The intolerance of tolerance : How relativism leads to tyranny

[Teofrastus]

Modern relativism, the notion that no viewpoint is exclusively true, contradicts Platonic-Christian philosophy, which grounds truth and righteousness in eternal forms. Contemporary society has distorted the historical meaning of ‘tolerance’ and has created a new form of intolerance. This paper examines how changing social values in Western societies have affected public discourse, motivating social exclusion and cancel culture. It critiques both contemporary progressive movements and liberal ideologies.

The intolerance of tolerance : How relativism leads to tyranny

Please comment!

 

[Fervent]

I don't know if tolerance is the problem, but the victim-oppressor morality that dominates most of public discussion. It's ok to be intolerant towards people seen as "oppressors" historically, and anyone who is able to insert themselves into "victim" status is automatically exempted from criticism and any critics are labled "-phobes." Any morality is going to involve intolerance at its boundaries, the question is just what is and isn't tolerated.

 

[Teofrastus]

I don't know if tolerance is the problem, but the victim-oppressor morality that dominates most of public discussion. It's ok to be intolerant towards people seen as "oppressors" historically, and anyone who is able to insert themselves into "victim" status is automatically exempted from criticism and any critics are labled "-phobes." Any morality is going to involve intolerance at its boundaries, the question is just what is and isn't tolerated.

The issue is that the term 'tolerance' has evolved to mean something quite different from Voltaire's definition. This divergence in understanding complicates meaningful dialogue between groups. Christian ethics highlight genuine tolerance and forgiveness. The subtle shift in the meaning of certain words can inadvertently cause a drift towards an ethic that contradicts Christian principles.

 

[Fervent]

The issue is that the term 'tolerance' has evolved to mean something quite different from Voltaire's definition. This divergence in understanding complicates meaningful dialogue between groups. Christian ethics highlight genuine tolerance and forgiveness. The subtle shift in the meaning of certain words can inadvertently cause a drift towards an ethic that contradicts Christian principles.

I'm not sure that's really the issue at all, but that tolerance as a virtue doesn't stand alone. It's not a virtue to tolerate pedophilia or murder by any definition, but it is a virtue to tolerate reasonable disagreement. It doesn't stand on its own, it is only in light of what is being tolerated that it achieves its character of being virtuous or not. The murkiness of the definition plays a part in the disagreements, but the reality is that the vision of a pluralistic society without a dominant morality is impossible. Some moral system is going to take precedence, and in public discourse in the European world that moral system is secular humanism that places a premium on notions of victimhood and oppression.

 

[Teofrastus]

I'm not sure that's really the issue at all, but that tolerance as a virtue doesn't stand alone. It's not a virtue to tolerate pedophilia or murder by any definition, but it is a virtue to tolerate reasonable disagreement. It doesn't stand on its own, it is only in light of what is being tolerated that it achieves its character of being virtuous or not. The murkiness of the definition plays a part in the disagreements, but the reality is that the vision of a pluralistic society without a dominant morality is impossible. Some moral system is going to take precedence, and in public discourse in the European world that moral system is secular humanism that places a premium on notions of victimhood and oppression.

Being tolerant of LGBTQ individuals and cross-dressers, in the sense of being indifferent rather than critical, is considered a virtue. However, this perspective is a departure from historical forms of tolerance and conflicts with traditional Christian ethics. It means a shift towards a more secular ethical framework in Western societies. Soon we will be dominated by a thoroughly anti-Christian ethics. Please don't say that this isn't an issue.

 

[Fervent]

Being tolerant of LGBTQ individuals and cross-dressers, in the sense of being indifferent rather than critical, is considered a virtue. However, this perspective is a departure from historical forms of tolerance and conflicts with traditional Christian ethics. It means a shift towards a more secular ethical framework in Western societies. Soon we will be dominated by a thoroughly anti-Christian ethics. Please don't say that this isn't an issue.

It is an issue, but I think you're missing what is actually the cause of the issue. It's not simply a matter of divergent definitions of tolerance, but treating tolerance as a virtue in and of itself. Tolerance of the immoral isn't a virtue, though of course what we define as moral and immoral is going to create separations. When we have a common moral foundation, we can agree on boundaries for tolerance. But when we get into questions of morality, tolerance is more of a complicating factor. Morality requires the expression of intolerance and censure, so tolerance cannot have its own moral character. It is entirely dependent on what it is that we are tolerating, because in some cases the virtue is to be intolerant.

