Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Tolerance can be understood in different ways. In Russian, it can be translated as tolerance. Patience is essentially a passive process. One person passively tolerates another person's annoying actions. If you take it that way, it's bad.�
But tolerance can also be translated as acceptance. Accepting the wholeness of the world and different people as necessary parts of it. Two people actively develop a behavior in which annoying actions towards each other are minimized. This understanding is not just good, it is a natural reaction of society to its internal heterogeneity. This is what helps society to exist in a high-quality way. When people work together to smooth out sharp corners, there is less friction between the parts of the mechanism, and the mechanism works more efficiently.
Tolerance, acceptance of a person with a different culture, faith, or worldview, is allowed in limited quantities. Wine in water or water in wine-the difference is very big. Everything must be done in moderation, otherwise they lose their own traditions and customs, and there is no influence, but substitution. Which should absolutely not be the case. In this way, the Chinese Empire once defeated its enemies.
Tolerance is the loss of the ability of an organism or society to distinguish healthy processes from pathological ones that can lead to the death of the organism or society. An example is the immunological tolerance that occurs in the last stages of AIDS. The immune system stops producing a response to cancer cells, viral or bacterial infection. Stops making a distinction between them and the body's cells. It is this condition that is the direct cause of death.
Not bad and not good. This is an idea that can be used both ways. It all depends on who uses this concept and how, and for what purposes. If someone wants to belittle / eliminate / imprison / destroy the “intolerant” with the help of tolerance, then this is no better than crusades against infidels, or the cutting of LGBT people by ardent traditionalists with the help of gas chambers. Tolerance to throw off Trump is the same as patriotism to give a shit to the Ukrainians. Tolerance blurs the boundaries between people, eliminates differences. In a tolerant world, there are no whites and blacks, gays and straight people, believers and atheists-all this ceases to be important. just people remain. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Neither good nor bad. It's just either going to happen if tolerant societies survive, or it won't happen if they're swallowed up by intolerant ones. Tolerance is one of the characteristics of some cultures, which can play a certain role in natural selection at the state or ethnic level. Perhaps they will die, these tolerant cultures. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? They may survive. Time will tell.
Tolerance itself is a useful quality of human character. It is one of the facets of wisdom.
However, the meaning that is now invested in a fashionable foreign word is deeply flawed. Tolerance (in other words, “tolerance”) cannot and should not be a general, state policy, religion, etc.
Reasonable tolerance, when we accept the differences of people and do not judge for actions that do NOT affect the freedom of others – this is good. What's wrong with that? In a person to see a person, first of all.
As for hate speech, discrimination, crime, violence, and terrorism. Then you can't be tolerant, because these actions limit the freedom and even the lives of others.
And to make it even easier to understand, you can take a look at South Park season 6 episode 14, where everything is clearly explained what tolerance is and about people who misunderstand the meaning of this word, and at the same time independently come to a conclusion whether it is good or bad.