic survival mechanism?

Yes, I do. I think the root of intolerance in a drive to protect your tribe or group. (your group survives, you survive)

 

[opendebate]

I think, even with just inactive intolerance that contributes to active intolerance.

I misspoke in my post. I meant to say with tolerance you can be concerned but not make an effort to ....
I typed intolerance by instead. My bad.

 

[Starbuck]

Yes, I do. I think the root of intolerance in a drive to protect your tribe or group. (your group survives, you survive)

When you really break it down, I agree.

People are a lot less complicated than most of us would like to admit. I like to think of us like water, it has some very basic rules that it will always follow, even when those rules are obscured and modified by an unlimited number of variables (i.e. altitude, temperature, incline, salinity, etc). Basically, the Mississippi River and the Ross Ice Shelf are both essentially made up of water, but to a totally ignorant party would appear to almost be entirely different substances.

I think people aren't much more complicated than that, it's variables within which we live that provide the complexity.

I misspoke in my post. I meant to say with tolerance you can be concerned but not make an effort to ....
I typed intolerance by instead. My bad.

That makes more sense.

 

[Starbuck]

Tolerance: Let's agree to disagree.

What if you agree to disagree, where I have no power to change anything anyway? Am I still tolerating you?

 

[_Sal]

That is a good point, stuff that was once tolerated is now just part of society.

Out of curiosity, I wonder if at some point previous to it not being tolerated for women to wear pants, there was a time when it was acceptable for that to happen. Can toleration act like a pendulum?

At one point in history, Iran actually had a better record for gender equality than the United States. Sadly this is something that was largely undone in the 1970's, I wonder if there is actually a point at which something becomes irreversible?

yes I believe that a society can back slide.

I think it is an excellent point that in some instances toleration is a bad thing it is not always good.

 

[_Sal]

indifference.

ignorance can also lead to allowing harm to be done.

 

[Logicman]

The New Tolerance: How a cultural movement threatens to destroy you, your faith, and your children: Bob Hostetler, Josh D. McDowell: 9780842370882: Amazon.com: Books



Liberal tolerance seeks to advance and protect their own unbiblical agenda.

 

[Ikari]

So I've decided to try the whole education thing out and have found my way into an entry level philosophy class. Anyway, an interesting series of questions came up and I figured I'd turn to this place for some conversation on the topic of toleration:

2. What is toleration?
6. What are some of the barriers that prevent us from being a tolerant society?
9. What are ways to encourage toleration?

What are your thoughts on toleration, as it applies to the U.S. and how we've developed as a nation over the past several hundred years.

Tolerance means to tolerate. Not everything is to be tolerated, but there are certain rights and activities that demand it. It doesn't mean you must agree, it doesn't mean you can't speak out or demonstrate against. It merely means you cannot use government force to prevent it.

 

[Rainman05]

Yes, I do. I think the root of intolerance in a drive to protect your tribe or group. (your group survives, you survive)

Ah, well, that's like... also the root of humanism, survival, prosperity, etc.

So if you think intolerance comes from a drive to protect the group you're part of, the group you identify with, then I'm sorry to inform you that intolerance is healthy. As in, to be intolerant means to be mentally and socially sane. If we go by your definition that is. I don't share your perspective coz you know... it's lame.

 

[opendebate]

When you really break it down, I agree.

People are a lot less complicated than most of us would like to admit. I like to think of us like water, it has some very basic rules that it will always follow, even when those rules are obscured and modified by an unlimited number of variables (i.e. altitude, temperature, incline, salinity, etc). Basically, the Mississippi River and the Ross Ice Shelf are both essentially made up of water, but to a totally ignorant party would appear to almost be entirely different substances.

I think people aren't much more complicated than that, it's variables within which we live that provide the complexity. .

I agree and i think that is the key us being able to get along peacefully with one another. When people see themselves in others or can see some sameness they tend to find them less threatening.