Unfortunately, tolerance is only a small part of what the ruling class expects of us. They want us to shut up and go away.

Roark is an excellent role model in this respect.

Most definitely tolerance is a close cousin to compromise. Compromise is my least favorite of the six strategies for dealing with people. No one wins.

I try to be polite almost all the time (except perhaps during this thread). I do not have to be tolerant, however. I am glad that you and others have made this distinction.

Thanks, johnpe1. I agree completely and always have.

CircuitGuy: "If tolerance means refraining from using force to stop non-forcible behaviors you don't like, I'm for it. The word underscores, to my ear, that I may not *accept* something, but I tolerate it as a price of living in a free society."

"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...

Jdg- if you click on any badge it redirects you to the FAQ page with an explanation.

+1 From another southerner

I suggest adding "What do all these badges mean?" to the FAQ page.

Here is a thought on this matter. It is plausible that tolerance is a close cousin to compromise. And wasn't it Ayn Rand that asked how much cyanide in your sandwich do you wish to compromise with? A minute amount of cyanide is tolerable, but quickly becomes suicidal in increasing amounts.

just finished reading it. My apologies. thanks for your tolerance. :)

Dr. Jim, tolerance is inaccuracy, like a resistor
quoted as 102k ohms plus-or-minus 10 percent.
and in other zones, it is latitude and acceptance
expected of conservatives for liberal causes.

Rand embraced tolerance as a waste of energy,
in my view -- since she only had so much energy,
she did not want to aim off-center when the bull's-eye
was within easy reach. . she wanted the greatest
influence, and accuracy provided that -- for the
people who were possible to reach. . imho.

politeness is altogether different. . as a member
of the south, I understand it as interpersonal
lubricant or respect -- respect that you are facing
another person. . you treat them gently because
they *are* another person. . you do not change *your*
character or opinions; you just show respect.
respect can take the form of grace in conversation
or generousness -- on the surface -- in hospitality.
it's like the embodiment of the first amendment
where you act like the government should -- you
hold back from others' choices of self-expression
or association or creed or religion. . you don't
give up your own.

does this help? -- j

I agree with Pirate that tolerance and politeness are not the same thing.

Furthermore, I think that it is crucial to remember that politeness is not something that is earned by its recipient; it is something that reflects YOU and your interaction with the world around you. You are not polite because someone deserves politeness, you are polite because that is how _you_ wish to be. I am usually, but not invariably, polite.

If tolerance is defined as "acceptance of behavior and opinion that do not fail the 'fist hits my nose' test", then I am all for it. However, silence in the face of the presentation of an unacceptable philosophy does in fact 'hit my nose'. To whit: the socialist intrusion into education is hitting us all in the nose right now, because we tolerated it when it occurred. So within stated narrow parameters, I am Yes on Tolerance...but I am aware that this is not how the term is generally used.

I like different beliefs and modes of behavior. I like the new perspectives that a well-stated and different thought process can provide. One of the reasons I came back to Calif was because 'out here' people were openly 'weird'. Now a new normative standard has been established and while 'weird' is OK, it must be liberal-socialist weird in order to be socially acceptable. (At this point I begin echoing the statements already made by several eloquent posters.) This is now why I am considering leaving CA.

Jan, slightly xenophilic

"I do think this last line is key: '...It makes a difference whether one thinks that one is dealing with human errors of knowledge or with human evil.'"

It's one of the keys. Evaluation of an idea is not the same as evaluation of a person who says it. As I said near the beginning: "Most of our interactions with other people are in the form of expression of thoughts -- ranging from musing to threats. Objectivity requires maintaining context."

Tolerance has become a buzzword, more accurately defined as the misguided acceptance of anything. If you refuse to become that sheep, you will be branded a "loner" or "evil" or any other intolerant names the politically correct tolerant ones choose. .Promoting tolerance is a way to keep people in line with a narrow set of liberal ideas. True tolerance of old, would be accepting people for who they were, still being able to disagree with their actions, but permitting them to make their own mistakes. There was no iron fist of conformity to it. In the "Fountainhead" as example, Roark and Wynand were tolerant of each other. Roark allowed Wynand to progress at the pace he and he alone could choose. There was no attempt to control involved. In the end Wynand was less tolerant of his own failure to be what he desired to be than anyone else could be. Roark wanted to see him reach his goal, but was tolerant of his attempts and ultimate failure.

Just tell them what you think and feel and leave it at that. If they get pissed off, so be it. When you leave they might even think about what you said, and you wouldnt have challenged them and encouraged defensive behavior.

"Your comment shows up twice on the thread."

The forum editor added the second one instead of replacing the first. This one -- the one you responded to -- is the original.

I added the recommendation to read Ayn Rand's entire article, not just the excerpt I quoted, and to read the whole book VOS. There many members here who have still not read Ayn Rand's nonfiction.

I think you tell people how you think and feel. Never anything wrong with that, even to a person who has made an error. You are not condemning them, just announcing your take on the situation. Same thing for someone who wants to wipe out people, although I would be more likely to take some action against that person if they carried out their threat.

I remember something that Nathaniel Branden told me- its always OK to tell people how YOU feel and think. As I have grown older, I am more outspoken and perhaps one could call that intolerant. For example- lately when I see a person obviously begging for money over and over again, I simply tell them that I am tired of having them expect that I should go out and work, so they can NOT work. I then ask them point blank why would they expect me to make money and then give it to them? I feel they should be able to answer that, and I stand there until they answer it OR they walk away (which is usually the case). If more people did that, perhaps there would be less begging.

He wrote Unrugged Individualism on benevolence years after the break over "toleration". Leonard Peikoff was responding to the toleration dispute.

Excellent response.. See my post on toleration, judgment and values.

I am getting very intolerant of this feud between CG and a number of others in this forum. I thought that had been put aside. Please make it clear in any future posts that your pupose is to carry on the feud, so that I can bypass reading it!

At it's core, a tolerance is a range over which a subject can deviate from the ideal without being rejected for its purpose. Too often people conflate tolerance of _people_ with tolerance of _ideals_. In reality, they are wholly distinct manifestations which should be vigorously recognized and separated by anyone of thought.

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. ;)

Tolerance matters in Objectivist circles. I had lunch with George Walsh just minutes before he was intolerated out of the Jefferson School. It should be seen as Aristotle recommended too much tolerance and too little are equally undesirable and what is good is the mean. Tolerance means too much and you exercise no judgment, too little and you exercise too much judgment. The judgment is of values. Too much tolerance and you accept all values as equal worth to you and too little tolerance and you reject all a person's values as not having worth. Since all values are hierarchical it is likely that you will have some values in common with most people and the judgment must be the comparative level of values you want to trade. I don't do business with dishonest people. I don't tolerate dishonesty in business but I play chess with a delightful person with whom I disagree on about everything except the value of a good game of chess and vigorous debate.

DK's work is regarding benevolence not tolerance, as you well know.