User Tag List

123 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 71

  1. #1
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,664

    Default Can someone explain the point of tolerance to me ?

    Well since this forum seems to be have a very large number of people from free and democratic western countries I would really be greatful if you could explain the entire concept of tolerance to me.




    To be honest I never trully grasped why tolerance is considered to be something so tightly related to wisdom.
    As I said in some other threads "Growing up in a country that is being torn upart by war was not traumatic for me. It is just that it left deep phylosophical consequences". In other words I am comfortable with "Lets wipe out the other tribe from the face of the earth" logic.


    I mean I am not saying that you should be antitolerant against everything but in alot of cases I simply don't see tolerance as something logical.
    For example you can see in alot of political speeches and movies where something like "We have to stay tolerant or we will becomes just as the minority that wants to destroy the current order" is said.

    On the other hand you have different logic. You wipe out that minority out of existance. What means that tolerant majority will be able to live in peace instead of having decades of political instability. Which often leads to economic instability. Not to mention that stable system is usually capable of supporting more people with a better quality of life. Which means that loses in population numbers can be solved with a little higher fertility rate (if needed). Which often happens if the system is stabile. Plus since the society can support more people some people will get the chance to live. What would be the case if you have decades of problems. On small scales that may not be the case but in larger ones it often is. (boom after WW2 is perhaps the most obvious example) Which is something no one is thinking about.


    However I know that in reality things are often not that simple. But on the other hand people simply don't allow them to be this simple.
    Also you can have a deep political disagreement with someone. So by tolerant logic you should just be democratic and try to find a way to get along with other person/group. What usually leads to creating some sort of status quo. Basicly the entire modern politics in developped world is like this. They are just arguing and debating for decades while they maintain pretty much everything as it is/was. The only thing that is changing is tech-level.
    What means that entire global political wisdom will become obsolete with time. (If we overlook "the fact" that this is already the case)
    I mean don't delude yourself, the thousands of years of technological progress will destroy the politics as we know it.


    What opens the question of should we have simpathy for something that is failing and it probably will to do so even more in the future ?
    Which then leads to radical conclusions. What is the point of finding a common ground with people who may have fundamentaly different view from yours ?



    Also tolerance creates paradoxes. Since it tolerances the anti-tolerance for tolerance. Which isn't a problem if we are not talking about a mind-set that has antitolerance and provocation at its most fundamental level.
    However if I persoanally do something against this person I am considered evil and/or psychotic. Seriously why not allow different groups to solves their issues once and for all ? Why delay something that is most likely inevitable outcome given enough time.


    Most people seem to dislike any radical view of things but I have problem figuring out why? Since only radical (what is not the same as primitive) leads away from the status quo. By "status quo" I mean birocracy and no change or real progress (in any direction). What often leads to "total eruption" of all problems with time and at the same time. People may dislike the principle but sometimes you have to remove old ideas by force just to enable the creation of new ones.



    Basicly I could go on and on about this so i will just stop here.
    Seriously, is tolerance and mutual understanding always the best solution ?

  2. #2
    Senior Member Chunes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Posts
    367

    Default

    Tolerance holds questionable value. At the end of the day it is merely a copout for failing to live a life of legitimacy and passion. It is submission to a dreary hodgepodge of inefficacy and philosophical skepticism (i.e.—we can't know anything so let's tolerate everyone's theories). To be intolerant is to take a stand and claim that yes, my way is right, dammit, and I'll fight tooth and nail for my ideals. It is a matter of honor and virtue to live as if life means something. To be tolerant is to secretly concede that life doesn't really matter—that one's ideals are too unimportant to be lived, and rather belong on a dusty museum shelf with everybody else's. Intolerance is the elegance of the individual. Tolerance is the soullessness of the committee.

    I could write an identically-structured dissertation extolling the virtues of tolerance.

