Paradoks Tolerancije

Rasprave o filozofskim temama.

Moderator: Bloo

User avatar
triconja
Posts: 16211
Joined: 29/04/2012 07:04

#51 Re: Paradoks Tolerancije

Post by triconja »

smajkan wrote:Da li tolerantne osobe trebaju tolerisati netolerantnost?
To ti radi ovako : ako su ljudi odgojeni da nesto prihvate a nesto odbace, nema te sile koja ce ih natjerati da nesto prihvate. Primjer je homoseksualizam. Ko je naucen da je to kaka nece nikad ni prihvatiti to i to ti je to.

Tamo u jemerici imas cenife posebne za cisginger ljude, pa mogu na miru kakit i tako to.

U Bosni nema tolerancije nit ce ikad biti, ko god kaze drugacije nek izadje i vidi koliko naroda je za toleranciju a koliko protiv. Gejevi odrade neke skupove sa plakatima a ovi vjerski nastrojeni odmah misle vidjaj ih sad ce i u mene djeca bit taka. :lol:
User avatar
triconja
Posts: 16211
Joined: 29/04/2012 07:04

#52 Re: Paradoks Tolerancije

Post by triconja »

Seoskivaralica wrote:Tolerancija nije stanje uma nego stanje drustva.....niko nije tolerantan kao sto je drustvo tolerantno.....
Covjek ne tolerise nikog osim sebe , niko ko mu naudi ne bude tolerisan , to ne fercera tako...
Samo u drustvu moze doci do tolerancije razdornih faktora,....


Recimo ljudi koji su sami po sebi asocijalni , samozivi , skrti , ili samo jednom rijecju zli , ko njih zeli u drustvu ili recimo braku....
Mislim stvarno treba biti bar malo utilitarizma u covjeku da bude tolerisan od strane drugog covjeka....bez toga nema nicega...
Tolerancija u drustvu je ona stara ,daleko mu kuca od moje' a u umu postoji samo averzija jer kako ja koji volim istinu mogu tolerisati laz i kako ja koji cijenim zivot hladno da gledam smrt...

dzaba sto sam tolerantan kad vidim da konjo ,koji ima pola moje visine, svog malca samara u mom prisustvu, pored jos ljudi, zbog gluposti koju je dijete reklo jal uradilo, .......
Eee tu prestaje tolerancija ....lik nije svjestan kako je blizu teskih fizickih povreda dok ga tolerisem i sutim u masi i ne skrecem pogled sa likovih ociju koje su ponizene,trazim momenat da se umijesam,momenat koji prolazi,nista.
Izdrzi covjek ono poznato treperenje u rukama i nogama svjestan da sekunde me dijele od razgovora sa dezurnim iz patrolne sluzbe za deset minuta.....

Jelde jes moj zivot zanimljiv....

Generalno sve ima svoje granice tolerancija i netolerancija.....
Paradoksa nema isto sto je slano istovremeno i neslano i preslano, zavisi ko proba....
Najbolje bi bilo hajmo napravit neku listu sta je za toleranciju a sta nije i napravimo neki odred koji ce trenirati strogocu ako je potrebno.

Evo sad ja da uzmem tevsiju pure i da je stavim na glavu i da cekam neku toleranciju, zbog mojih nekih razmisljanja da je pura zdrava, i jos da govorim drugim ljudima da to rade, to ne bi islo.

Tolerancija jedino radi ako furas neki svoj fazon, bilo to brada ili frizura, ili neki koznjak, samo ako je u nekim normama drustva. Pusti bradu i stavi kapicu na glavu pa ces vidjet tolerancije :lol:
User avatar
triconja
Posts: 16211
Joined: 29/04/2012 07:04

#53 Re: Paradoks Tolerancije

Post by triconja »

¤ jelena ¤ wrote:Mislim da uopšte nema razloga da se ne slože, s obzirom na to šta sve Romi u našoj zemlji doživljavaju u toku svog života i na kakva sve poniženja nailaze.

Ne volim Rome/Kineze..., ali im i ne nanosim štetu - skroz OK za pripadnika "nevoljene" grupacije.

