Comment on Opinions on the internet
ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks agoIt isn’t a paradox, or it doesn’t have to be. It isn’t a seemingly false or untrue statement that belies a deeper meaning.
It is a definitional and logical conclusion that a concept cannot tolerate its anathema and inverse.
Chemically tolerance means the limit at which something begins to degrade or an organism has to/begins to adapt. This is at least what I interpret with what is being brought up with tolerance of intolerance: when adaptation or degradation is required, the limits of tolerance have been reached.
Aurix@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
This is a pretty good rewording removing ambiguity.
As for my experience seeing this point brought up, its usually to silence a voice, and then this logical statement is equaled to the moral reasoning and justification in one, instead of reasoning inside that case how a “removal” would be required.
9bananas@feddit.org 3 weeks ago
the “paradox” as the user above pointed out, simply isn’t a paradox at all:
“A” = “not A” is never a true statement in any sort of logical framework.
and that’s all that the “paradox” really says: a society cannot be tolerant AND intolerant at the same time. it has to pick one.
it boils down to “you can’t have it both ways”, and that is the intended meaning.
i believe a grave mistake was made by popper when he popularized the concept as a “paradox” rather than a simple logical, and by no means new, conclusion.
in his attempt to frame it in a technical/philosophical context for his peers, he inadvertently made it seem like some kind of nebulous, unknowable dilemma to the general population.
there is not, and has never been, a dilemma here. it’s simply a logical conclusion.
it’s kind of like the whole misunderstanding of “theory” vs “hypothesis” leading to the now-common “evolution is just a theory” among religious fundamentalists.
“it’s just a theory” is wrong, because a theory in a scientific context is proven true, there’s nothing hypothetical about it.
in a similar vein, the “paradox” is a only a paradox in the sense that it seems counter-intuitive at first glance that a tolerant society cannot tolerate intolerance, but the conclusion is crystal clear.
and that last part seems lost on people, because when the average person hears the word “paradox” they assume that there is no conclusion or definitive answer to something, when in this case, there is a definite conclusion.
and that assumption of “paradox = dilemma” is why people constantly misunderstand the paradox of tolerance. the assumption is wrong.
popper called the conclusion “paradoxical”, which isn’t the same as something being an actual paradox.
i really wish they’d used a different name for the concept, because the name is a terrible case of misnomer…