Controversial Opinion: The Paradox of Tolerance and its Issues!

preview_player
Показать описание
Karl Popper’s famous paradox of tolerance, a tolerant society can’t be tolerant of the intolerant, that he proposed in “The open society and its enemies” is a philosophical proposal that has been used a lot in political argumentation and discussion regarding freedom & free speech, this video is my attempt to bring my views onto the matter of this rather controversial topic and some of the issues I see with it.

Please don't be afraid to comment or voice any questions as I love interacting with you my dear viewers and I will try to respond as quickly as possible to you. Also please like, subscribe & push the bell icon as those actions helps this channel grow and gives you more content like this!

Sources and further reading:

Popper, Karl (1947[1945]). The open society and its enemies Vol. 1 The spell of Plato.

Rawls, John (1971). A Theory of Justice

#Paradoxoftolerance #Freespeech #toleranceparadox #Paradox_of_tolerance #Karlpopper #Controversialoppinion
Рекомендации по теме
Комментарии
Автор

I hope you liked this video discussing Karl Popper’s Tolerance Paradox. Please, don't be afraid to comment or voice any questions as I love interacting with you my dear viewers and I will try to respond as quickly as possible to you. Also, please like, subscribe & push the bell icon as those actions do help this channel grow!

theculturedjinni
Автор

Glad to see someone else who reached the same conclusion about tolerance. Tolerance shouldn’t be the main focus in politics; rather, it is the fruit of other aims.

Olors
Автор

Didn’t know Popper put those requirements for when to use force. A few questions:
1) why is the democratic process so important?
2) what about an autocratic state developing a policy without consultation and it later becomes popular? is this intolerance justified or unjustified between being passed into law and becoming popular?
3) why is intolerance through the democratic process justified? Doesn’t that fall into the tyranny of the majority?

Ushmadand
Автор

the trick is to be "open to openness" and "closed to closedness" but you find many, many people on the internet who are "open to closedness" and "closed to openness".

i have literally met people in the comments who think i am a hypocrite because i am "accepting of them being religious" but i am not accepting of them being homophobic, and they think that since being homophobic is essential to their religion, i am being intolerant to them.

both the left and right have some very similar tendencies to be absolute relativists who think we have to accept them/other people being irrational because "freedom" or because "culture".

beepboop
Автор

This was a balanced, careful, intelligent video on the topic. I'm sure you'll get a lot of hate for it! 😁My one qualification would be that sometimes there is a situation within a society which has such intolerable consensus (like slavery) that a violent revolution, no matter how harmful in the current time can be considered (with hindsight) something of a moral act. That is not to justify individual barbarity during the process but just to say that a democratic consensus of intolerance itself can sometimes be argued to need force from outside for the greater liberty. I understand that this in itself can be manipulated for odious ends. But I guess I am saying (to use your catchphrase) - it's complicated... 😀

drasticmeasuresislam