E, sad, to što je ovaj prvi dio stava čist (neo)nacizam i, samim tim, jedna neviđena glupost - to je već druga priča,
koja definitivno ne predstavlja nikakav problem jednom Romu ili Kinezu.... ako je onaj ko tako misli zaista svjestan da je ovako uopštena averzija produkt njegove ograničenosti tj. gluposti, pa je fino čuva za sebe i ponaša se civilizovano u prisustvu pripadnika te grupe koju ne voli.
Bravo, to je tolerancija. Kad se ne slazes sa necim a to trpis, pogotovo u prisustvu te osobe, to je tolerancija. Da bi ova tolerancija bila postojana, mora ta skupina biti primjer u drustvu po ponasanju.

Tolerancija raznih zadruga i udruzenja kojima je ideja nacionalizam ili nesto drugo koje je stetno za neku naciju ili pojedinca je kaka.
User avatar
derion
Posts: 1112
Joined: 06/01/2008 17:08

#54 Re: Paradoks Tolerancije

Post by derion »

Popper je to fino napisao i nema se tu šta previše dodati:
Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.
Tolerantno društvo se mora braniti od ekstremnih elemenata i njihovih stajališta (itekako relevantno danas, posebno u domeni religija i politike), na koje se mora napasti svim mogućim sredstvima. Znači, tolerancija za sve koji su spremni na suživot i pluralnost, a tamnica za zaostali, primitivni i netolerantni šljam. :)
hAZNADAR
Posts: 11029
Joined: 09/01/2012 08:12

#55 Re: Paradoks Tolerancije

Post by hAZNADAR »

Tolerantne osobe naravno da ne smiju tolerisati netolerantnost.
To je cak neka vrsta obaveze - protiv netolerancije se mora boriti. I to ne samo kada je u pitanju netolerancija prema tvojoj grupi vec opcenito. Nije to moralno palamudjenje, princip,.. vec cisto prakticna stvar. Zmirenjem na netoleranciju u neku ruku pomazes negativnim standardima u drustvu od koje niko nema koristi.

Problem je veci u ovoj temi ko je tolerantan i ko se moze tako nazvati.
Buduci da sam svjedok da se tolerancija veze uz odredjene klisee, stereotipe,.. pa su po defaultu neki kao tolerantniji zbog odredjenih politickih, vjerskih,.. svjetonazora, i sa tim imunitetom ne samo da zmire na netoleranciju - vec je i sami sire.
User avatar
sinuhe
Posts: 11458
Joined: 03/06/2011 11:33

#56 Re: Paradoks Tolerancije

Post by sinuhe »

https://philosophynow.org/issues/12/For_Tolerance
For Tolerance
Jonathan Gorman thanks God for the ideal of tolerance.
‘Tolerance’ has never had a good philosophical press, and Peter J. King (‘Against Tolerance’, Philosophy Now Issue 11, pp.23-4) says that we should not put up with it. Yet the ‘nebulous rhetoric’ of which he accuses public and private morality is more than matched by his own. Certainly there are uses of the word ‘tolerance’ which are misplaced. ‘Racial tolerance’ ordinarily means for most people, according to King, that “a person’s race is irrelevant to the way we judge her and to the way she should be treated”, but this is “simply good sense”, not tolerance (p.23). It is not tolerance because, as King reasonably reminds those who need reminding, the meaning (or at least a central implication) of “I tolerate x” is that I both judge x to be wrong and put up with x. Consequently ‘racial tolerance’ ought to imply that races other than our own are ‘wrong’ or morally unacceptable, and that we nevertheless ought to put up with them. Yet this is not the normal meaning of this wishy-washy phrase.

King may be correct, to a very limited extent, in this: it is true that we might describe a society which showed such good sense as ‘racially tolerant’, and we would then perhaps be misusing the word ‘tolerant’, although I’m not sure that it is wise to appeal to traditional uses of words as setting unchangeable standards for present-day use. In any event, more careful attention to the use of language would help here. In practice a call for racial tolerance is generally addressed to those who need to be taught how to treat others, who need to learn that racial grounds should be irrelevant to the treatment of others. Calling on them to be tolerant presupposes that they already believe that races other than their own are indeed ‘wrong’. To call for toleration here is to call for changes of behaviour, not primarily changes of belief (although a change of belief would be welcome), and the word is thus not misused.

