[MD] The trouble with tolerance

[Platt Holden]

Hi All,

An excellent analysis of tolerance by the postmodern philosopher 
Stanley Fish can be found at:

http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=f2281gdy909q6jfczpj22f7gtkg3cqf

In examining assumptions behind the intellectual value of free speech  
Fish writes:

" . . . the assumption that expression as an abstract category is to be 
valued over the content of what is expressed; the assumption that no 
content is to be either stigmatized or embraced in advance of its 
having been subject to the test of rational scrutiny; the assumption 
that contents (ideas, ideologies, opinions, hypotheses) are equal 
before the law and none is prohibited unless it is put into (dangerous) 
action; the assumption that religious pronouncements, even those that 
issue from revered authorities, are in no way privileged, exempt from 
criticism, or entitled to a place in the policy deliberations of the 
state; the assumption that the holding of views, however unpopular or 
even sacrilegious, cannot be a reason for the denial of rights, the 
withholding of privileges, or the distribution of rewards."

In spite of Fish's use of his favorite term "privilege" as opposed to 
"earned rewards," I find his examination of assumptions behind a stated 
intellectual value such as free speech to be the essence of 
philosophical thought. Once underlying assumptions are established, the 
following discussion becomes well grounded, and further cogitations on 
the subject become more meaningful and useful.

For example, consider this passage: 

"Liberal citizens, Brown explains, will be tolerant of any group so 
long as its members subordinate their cultural commitments to the 
universal dictates of reason, as defined by liberalism. But once a 
group has rejected tolerance as a guiding principle and opted instead 
for the cultural imperatives of the church or tribe, it becomes a 
candidate for intolerance that will be performed in the name of 
tolerance; and at that moment any action against it -- however violent -
- is justified. Tolerance, then, is a virtue that liberal citizens or 
those who are willing to act as liberal citizens are capable of 
exercising, and those who refuse to exercise it cannot, by this logic, 
be its beneficiary."

Regardless of you opinion of Fish as a philosopher, I think most of you 
will enjoy the article because it shows how one of our unstudied and 
therefore revered values can be rationally questioned and its negative 
aspects brought to light.

Best,
Platt