reply
- Feature
- Like
I do dislike when people are unable to discuss opinions, or when people accuse me of saying my opinion, as though it were a bad thing. I think it is more important toshare your opinion than to pretend like you agree with everyone in an effort to get along better. As long as each person whose ideas you challenge know that you respect them and their ideas or beliefs, then it is good to debate.
reply
- Feature
- Like
The ideal is to discuss and analyze different views, but there are few people I can do this with. I do not say what is in my mind, out of fear of offending. People with extreme view are the hardest to reach -- perhaps they have some sort of psychosis -- but they tend to be the most dangerous. All religions contain some guilty, but wouldn't it be good if we could reason with someone who has hidden an explosive device in his clothes before s/he boards a plane?
reply
- Feature
- Like
I like the second part better, i recently went to the museum of tolerance in manhattan, they showed me some disturbing video similar to john lennons 'happy x-mas' and continuly preeched the importance of being tolerant, but I felt that it was tolerance that played such a role in theese tragic atrocities, like when the germans tolerated Hitler.
reply
To address this question, a critical distinction must first be made between "truth" and "belief".
- Feature
- Like
To address this question, a critical distinction must first be made between "truth" and "belief".
Some truths are so straightforward and simple we almost by definition agree, such as color -- if an object is blue, we'll usually agree as much. As the subjects of a question fall further within a locus of the disputed, the uncertain and the unknown, differences of interpretation arise and divergent "beliefs" are formed and upheld.
For these questions, truths are things which beliefs strive to define, what beliefs attempt to discern from uncertainty.
Given the distinction, the author's question seems more one of tolerance versus belief. It also seems to me there is not a tradeoff, a mutual exclusivity, and thus any necessitated choice one needs to make between tolerance and belief. In fact, one hopes that believers are cognizant that their own beliefs are fallible, imperfect interpretations of meaning from the unknown and hold in kind a "humility of belief" in being very tolerant of others' differing beliefs, in recognition of the possible error in one's own.
Problems develop, however, when beliefs are not regarded in this manner but rather are pushed into the "truth" category, as in "my belief IS the truth". This is the "true believer", who has eschewed or lost the "humility of belief", and not surprisingly any and all tolerance for the differing beliefs of others.
I consider "true belief" as threatening and alarming as any purposeful departure from rationality would, and I think certain ugly drumbeats of history bear me out here. Personally, I'm freaking a bit at how quickly "true belief" is metastasizing in the US lately.
But hey, maybe that's just a "belief", right ?
reply
- Feature
- Like
"Truth" can be subjective from the start so it really depends what the topic is. Often, tolerance is the best answer. Tolerance actually shows a certain level of maturity. It's not complete ignorance... Of course, the best of all is to get beyond the "surface layer" but only few people can be respectable and unruffled when it comes to that.
reply
- Feature
- Like
It's all about communication! If he or she is willing to have an open mind and can see from your point of view than i think that the mutual tolerance can be achieved. as for the latter i guess you would just have to suck it up lol
reply
- Feature
- Like
No..nothing trumps the truth..adding truth,once found,..even though painful, is necessary ..Or the whole truth will never come into the picture and nothing changes....
reply
- Feature
- Like
Being able to decern between truth, and being right, trumps both, because it allows for both to co-exist.
reply
- Feature
- Like
Tolerance, alone, is not enough; tolerance, acceptance, and maybe some curiosity. There are fewer truth's every day.
reply
It absolutely does. This isn't to say that truth isn't important, but the war of intolerance tends to corrupt the message to where the truth becomes dogma. It's contents are unimportant save that the opposition submits. It becomes a game of insistence where merit could have been had.
- Feature
- Like
It absolutely does. This isn't to say that truth isn't important, but the war of intolerance tends to corrupt the message to where the truth becomes dogma. It's contents are unimportant save that the opposition submits. It becomes a game of insistence where merit could have been had.
