With an article like the following, there is always the conundrum of appearing legalistic or at least out-dated. But this topic is far too important to simply avoid, so I am going to try to audition for a role of respecting people but being elitist to ideas - traditional tolerance. Once again, we look at tolerance and the contemporary version perverting our epistemological position of reality. Today's conception of pluralism I believe generates its ideology from the contemporary definition of tolerance, all ideas are equal and given to the individual. I want to start with a more intellectually rich proposal of pluralism from a Veritas Forum¹ I heard, where Prof. Mark Lilla explain the idea of a Pluralistic society "when I think of the term pluralism, I want to distinguish it in my mind from… Diversity and Multi-Culturalism… but rather as a stronger term having to do with a certain idea of what society is… two sort of competing general classes of ideas about society; (one) an idea of society that is whole and integrated and therefore to understand anything about that society or what is above that society or below that society would require full knowledge and integration with everything else we know about that society. (two) The pluralistic idea about society suggest social life isn't like that, human life isn't like that, intellectual life isn't like that, there are different levels and different spheres, things that are inappropriate in one area and not in another and that's not a bad thing. …now as the discussion goes on tonight we might find ourselves talking about the struggle between these different conceptions of society where; (one) everything has to connect to everything else and come under one single idea and (two) the other where it is plausible for us to conceive of different sphere's of government, different groups of people according to different principle's without feeling that somehow we have to reconcile them in one final coherent picture" Reductionism is becoming more popular in American thought as both anti-intellectualism and post modernism are blindly claiming the heroics to America's desired epistemology. Reductionism is an approach to understanding the nature of something complex (whatever the degree of complexity) by reducing it to simpler or more fundamental state. In the above common description of pluralism, a form of reductionism is taking place. The wholeness and integration that a coherent ideology contributes is being reduced to the subjectivity of individual preferences or majority social desire. The complexity of unity that an exclusive ideology necessitates is being reduced to an impossibility and is replaced with pragmatic desires. The question now is, are the replaced pragmatic desires complex enough to bring unity to such a diverse society? Sometimes I think complexity is being confused with complicated; there must be a worldview that is exclusive, because to say that there is no exclusive worldview is to be an exclusive worldview. This reductionism is a form of avoidance because to have humanity come under one unifying ideology, at face value, seems restrictive and suppressive. We can see how the contemporary tolerance of equality of ideas is used as a value to support this kind of pluralism. Here are two other reductive arguments I have constructed and refer to them as "Reductio ad Incertus" and "Reductio ad Indifferens": Reductio ad Incertus - Reducing to Uncertainty It is suggested in the above "tolerable" description, that simply recognizing uncertainty is a tolerant disposition, therefore giving way to a healthier society – a pluralistic society. But if I am uncertain of something, then I cannot be sure how to tolerate what it is I do not know; all I know is that I don't know. It does seem however that someone has to tolerate me while in that state of uncertainty, but that would require them to have an epistemic value of at-least some certainty, a sort of exclusive understanding. Reductio ad Indifferens – Reducing to Indifference What about the implication in the above "tolerable" description that recognizing indifference found in the" different levels and different spheres all according to different principle's" as being "tolerable" to a society? America's desire to be neutral and open-minded should not include close-minded. In our previous blog, I reasoned that tolerance is not a moral standard itself but to have to tolerate something presuppose there is a moral standard one is being tolerate of. Claiming to be tolerant of differences (accepting them as equal) is turning a blind eye to moral and immoral behavior; this of course is evident in the current argument that no one can impose a universal objective moral on humanity. A social milieu reduced to pragmatism and methodologies because of a non-working tolerance will not bring strength or healing to a skeptical and diverse society. Only by rejecting that all ideas are equal, society can create a civil forum where voices can practice tolerance. Where the complexity of unity can be sought for, tensions can be unbound and progression is societies to embrace. To attempt to function with logical and illogical ideas as egalitarian has traditionally been referred to as "mad".
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Reduced to Pragmatism
Saturday, January 1, 2011
A Quest Resulting in Bamboozlement
It's all the rage these days… tolerance, but every time I hear mantra for its ethical advocacy, the tune has an odd harmony. There are many visions a society can be proud of that allow for an uncompromised future of superior value; however its contemporary definition does just the opposite. Wikipedia, a common place of reference, describes tolerance as such: In general usage, tolerance is a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose beliefs or personal characteristics (race, religion, nationality, etc.), differ from one's own. The above reference reveals a quest for American society to, through the use of "tolerance," gain a disposition of self-sufficiency or individual independence. In the American mind, becoming an open and free society suggests we be egalitarian of all people's individuality and all ideas, making tolerance the projected value for constructing such a society. This contemporary definition differs from the traditional definition which says that all people are equal but all ideas are not. There is some partial agreement with the above definition; there is no need for racism, therefore rejecting no one because of their race or nationality; but there is a contradiction in the above reference that makes it a self-refuting proposition. Can I be egalitarian to all ideas, accepting them as having all equal value? Take for example the following statement; "all ideas are equal and one is not better than the other". Is that quote equal to "all ideas are not equal and one is better than the other"? It is obvious, that the "tolerant" quote, the first one, believes itself better than at least one idea… that all ideas are not equal. The very idea or proposition, that tolerance means an equality of ideas is intolerant because it places itself in authority above all other ideas. It is only tolerant to reveal another contradiction of a categorical nature. Contemporary tolerance is expressing a categorical right that tolerance (equal ideas) is a moral obligation and intolerance (unequal ideas) is inhumane. The very notion of being tolerant presupposes there is a moral standard to be tolerant of; so tolerance then cannot be that moral standard itself. To be your own moral standard would sound like, "it is morally wrong to say that something is morally wrong." It is self defeating. We must also remember that we do not tolerate good we only tolerate some harms to prevent greater harms. A patient will tolerate the extraction of a tooth to prevent an even greater pain or suffering. A society will tolerate bad logic to maintain a bad political correctness… all ideas are equal. This last example reveals once more that tolerance is not a moral compass. Tolerance does appear to have social value but morality depicts that value for a society. Anti-Social Result: The above Wikipedia reference uses such language as fair, objective and permissive attitude. Fair: I think I know what it is to be fair; yet accepting tolerance as all ideas being equal, allows the false to overlook the true, the unjust to infringe on the just, and the irrational to impede the rational. This does not allow fairness to evolve but rather promote an intolerant society infringing on human equality. Objective: Objectiveness can only be reached if a society is willing to allow the vetting of ideas. The very existence of this form of tolerance is a rejection of objective, absolute, and exclusive claims, only trying to perform this task as an objective, absolute, exclusive claim. Also intolerant! Permissive Attitude: The question; "can tolerance, as equality of ideas, honestly be performed in reality?" Can one except that murder is both right and wrong, or stealing is both acceptable and unacceptable? This form of logic, the "both and" method of perception, fails to provide society with rational that produces a permissible attitude. Two contradictory ideas cannot both be true and be expected to provide clarity for the individuals in that society to perform from. Peter Kreeft², Philosopher at Boston College defines tolerance as being egalitarian to people but elitist to ideas. It becomes impossible, with today's popular definition, to create a flourishing society with truly advancing ideas, if all are equal. Ideas are highly contagious and can act as either as an antidote or a virus to ones reality. One idea can build an empire or bring an empire down. Truth is the only harmony that can keep reality coherent and allow ideas to flourish.
Posts