 

[Teofrastus]

It is an issue, but I think you're missing what is actually the cause of the issue. It's not simply a matter of divergent definitions of tolerance, but treating tolerance as a virtue in and of itself. Tolerance of the immoral isn't a virtue, though of course what we define as moral and immoral is going to create separations. When we have a common moral foundation, we can agree on boundaries for tolerance. But when we get into questions of morality, tolerance is more of a complicating factor. Morality requires the expression of intolerance and censure, so tolerance cannot have its own moral character. It is entirely dependent on what it is that we are tolerating, because in some cases the virtue is to be intolerant.

Indeed, I'm not saying that tolerance is good and intolerance bad. That's why I cite Langerak who says that "begrudging toleration can be granted when one believes that coercion, while possible, would come at too high a price". Paul told churches to kick out troublemakers if necessary (e.g., 1 Cor. 5:13; Titus 3:10-11; 1 Tim. 1:20; 2 Thess. 3:6). So, Paul was sometimes being intolerant. Yet, tolerance is the "tonal center" of Christianity and Western civilization, as it builds on the idea of getting people to cooperate, despite the fact that they belong to different bloodlines. Christian tolerance represents the final overcoming of tribalism and is what explains the enormous success of Western civilization. If we give up on the Christian form of tolerance ("begrudging toleration"), then we will slide back to tribalism.

 

[KevinT]

Modern relativism, the notion that no viewpoint is exclusively true, contradicts Platonic-Christian philosophy, ...

Please comment!

I think this is not your original intent of this post, but your phrase caught my eye. What is "Platonic-Christianity"? Isn't this equivalent to "Pagan-Christianity"?

Best wishes,
KT

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Modern relativism, the notion that no viewpoint is exclusively true, contradicts Platonic-Christian philosophy, which grounds truth and righteousness in eternal forms. Contemporary society has distorted the historical meaning of ‘tolerance’ and has created a new form of intolerance. This paper examines how changing social values in Western societies have affected public discourse, motivating social exclusion and cancel culture. It critiques both contemporary progressive movements and liberal ideologies.

The intolerance of tolerance : How relativism leads to tyranny

Please comment!

Humans are intolerant in general. One on one is usually okay, but once there is a large group accumulated, those who are different end up being ostracized. The same thing happened even when Christendom was the main ideology.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I think this is not your original intent of this post, but your phrase caught my eye. What is "Platonic-Christianity"? Isn't this equivalent to "Pagan-Christianity"?

Best wishes,
KT

I'm curious too, the only time I thought Christianity was married to neo-platonic ideals was with calvinism which is kind of popular right now.

 

[Teofrastus]

I think this is not your original intent of this post, but your phrase caught my eye. What is "Platonic-Christianity"? Isn't this equivalent to "Pagan-Christianity"?

Best wishes,
KT

There is such a thing as Christian Platonism, but we should distinguish between this and the Platonic elements that Christianity absorbed. Augustine, while not strictly a Platonist, employed Platonic reasoning and was influenced by Neoplatonic thought in developing his theology. For instance, he adapted Plotinus's concept of Nous by placing Plato's Forms in the divine mind, viewing God as the source of all eternal truths and perfect forms.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Some moral system is going to take precedence, and in public discourse in the European world that moral system is secular humanism that places a premium on notions of victimhood and oppression.

Secular humanism has no moral norms or values. It never has.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm curious too, the only time I thought Christianity was married to neo-platonic ideals was with calvinism which is kind of popular right now.

I think this is not your original intent of this post, but your phrase caught my eye. What is "Platonic-Christianity"? Isn't this equivalent to "Pagan-Christianity"?

Best wishes,
KT

Augustine and Kant after him tried to ground morals on a Platonic epistemology of truth. One of axiomatic grounding for which one can build upon in search of truth/knowledge. Things like the logical law of non-contradiction or the assertion of an objective reality that exists would probably serve as examples of these sort of axiomatic starting points.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Tolerance of the immoral isn't a virtue, though of course what we define as moral and immoral is going to create separations. When we have a common moral foundation, we can agree on boundaries for tolerance.

