Tolerance, Truth and Reason

Something from another blogger, Bill Vallicella at Right Reason.

Quoting from Leszek Kolawowski, "It is important to notice, however, that when tolerance is enjoined upon us nowadays, it is often in the sense of indifference: we are asked, in effect, to refrain from expressing -- or indeed holding -- any opinion, and sometimes even to condone every conceivable type of behaviour or opinion in others." ("On Toleration" in Freedom, Fame, Lying, and Betrayal, Penguin 1999, pp. 36-37.)

Something from another blogger, Baron Bodissey at Gates of Vienna. He writes:

"There’s a normal social urge not to be held in contempt by one’s fellow humans. The fact that more people agreed with Don’s positions than disagreed with them was not enough to save him from a nagging feeling that his opinions were beyond the pale. Everything he took in from the larger culture around him — the TV news, the pronouncements of government officials, the unctuously politically correct magazine advertisements placed by large corporations — told him that his natural tendencies were atavistic, hateful, and wrong."

I too, have struggled with the "happy medium" question. I think that using the bell curve as representative of large groups is a useful tool. When it comes to questions about how much or how little control to accept or impose as part of, or over, society, I think it's helpful to recognize that on separate issues individuals are able to accept or grant, more control from or to the individual, or from or to society. I haven't been able to find a good way of representing this breakdown using Venn diagrams on this computer, but imagine a smaller circle "C" fitting entirely into circle "A". This could represent those who self-identify as Libertarians or, in the late 19th century, anarchists. These are those who would view the imposition of any outside authority their actions as objectionable.

A small circle "D" fitting entirely within circle "B" could represent those who self-identify as Totalitarians or, in the late 20th century, anarchists. These are those who would view any imposition of authority they impose as necessary.

Notice above that the intersecting areas of circles "A" and "B" are apparently less than a third of either circles. To view the area found within the first standard deviation of the Bell Curve would mean that about one-half of a third of each circle would be outside the intersection of circles "A" and "B" (that is to say, about 68% of the total population would be represented by the intersection of circles "A" and "B".)

When we look at societies sometimes we lose sight of the forest for the trees. By fitting the small circle "C" within the boundaries of "A" we introduce an artifact of homogeniety that doesn't exist within the bounds of normal distribution. (Unless we look at areas, like the Pearl District in Portland, which, when I was growing up was the crummy part of downtown. Now that it has a cool name it's home to some real limo lefties.) Likewise, when you attend a meeting of whatever group you tend to see the group identity rather than the group as individuals.

If you would allow, this is an almost hermeneutical approach to gauging public opinion. It allows us to see that the degree of homogeniety within our society is actually quite high, while the ideas that separate us are quite slight.

Freedom versus slavery? We're pretty much of one mind.

Apostacy versus submission? Hmm. The Jesuits have one mind. The Salafi, another.

Tolerance versus intolerance? Another hmm. From Baron Bodissey, "There’s another kind of “moderate” stance which is very much in vogue: the idea that the best course of action, not mention the truth, always lies somewhere between two extremes."

I think now we arrive at the crux. I would posit that for society the best course of action is somewhere between the two extremes. The Baron responds, "Let’s take some instructive examples from history. Consider the ancient controversy over the idea of a geocentric cosmos. At one extreme were the traditionalists who insisted that the Earth lay at the center of creation, and the sun, the moon, the planets, and the stars all revolved around it in a set of concentric crystalline spheres. At the other extreme were the radical proponents of the heliocentric universe, among them Aristarchus of Samos, Ptolemy, and Copernicus."

"Did the truth lie somewhere between these two extremes? Was there a model of the universe which included some geocentric elements? Maybe we could tinker with the original theory and have the moon and the stars revolve around the Earth, while the planets could revolve around the sun…?

In another place I have argued that it's important to know the difference between knowledge and belief. And I think this is where the Baron gets off track. In the aggregate our world is filled with shades of gray. It is only when we begin the process of disaggregating that we can effectively change or influence peoples thinking. Plutarch wasn't the first guy to point this out. We tend to be suspicious of "other people's" ideas. Which is where, I think, both Valicella and Bodissey both conclude that tolerance is the greatest value that binds us as a society.

Bodissey writes, "This is not to say that a successful political system never involves compromise. In order for our political structures to work, they must always allow for compromise."

"But sometimes one extreme or the other represents the truth. It’s not always true that “both sides” have validity. The best course is not always the happy medium. We have to take the issues on a case-by-case basis."

And Valicella writes, "A toleration worth wanting and having is valuable because truth is valuable. It is threatened in two ways. It is threatened both by those who think that have the truth when they don't and those who are indifferent to truth."

Even fifty years of repeated falsehoods don't invalidate simple truth. It can create a great deal of cognitive dissonance. Hence the phenomena of the Jacksonian. I think it's possible that these are people that represent the silent majority. That is to say, if you look at the bell curve above and put "Give a Damn" at one end of the spectrum, and "Give a Damn" at the other, that most people will be somewhere in the middle, not giving a damn. Until something trips them up. Unless and until, they're happy with watching the CBS, NBC and ABC version of the news, with some of them wandering over to the populist--Jacksonian--Bill O'Reilly.

In both of these gentlemen's words I would point out that I disagree with the tone of their dismal conclusions. I both loved the title and the movie starring Alec Guiness, "Situation Hopeless, But Not Serious". What we refer to as Mainstream Media continues to update Sgt. Lucky Finder with bad news about the war. As new Europe defends itself from the intrusive EU promulgated by the Left in France, Germany and Britain, as Iraqis pick up the war against al-Qaeda, as the Lebanese fight Syrian and Iranian intrusions, as the middle-class in Afghanistan asserts modernity as a countervailing force against tyranny, and as long as there is an Israel, we will continue to celebrate freedom, tolerance and dignity.

And truth.