Tolerance
Over the past generation, the so-called virtue of tolerance has suddenly surpassed all other virtues. Since being in the Gulch, I have become increasingly aware of how tolerance can be a signal to others to trample on you like a doormat.
On the other hand, whereas intolerance of error gets you branded outside the Gulch, here it is often viewed as the correct response. In fact, Ms. Rand was one of the least tolerant people in the last 100 years. I am now beginning to view that as an endearing quality.
Please enlighten me as to whether you consider tolerance and/or politeness are virtuous or not, and of course, explain the basis for your viewpoint.
On the other hand, whereas intolerance of error gets you branded outside the Gulch, here it is often viewed as the correct response. In fact, Ms. Rand was one of the least tolerant people in the last 100 years. I am now beginning to view that as an endearing quality.
Please enlighten me as to whether you consider tolerance and/or politeness are virtuous or not, and of course, explain the basis for your viewpoint.
Previous comments...
Tolerance of a person can be manifested as politeness: it is the idea that I can still have a meaningful conversation with someone who has radically different ideas from me because we both allow the other the right to determine the course of their own lives. Why do we do this? Because we recognize that behavior/action does not necessarily define "being" because it is a representation at that specific point in time. When we are tolerant of others' behavior, it is an implicit recognition that they are acting in an allowable manner - i.e. within "tolerances". For example, one can tolerate disagreement in debate because the standard at issue is not whether or not a particular topic is right or wrong, but if thinking and expression are right or wrong. Tolerance of people should be a respect for the rights of that individual.
Tolerance of an idea, on the other hand, is completely different. If you "tolerate" an idea, you are saying that it falls within the acceptable range. Thus one can not tolerate opposing concepts or principles at the same time - it is an impossibility. Either a concept adheres to the standard (falling within tolerances and thereby declaring it suitable for a specific purpose) or it does not.
Too often, people attempt to conflate and merge tolerance for ideas and policies with tolerance for individuals. Those who do so erroneously attempt to piggyback the tolerance of ideas onto the tolerance of people. This is deceptive and should not be tolerated. ;)
You mentioned tolerating error. Tolerating error is a critical life skill, IMHO, because human beings are so prone to error. We don't *accept* the errors, but we must tolerate them as a fact of life to live with ourselves and get along others.
I meant no offense by my comment, which was intended to be humorous.
Are you literally saying you're writing things to get reactions from other people rather than to figure stuff out?
But he is a chameleon from moment to moment. That makes him just short of a troll because he tapdances his way through dialogue with words that seem to make sense, to con people into taking him seriously. Mainly he wants to get a rise out of people, to get attention; the more agitated, the better.
Just look at the impassioned essay and length of this thread that he has triggered. What an ego trip! No criticism, no negative marks faze him. He exploits people's patience and interest in helping him to "learn", and he plays to see how long he can keep that yo-yo going. It could be amusing to watch as he tunes his volume up and down, retreating, advancing, feinting like a fencing clown. He is a veritable psych lab. But it gets old fast, and having seen through his trickery I no longer waste time reading his inputs.
It grieves me that so many good minds here have been victimized and had their precious time and energy wasted by a manipulative con. Ignoring him completely ("but I don't think of you") is the best remedy.
You got my +1.
I think, though, that there is another dimension. If you engage him in a more extended exchange, the contradictions pop up. When you point them out, back comes a denial of having made one of the contradictory statements, or a "corrective modification" with a claim that what was "meant" is something else. I concluded that at least one of such statements is a conscious lie. The dimension I see is dishonesty.
Just my opinion.
Stay well!
Maritimus
Human brains are stranger than anything. As Data would say, "Fascinating." But once you know that person's modus operandi, it isn't interesting anymore. Bo-o-o-ring.
This stuff you say about me is categorically wrong and not very nice.
Consider this thread. I was not the one who got involved seeking a reaction from others. That was jbrenner. This is bizarre since as recently as this year Jim and I had talked about me helping him build his Atlantis-like community.
