What is the “paradox of tolerance” and is it legit?
In: 1208
I am going to doge to core theme, and ask the *other* question you asked.
Is the x paradox legit?
This question is quite off target. Paradoxes are meant to show something through a countersense. There is nothing legit about paradoxes. They are headscratchers made to make you *think critically*
For example Zeno’s paradox. The arrow does not reach the target ever YET you know that the arrow will do it. Both statements appear to be logically/factually right, yet they state exactly the opposite.
Paradox of tolerance tells you that absolute tolerance paves the way to intolerance. Thus to be tolerant you should be intolerant. ??? This can be puzzling, and **it is** puzzling.
Understanding where should the line between *including everyone* and *excluding the dangerous* be, is an extremely delicate and complex task, where personal priorities, beliefs and morality play a huge role.
There is nothing *legit* in ANY paradox. Except the fact that they offer you a legit way to think about a theme in a complex and complete way.
Now it is **your** turn:
Where do **you** draw the line, between being inclusive of everyone and not allowing violent and oppressive creeds?
Pacifism suffer a similar paradox. If I completely reject violence in any form (imprisonment is a form of violence too), I am most vulnerable to opposing violence, and my potential strength to protect the weaker is lost to my ideal. If violence can only be opposed by violence, a pacifist should be violent against violents? Where is the line? If I am pacifist, and live in a country with a dictatorship, should I not fight it (bc im pacifist) or should I fight it (bc the violence imposed by the dictatorship is “worse” than the violence of toppling it down)?
Latest Answers