But these are details. The serious and dangerous claim made by King lies here: “if we judge an action to be morally wrong, we are obliged to (try to) stop it. In the case of beliefs and statements, on the other hand, the obligation is not to stop but to change” (p.24). This passage occurs in a discussion of free speech. King is confused about free speech. Free speech is not the same as freedom of thought or freedom of belief. Free speech is the utterance of thoughts or beliefs, and to utter is to act. It can, of course, be both right to believe something and also right to keep that belief to oneself. For this reason, against King, you display religious toleration not just by rejecting the persecution of those who believe things which you hold false, but also by allowing such people to express their religious beliefs, by allowing them to live their lives undisturbed in accordance with what are to you alien standards, and by allowing them to persuade, to convert others, even though you think their beliefs and actions are wrong. But King expresses a seriously intolerant position: “if we judge an action to be morally wrong, we are obliged to (try to) stop it”.

King has forgotten about the law. A major question in the philosophy of law and in political philosophy is whether and how far morality should be enforced by the law. This element of ‘public and private’ morality is the natural home for the concept of tolerance. It is morally wrong to lie, on the whole; but the law does not prohibit it, except in limited cases (for example, lying to obtain money), and it is morally plausible that it ought not to. It is morally wrong to show ingratitude and to be rude to people; it may also be morally wrong to carry out abortion or euthanasia or armed robbery or murder. Some of these the law rightly prohibits and others the law rightly does not. It is a longstanding liberal doctrine that it does not follow, from the moral wrongness of something, that the law ought to prohibit it; and, whatever the political merit of this element of liberalism, it is good logic also. To make explicit, for the sake of validity, a suppressed premiss like “everything morally wrong should be legally prohibited” is to raise what is in itself the morally serious issue of toleration. It is plain that the deliberate limitations of law, the entire area of morality which the law does not enforce and which it is judged it would not be right to enforce, expresses what society tolerates in the central sense of the word ‘tolerance’: that which we think wrong, but which we are prepared to put up with, and which we think we are right to put up with. Thank God for tolerance.

We do not want to lose the concept of tolerance, for too many of society’s problems are best understood in terms of it. In a pluralist society beliefs and practices and ways of life are not shared. Moral convictions may be peculiar to particular groups, known to be distinct from the convictions of other groups, and no less firmly held for that. To accept the requirement of a pluralist society is to accept the requirement of tolerance: recognition of differences so serious that one group may firmly regard another group as seriously in the wrong, and yet feel a willingness to accept those very differences because it is also recognised as the right, and not merely the prudent, thing to do. We will all be much clearer about morality, both as private individuals and as public figures, when we can adopt, as the foundation for our moral beliefs, an understanding which both tells us what is right and also tells us when it is right to tolerate what is wrong. This is the heart of tolerance, and respect for humanity requires it.

© Dr. J.L. Gorman 1995
User avatar
славянин
Posts: 11281
Joined: 30/05/2013 21:43
Location: Tuzla,Sarajevo i dalje :)

#57 Re: Paradoks Tolerancije

Post by славянин »

Ne razumijem problem sa netolerancijom..... tolerantni/netolerantni prema cemu konkretno ? Homoseksualnosti,rasizmu,pedofiliji,imigraciji ???
palestinka
Posts: 1080
Joined: 15/07/2006 21:51

#58 Re: Paradoks Tolerancije

Post by palestinka »

Ne mislim da je tolerancija neka vrla osobina. Ako nekog ili nešto tolerišeš, to znači da ti to smeta, ali ne želiš da pokažeš iz,raznih razloga. Obično zato što bi okolina osudila tvoje netoleranciju. Ako se okiluna slaže u osudi ili ima,zajedničke predrasude, vrlo brzo tolerantni postaju agresivno netolerantni. Ako si nacionalista npr, onda to jesi I ne možeš selektivno tolerisati neke nacije, a nad manje popularnom ispoljavati svoje frustracije. To s a mo znači da si licemjerni nacionalista pod maskom tolerancije. Smeta, ali šta ću. Biću tolerantan, jer će raja misliti da sam papak, ali zato ću Romima i homoseksualcima sve po spisku.
User avatar
KB9
Posts: 8449
Joined: 26/10/2014 08:20

#59 Re: Paradoks Tolerancije

Post by KB9 »

tolerancija je za mekane
Post Reply