    Wrap your mind around that and get back to me.
    "If you would convince a man that he does wrong, do right. But do not care to convince him. Men will believe what they see. Let them see."
    Thoreau

  3. #3
    Probably Most Brilliant Craft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w7 sx/so
    Socionics
    N/A
    Posts
    1,200

    Default

    Tolerance's usefulness is relative to the situation. There is no "always" in most things. You could find situations wherein the action of tolerance has improved the situation. There is a saying, "There's always a time for everything." The tolerance you define here, however, is general and therefore will be more likely to adapt things which you wouldn't call "tolerance" itself. It's just part of the process.

    The point of tolerance is many.

    No, it probably isn't the always the best solution, but what is? How do we define what's the best and how can we make sure it is the best?

    There are different type of initiations and tolerance could be one those methods. Think about the African-American problem and the methods Martin Luther King Jr. used.

  4. #4
    pathwise dependent FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTj
    Posts
    5,908

    Default

    Because the net present value of waging a war does not exceed the net present value of tolerating the opposite "party". When the opposition becomes too stark, the inequality's reversed and war happens.

    Net present value is usually mediated by some type of utility function, which doesn't need to be continuous/homogeneous. Thus you might have a breaking point for a given level of political/sociological distance (if dist>a -> f(dist)=e^dist; if dist<a->f(dist)=log(dist), for example) where the output of an epsilon additional distance greatly exceeds the input.
    ENTj 7-3-8 sx/sp

  5. #5
    Courage is immortality Valiant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    8w7 sx/so
    Socionics
    EIE
    Posts
    3,919

    Default

    Good point, Antisocial one.

    I never put it into words; or rather I did not focus on tolerance.
    I am and will always be in vehement opposition to democracy, because it does not work.
    Furthermore, it is not only that tolerance/democracy does not work. It does, like you say, not lead anywhere but a status quo.
    I believe human progress to be an ideal worth pursuing, which means that I am in opposition to stagnation; a state we have been in for quite some time now.
    We don't need infighting and chaos; i.e democracy, capitalism, religions conflicting with the goal... Etc.


    The main balancing factor and argument against intolerance is indeed that "intolerance" makes you make a decision which will sometimes be unpleasant in the short-term.
    It does seem like a common denominator for a lot of people, that they refuse to do violence or act decisively when it is clearly needed.
    I have always found it odd that some people just won't punch a guy in the face if he deserves it, and if said person can get away with it.

    The question is where to draw the line? One cannot be completely without tolerance, that would lead to complete anarchy; which is entirely what at least I want to prevent at all costs.
    Well, at least lasting anarchy.
    Complete, short-term anarchy usually breeds dictatorship/kingdom, which I like.

    Mightier than the tread of marching armies is the power of an idea whose time has come

  6. #6
    likes this gromit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    6,651

    Default

    I don't know about at a larger political scale, but on a person-to-person scale, I have found that approaching people with open-mindedness and warmth rather than judgment and arrogance sets a tone for the interaction which allows both people to come out having learned something. Or at least it allows me to come out of it having learned something. If you interact with others as though they have a valid perspective,they are generally more likely to be reasonable, to consider other ideas, to be open to you and your perspectives.

    Obviously there are some people who will take advantage of this, and I haven't found a useful way to engage with them. I still try to understand where they're coming from, to some extent, but after a certain point, it does become a little futile. I guess the objective in that kind of situation would be different.
    Your kisses, sweeter than honey. But guess what, so is my money.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Dark Razor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    8w7
    Socionics
    ENTj
    Posts
    271

    Default

    The thing is, without "tolerance" it is always possible for yourself to end up among the minority that is "unworthy" and earmarked for extermination. Therefor it's in the rational self-interest of pretty much anyone (for some more, others less, depending on how many /which "minorities" or peer-groups you are part of) to promote a certain level of tolerance within society.

    I would expect that generally the more you embody the "mainstream" of society, the less acceptance / need for tolerance you have.

    If on the other hand you have expirienced discrimination / threats to your physical safety you will want to increase the "level of tolerance" of your society. Because you want to be treated with more respect and dignity yourself, and also because you don't want other people to experience what you have been subjected to, your level of empathy for marginalized groups increases.