The post asks about tolerance. I said tolerance is critically important for living in a free society, but it should not be confused with *acceptance*. Most of the responses say tolerance is bad, but they seem to be defining tolerance as I define acceptance. So I agree with most of the discussion if you substitute tolerance with acceptances.
I can only speculate why you see me as "retreating" and "advancing". I think you see talking about stuff as fighting, and you think ideas come in broad bundles that must be accepted or rejected as a whole, not a la carte. So it's frustrating as hell to figure out which bundle of ideas I'm fighting for. I'm not fighting, and the bundle thing makes no sense to me.
I completely agree with not wasting your time if you think I'm this manipulative fencing clown. At best you could just focus on the ideas instead of assigning evil motivations to me. Please don't soft-pedal it: If I were seeking a reaction from others as Peter Keeting got a thrill from getting some fired, getting him a job somewhere else, or getting a reaction from the janitor, that would be evil. You are calling me evil.
I am not calling you evil. President Obama is evil because he knowingly violates our rights to self-determination. Instead, I am calling you errant. My tolerance for error is high, but limited, and you have exceeded it.
a) prove your last point that polite discourse can frustrate and madden people - as it maddened me with regard to CG after a very long time;
b) get CG to realize that error tolerance is not virtuous;
c) publicize that I just came to the realization that error tolerance is no virtue.
You, LS, and several others ought to be taking this as a high compliment in having been proven correct.
I think that my opening remarks clearly reflect all three of those goals.
I was just thinking of it as a general life skill. If I couldn't tolerate people making mistakes, including myself, I'd go crazy.
It's also necessary for people to get along in a free society. A year ago someone posted that think with Chomsky talking to students about having to agree on standards of what's offensive since the entire campus was their home. I thought, no, your dorm room or house is your home, and once you're in public space or someone else's space you have tolerate things that are stupid, offensive, etc.
I just choose not to point it out unless asked. Plus I'm wrong a lot, so my energy is better directed there, unless the someone is asking for my opinion.
People do NOT have the right to be stupid and expect me to be tolerant of them or help support them.
"Tolerance" as not physically attacking someone you disagree with is not the same concept as how you morally evaluate ideas and people and interact with them. The first is a narrower political concept of respecting people's rights whatever you think of them otherwise, and which is necessary to subdue the arbitrary use of force in civilized society. The second is a moral concept pertaining to how you choose to relate or not relate to people, and to what degree. JB is addressing the second.
"CircuitGuy: "You mentioned tolerating error. Tolerating error is a critical life skill, IMHO, because human beings are so prone to error. We don't *accept* the errors, but we must tolerate them as a fact of life to live with ourselves and get along others."
Again, this is a different concept of what you must "tolerate" and how. You of course have to "tolerate" everything about the world as it is -- the facts of nature -- in order to live on earth. There is no choice about that. The alternative to not "accepting" the facts of what is is to die. One of the facts is that people make mistakes. Some things can't be changed and some can. See Ayn Rand's article The Metaphysical Versus the Man Made", in the anthology Philosophy: Who Needs It?, on what you must "accept" and what is open to choice.
But you don't have to "get along" with everyone and everything. You don't have to always accept incompetence or "mistakes" that are evasive or otherwise not innocent. We make choices all the time of what we will pursue or contend with. Life requires making choices. That is the fact that gives rise to morality. We must choose and what we choose makes a difference to our lives. Without the necessity of choosing and life as the standard there would be no need for morality, which deals exclusively with human choice.
Sometimes you have to put up with a lot you don't like in pursuit of higher goals (like keeping a job you generally like, or paying high taxes to stay out of jail). But that doesn't mean to abandon integrity or to not evaluate or speak out when and where appropriate. See the post on this page about moral judgment: http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/2c...
Yes. I agree with this and like how the the last paragraph explains it succinctly.
Can you please try the link again? The link you posted doesn't work for me.
Where do you come up with this BS?