Even on this site, watch as the intolerant butcher their own science in their zeal to slit a throat. Truth for them is their ideology, and defending that ideology has been reduced to name calling.
reply
We are in a social self-destruct mode where "personal rights from the society" are trumping "collective responsibilities to the society".
- Feature
- Like
We are in a social self-destruct mode where "personal rights from the society" are trumping "collective responsibilities to the society".
A society does need tolerance. And a society does need Truth.
Not the little "truths" that only hold for individuals or isolate them into small groups. It needs the kinds of Truths that ring true for all people of rational and compassionate and loving minds.
But the modern cycle, it seems, is towards irrational, ignorant, ranting and hate-filled minds.
If I'm out there crying for my rights to free speech, for example . . . I'd better be mindful of the most beneficial use of that right for the sake of the society that grants me that right. If I'm out demonstrating for my own freedom of movement . . . I'd best not be impeding that same right in others lest I be a hypocrite. And if I'm protesting outrageous public spending . . . I'd best not be part of a protest that is necessitating an outrageous increase in that spending to clean up after my self-fest.
If it's all "take-take-take" and "me-me-me", then the society WILL FAIL.
reply
well played Chris - good question...
- Feature
- Like
well played Chris - good question...
Except of course the word "Trump" might be very misleading (!)
.. I would also go further into
what does tolerance really mean?
and whether tolerance can become a tyranny of its own. (This is a common debate in UK Quakers, where tolerance is placed as a high priority for all, as a behaviour)
the question gets complicated depending on whether we see society as a wider family - wherein we all have responsibility for all our children - or whether children are in some way the property of the parents...
do we then tolerate cruelty to children? most western societies say we do not. Where does that edge lie?
There's a lot of work to do here.
As for the old adage "you cannot change others, only yourself" - this notion is in conflict with the reality of how change is brought about....
(try telling Nelson Mandela he had no change effect)
- it may well be that a person cannot prescribe the exact change they want to see in another - but they can inspire change in ways that may surprise them...
what else has changed our behaviour from murderous savages to a civilised world - if not the inspiration and work of people?
reply
- Feature
- Like
What amazes me is that with one exception all of you are talking about how you feel about the question asked in the op and not answering it. Feeling good about the wrong answer will NEVER trump having the correct answer. Feeling good about letting someone else feel good about being wrong by "tolerating" their error is a selfish and often harmful act. There are numerous examples, both esoteric and mundane, in everyday life. See if you can think of some.
reply
A philosophy is an expression of our character (vide William James), but it doesn't define it. By being truly tolerant, I allow people to have an identity beyond their ideology. I should think this gets me closer to the truth than simply relying on my preconceived notions. We are often not so different as we think; tolerance allows us to realise many us/them divisions are unnecessary.
- Feature
- Like
A philosophy is an expression of our character (vide William James), but it doesn't define it. By being truly tolerant, I allow people to have an identity beyond their ideology. I should think this gets me closer to the truth than simply relying on my preconceived notions. We are often not so different as we think; tolerance allows us to realise many us/them divisions are unnecessary.
(This is not to say I get along with every Republican or Christian. Sometimes behind those ideologies one finds hate. Of course, this is just as true for some rationalists...)
reply
- Feature
- Like
They are not mutually exclusive. Openly disagreeing with somebody is not intolerance, and can lead to the kind of healthy debate that allows both people to understand each other better. Even if they don't see eye to eye at the end.
reply
Maybe it has something to do with the old adage- "you cannot change anybody else- only yourself". We all hold beliefs. Psychoanalysis analyzes those beliefs for veracity. Sometimes you get to the roots of where the belief originated and eradicate a belief that no longer holds true. For example- if somebody comes from a broken home they can gain the belief that marriage just doesn`t work. They can put their parents marriage under scruitiny to find out why and end up believing that marriage can work- it just didnt work because of certain character flaws of those specific parents.
- Feature
- Like