    So "tolerance" is the result of different groups trying to carve out a niche for themselves within society, see it like kind of uneasy truce between all the different factions of society to prevent all-out war. All out war (i.e. extermination, or exclusion / banishment) only makes sense, from the POV of the actors, if the majority, or the rulers of the group, are a very homogenous group. For those groups (example might be the country of Japan) it may make more sense to keep outsiders out from the beginning rather than trying to control their latent aggression towards each other by means of "tolerance", as more diverse societies would do.

  8. #8
    Courage is immortality Valiant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    8w7 sx/so
    Socionics
    EIE
    Posts
    3,919

    Default

    Good point razor.
    This is indeed how it works for the most part.
    If you look away from humanism, however...
    What worth does tolerance have in the long term of things?
    In the long term, it is a good thing that the weak does perish.
    I might be one who has to do the dying bit, and I do not like it...
    But... There is no other logical standpoint. Tolerance, among other things, is only making things slow down and it is retarding the natural process of evolution.

    Mightier than the tread of marching armies is the power of an idea whose time has come

  9. #9
    Senior Member Dark Razor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    8w7
    Socionics
    ENTj
    Posts
    271

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YourLocalJesus View Post
    What worth does tolerance have in the long term of things?
    In the long term, it is a good thing that the weak does perish.
    I might be one who has to do the dying bit, and I do not like it...
    But... There is no other logical standpoint. Tolerance, among other things, is only making things slow down and it is retarding the natural process of evolution.
    I dont think that view is nuanced enough. What does "weak" mean in this context? Basically it just means "not the majority / mainstream".

    I am suprised that you claim to be an opponent of "Democracy" yet you would allow the majority faction within society to impose their will on all the rest.

    Also would eliminating "undesirables" promote "evolution"? That would only be so if humans could determine, in advance how a certain trait will be advantageous in the evolutionary process. However evolution is the very essence of trial and error, meaning you only know if something works after it has been tested against reality. That means it is vital to test as many combinations as possible, and never stop.

    Evolution happens because a lot of traits / individuals are both competing and cooperating with each other, often "the weak" find ways to cooperate and synergize their traits to overwhelm "the strong".

    Evolution of human societies is somewhat different from biological evolution because conscious thought enters the picture. However it still makes sense to let various factions /ways of living exist side by side to test many different traits and ways of doing things, and if some part of some group's behaviour looks like it could offer an advantage to the greater whole of society, the mainstream can adopt it.

    So in essence, by allowing tolerance, society has the ability to run many different ways of doing things, each only by a few people in kind of a laboratory environment, all parallel to each other. This greatly enhances the number of combinations that can be checked against reality within a fixed timeframe. If you had mainstream society set all the rules and supress individual expression you would instead stiffle the evolutionary process, leading to stagnation, loss of dynamism and eventually, extinction.

    You can think of a tolerant society as a multi-threaded, multi-user OS of humankind, while an intolerant one represents a single-user, single-threaded one. See, you are DOS, I am Unix. You succumbed to evolution in ca. 1988, and I am still alive and thriving, simply because I can process so much more information within the same time.

  10. #10
    likes this gromit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    6,651

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YourLocalJesus View Post
    Good point razor.
    This is indeed how it works for the most part.
    If you look away from humanism, however...
    What worth does tolerance have in the long term of things?
    In the long term, it is a good thing that the weak does perish.
    I might be one who has to do the dying bit, and I do not like it...
    But... There is no other logical standpoint. Tolerance, among other things, is only making things slow down and it is retarding the natural process of evolution.
    Do you think because it is natural it is ideal?
    Your kisses, sweeter than honey. But guess what, so is my money.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 21
    Last Post: 12-24-2011, 06:23 PM
  2. [E5] Can someone explain to me 5w4 and 5w6?
    By Illmatic in forum Enneatypes
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-16-2011, 02:12 PM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-23-2011, 01:11 AM
  4. Could someone explain the functions (dominant, auxilary...) to me?
    By KarenParker in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 05-19-2009, 08:32 AM
  5. [INTJ] Un-Emotional to the point of ignoring reactive instinct?
    By Misty_Mountain_Rose in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-09-2008, 09:47 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO