Reminder: there is no such thing as the paradox of tolerance.
The rules of tolerance only apply to the people who abide by them.
Therefore, you are tolerant of tolerant people if you abide by the rules of tolerance. You are intolerant of intolerant people if you abide by the rules of tolerance.
It is very straightforward, the only pathway to paradox is from a lack of lexical understanding of the rules of tolerance.
It gets thrown around like any flavour of the year amongst American blues, but I am starting to realise most people have no idea what a paradox fundamentally is. Rather they think it’s some sort of guiding idea because everyone keeps saying it and something about a philosopher—the entire premise whooshing over the heads of whichever tribalists “gotcha bombs” it entirely out of context.
Two comments of it here and I imagine at least one of you have never comprehended what it is and where they fit into it. Someone’s the chicken; someone’s the egg. A true idiot thinks they know the solution to that.
The paradox part of the paradox is that the tolerant are the intolerant.
This is what a paradox is.
a situation or statement that seems impossible or is difficult to understand because it contains two opposite facts or characteristics:
i.e. the tolerant (A) are the intolerant (B); the tolerant cannot be intolerant. A = B while A≠ B, yet both appear true. A paradox.
The result is a cascade that divides further and shifts power based on which tolerant group becomes the most intolerant of other’s ideas the most at the time; the ideologies meaning nothing in the end. The philosophy that the intolerant tend to have power.
In your cartoon, which starts with a question that immediately abandons any explanation of the paradox and then ironically just guides you on how to be participant in it, you eould see the paradox in effect if you go back just one step. Mein Kompf literally states how he was liberal and tolerant but had to cease that in order to stop the perceived intolerant for German nationalism. Is this a ideology you disagree with? Probably. But it doesn’t matter in the paradox.
Then becoming the intolerant himself, we know what happened next; power. Then the tolerant no longer tolerating him—EU and friends; power shifts to them. That’s the paradox. The intolerant is always the majority at the time; ideologies be damned. It’s a repetitive cycle conflicting itself—a paradox.
If you are coming from the perspective of an opposing ideology, you will of course not tolerate it. But that’s not the philosophical point. Subsequently, the red hats quote the exact same paradox inappropriately as well.
To approach it philosophically, as intended, you must first ask; what is currently considered intolerant in this society? You cannot have personal opinions influence it, else you have already missed the point. From there, you are able to ponder it appropriately. Philosophy is a thought exercise; not to be used as a ammunition of opinion battles. It is merely an observation to ponder and open deeper discourse.
Edit: Hey, y’all can oppose this comment, but in 1945 the conception of thought was established. If you have other ideas of that, you’ll need to propose a new idea instead of raping someone else’s idea as much as the other tribes
It’s really not complicated. It’s the point of it. You’re encouraged to expand on it with new ideas, not trying to reshape existing ones to suit your narrative. Philosophy 101.
Fair, but if the cartoon is a rebuttal of the premise of the paradox, which would seem to be that we can’t call it tolerance unless it’s absolute, it’s a rebuttal I accept.
Paradox of Tolerance
Reminder: there is no such thing as the paradox of tolerance.
The rules of tolerance only apply to the people who abide by them.
Therefore, you are tolerant of tolerant people if you abide by the rules of tolerance. You are intolerant of intolerant people if you abide by the rules of tolerance.
It is very straightforward, the only pathway to paradox is from a lack of lexical understanding of the rules of tolerance.
That’s exactly my point.
It gets thrown around like any flavour of the year amongst American blues, but I am starting to realise most people have no idea what a paradox fundamentally is. Rather they think it’s some sort of guiding idea because everyone keeps saying it and something about a philosopher—the entire premise whooshing over the heads of whichever tribalists “gotcha bombs” it entirely out of context.
Two comments of it here and I imagine at least one of you have never comprehended what it is and where they fit into it. Someone’s the chicken; someone’s the egg. A true idiot thinks they know the solution to that.
Where’s the part you think we are getting wrong in the below?
The paradox part of the paradox is that the tolerant are the intolerant.
This is what a paradox is.
i.e. the tolerant (A) are the intolerant (B); the tolerant cannot be intolerant. A = B while A≠ B, yet both appear true. A paradox.
The result is a cascade that divides further and shifts power based on which tolerant group becomes the most intolerant of other’s ideas the most at the time; the ideologies meaning nothing in the end. The philosophy that the intolerant tend to have power.
In your cartoon, which starts with a question that immediately abandons any explanation of the paradox and then ironically just guides you on how to be participant in it, you eould see the paradox in effect if you go back just one step. Mein Kompf literally states how he was liberal and tolerant but had to cease that in order to stop the perceived intolerant for German nationalism. Is this a ideology you disagree with? Probably. But it doesn’t matter in the paradox.
Then becoming the intolerant himself, we know what happened next; power. Then the tolerant no longer tolerating him—EU and friends; power shifts to them. That’s the paradox. The intolerant is always the majority at the time; ideologies be damned. It’s a repetitive cycle conflicting itself—a paradox.
If you are coming from the perspective of an opposing ideology, you will of course not tolerate it. But that’s not the philosophical point. Subsequently, the red hats quote the exact same paradox inappropriately as well.
To approach it philosophically, as intended, you must first ask; what is currently considered intolerant in this society? You cannot have personal opinions influence it, else you have already missed the point. From there, you are able to ponder it appropriately. Philosophy is a thought exercise; not to be used as a ammunition of opinion battles. It is merely an observation to ponder and open deeper discourse.
Edit: Hey, y’all can oppose this comment, but in 1945 the conception of thought was established. If you have other ideas of that, you’ll need to propose a new idea instead of raping someone else’s idea as much as the other tribes
It’s really not complicated. It’s the point of it. You’re encouraged to expand on it with new ideas, not trying to reshape existing ones to suit your narrative. Philosophy 101.
Fair, but if the cartoon is a rebuttal of the premise of the paradox, which would seem to be that we can’t call it tolerance unless it’s absolute, it’s a rebuttal I accept.