Reflexive statements are logically complex. By reflexive we
mean a statement or principle that "acts on itself". If a
statement includes itself within its "room to act", it is reflexive.
It has been pointed out by many that Tolerance is a self-contradictory
principle simply because it has this character. As a principle, it
requires we be tolerant of everything, i.e. we do not get to choose where it
should be applied and where it can be put on the shelf. Thus, the
tolerant individual cannot speak out against intolerance since that would
itself be an intolerant act. But tolerance should not condone what it
sets out to be opposed to. Logically tolerance necessitates that we allow
intolerant people the right to be intolerant. This is the paradox that Karl
Popper the Austrian-British philosopher spoke of in 1945 in his book The Open
Society and Its Enemies when he said; “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." As a star trek fan, it seems to me that
Vulcans would by definition be incapable of tolerance since it is fundamentally
illogical. This is precisely the dilemma the West faces with respect to
"Dawa" which is the political agenda of Islam. (see my previous
blog).
But what do we mean when we say
the word "Tolerant"? Is it more than an abstract virtue? Most agree
that tolerance is a mind set and the practice of "open mindedness".
It is patient, lenient, accepting, even forgiving. It does not mean
agreeing, or giving up one’s own views or convictions. Being tolerant is not
easy. It allows us the ability to suffer fools, if not gladly, with a
certain patience that looks beyond the moment. Are there any limits to
tolerance? I would argue that there must be. One cannot be tolerant of
evil. It is illogical in my opinion for example that the LGBTIQ community
in its communal acceptance of unlimited immigration for Syrian refugees fails
to understand Dawa and that the goal of political Islam is to impose Sharia on
the entire world. They fail to understand that unreformed Islam or
radical Islam if you prefer is inherently intolerant of their sexual
orientation and not only preaches but practices the death penalty for those
living that lifestyle. Is it logical to accept with open arms those who seek to
kill you? I do not know what the solution might look like, but if we
allow the spread of intolerance, those of us who cherish tolerance as a virtue,
as the "only real test of civilization" are likely to die out, one
way or another.
No comments:
Post a Comment