1. We can never have a common moral foundation and the best we could ever hope for is lying to each other and pretending we do. Frankly, I don't like or admire the left for moral cowardice and bullying.

2. We actually don't need any common moral ground....we have the furnace of debate. Bring your beliefs to others openly, and debate their worth and truth. If you can't do that....you should be ignored by all.

 

[jacks]

2. We actually don't need any common moral ground....we have the furnace of debate. Bring your beliefs to others openly, and debate their worth and truth. If you can't do that....you should be ignored by all.

I agree they "should be ignored by all", however if those in power limit debate (through whatever means), then unfortunately we can't just ignore them. In fact the furnace of debate may rarely be a realistic option, that is one of the beauties of voting. Even if you can't effectively debate them, you can still have your say. I think that is one of the things we saw in this latest election.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I agree they "should be ignored by all", however if those in power limit debate (through whatever means),

Care to give an example?

then unfortunately we can't just ignore them.

We still have the first amendment. Have people attempted to stifle the free speech of others online? Sure. We don't quite have the details of this medium worked out yet.

In fact the furnace of debate may rarely be a realistic option, that is one of the beauties of voting.

A debate need not be done face to face....or formally. Competing ideas can be represented by any number of people advocating them in any forum open to debate.

Even if you can't effectively debate them, you can still have your say. I think that is one of the things we saw in this latest election.

Sure....but it's unclear why they wouldn't be able to limit that as well.

 

[KevinT]

Augustine and Kant after him tried to ground morals on a Platonic epistemology of truth.

OK, they were trying to combine Plato with Christian thought

One of axiomatic grounding for which one can build upon in search of truth/knowledge.

Plato is one thing that could be combine with Christian thought. Not a great idea, but I understand that they thought that it was. Plato was pagan, and including him into Christian teaching has caused problems.

Things like the logical law of non-contradiction or the assertion of an objective reality that exists would probably serve as examples of these sort of axiomatic starting points.

I agree with being logical. But I don't think one needs to use Plato as a foundation.

Best wishes,

KT

 

[Teofrastus]

... Plato is one thing that could be combine with Christian thought. Not a great idea, but I understand that they thought that it was. Plato was pagan, and including him into Christian teaching has caused problems.

I agree with being logical. But I don't think one needs to use Plato as a foundation.

On the contrary, I believe Plato's ideas can revitalize Christianity, which has drifted towards worldly concerns. Many Christians today interpret the Kingdom of God in political terms, as Christ's earthly rule. We should return to original principles. Like Plato's transcendental Hyperuranion, the Kingdom of God is spiritual in nature.

Augustine said Plotinus, the founder of Neoplatonism, was close to Christianity, needing just minor adjustments. Some argue Plato's ideas prepared the way for Christianity. His highest Form, the Good, gives life to lower Forms. For Augustine, the supreme Good is God, whose mind contains Platonic Forms. Overall, Plato's transcendental philosophy can reorient Christianity to its spiritual roots.

Augustine explains the errors of the Platonists. As long as we know these, there's no danger in being inspired by the Platonic worldview.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Augustine and Kant after him tried to ground morals on a Platonic epistemology of truth. One of axiomatic grounding for which one can build upon in search of truth/knowledge. Things like the logical law of non-contradiction or the assertion of an objective reality that exists would probably serve as examples of these sort of axiomatic starting points.

Sounds like a lot of Christianity went the wrong way after Augustine.

 

[Ana the Ist]

OK, they were trying to combine Plato with Christian thought



Plato is one thing that could be combine with Christian thought. Not a great idea, but I understand that they thought that it was. Plato was pagan, and including him into Christian teaching has caused problems.

Maybe this will help you understand what I'm saying....

Problem of the criterion - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

That's a general problem at the bottom of deciding what is known and what is believed. There's no easy answers. Plato essentially offered a solution to the problem that we can sort of call axioms by today's standards and they simply must be accepted for the concept of "true" to mean anything.

When I say that they used Plato as an epistemic basis for morality....that's what I mean.