"Isn't it true that unlimited tolerance in a society itself leads to the destruction of tolerance? If we make concessions to those who are intolerant under the principle of unlimited tolerance or if we are not ready to defend a tolerant society against intolerance, then ultimately those who follow the principle of tolerance will be destroyed, and with them the tolerant society. Is this acceptable?" This is Karl Popper's famous riddle called the paradox of tolerance. Popper is my favorite philosopher, his books are always on my desk and I often refer to his talks and theories. One of the many reasons why I like Popper is that Popper is not influenced by any giant figure and does not accept any classical theory just because it has been taught in books for hundreds of years. Popper does not spare a philosopher like Plato, the rest are radishes. This riddle is also proof of this.
Plato believed that true democracy ultimately turns into tyranny of the majority (this was the Muslim League's argument against the Congress). Therefore, it is better to entrust the government to a philosopher-king who can put a stop to the tyrannical system and promote justice, equality, and fairness in society.
God bless Professor Anwar Barkat, he used to teach us political philosophy in MA, the entire course covered everything from Plato to Karl Marx, but he had such a love for Plato that he spent eight months out of twelve on it. Where are such teachers now!Let us return to Karl Popper. Popper took Plato to task and argued that such philosopher kings are not available in the market who can be held by the hand and placed on the throne of power and told that they are the incarnations of God who will establish order in society. Popper said that it is much better to create a liberal democratic system in which we keep an eye on such unlimited freedom and tolerance and also impose restrictions when the time comes that it becomes a threat to that liberal democracy. In other words, it is much better than giving power to a king that the government remains with the representatives of the people but arrangements are made to protect that democracy from the tyranny of the majority or any violent group or any party that does not believe in tolerance or tolerance on its own.
This is where Popper's mystery of tolerance arises, according to which true tolerance can come in a society only when those who have an intolerant attitude in that society are not tolerated. This argument has a lot of weight, but this is where the real debate begins.
The question arises as to where to draw the line, what should be tolerated and what should be considered freedom of expression? The simple and straightforward answer is that violence is the red line, no form of violence should be tolerated, and not only that, but any act that causes physical harm is also unacceptable. The second question arises here that many things can cause physical harm, such as if a person can take his own life, then does he not have this right, or if we feed children fast food, is it not harmful to their health, then should the state be given the right to tell its citizens what to eat? If this is accepted, then it will become the worst authoritarian state and the whole purpose will be lost. The solution to this problem was presented by another of my favorite philosophers, John Rawls. He closed the river in a jar by saying that a society that stands on justice and fairness should also tolerate those who have a philosophy of intolerance, otherwise that society will start following the principle of intolerance and thus will stray from the path of justice and fairness. However, Rawls also imposes a condition and says that in exceptional circumstances, when the ideals of tolerance and freedom are faced with a real threat and the protections given in the constitution seem inadequate, then in those unavoidable circumstances, that tolerant society has a reasonable right to protect itself by taking action against the intolerant group so that the freedom of the intolerant group can be restricted.
I am more attracted to Popper's theory than Rawls's and the reason for this is that if we continue to tolerate the intolerant group until they become a real threat to peaceful citizens and institutions, then the time for action against them will have passed.
Hitler kept getting leeway under the guise of this democratic ideology and then he got elected and set the parliament on fire. Before that, he was only saying things under Rawls's ideology that were being tolerated. With us, the problem is even more serious. If we support the promotion of an intolerant group, then under the guise of this, the personal freedom of the common man is also taken away, and ifIf we accept Rawls's theory as correct, then we will have to tolerate the intolerant group at all costs and give them freedom until they hang their opponents with their own hands. And the irony is that that group has never even declared its acquittal from this ideology. That is why Karl Popper's statement carries more weight that if we want to live in a state where there is tolerance and tolerance, then there is no place for promoting intolerance in such a state. It is not possible for a group to issue fatwas on ordinary citizens calling them blasphemers and traitors and when the camel comes down the mountain, demand constitutional and legal protection for itself, and that too without any false or true expression of regret. This is a requirement of political philosophy, Maulana Rumi's theory of Sufism does not apply here!
Finally, the paradox of tolerance helps us to remember that freedom and tolerance are not self-sufficient, and they must be followed with alertness and judgment.
The sum is that societies which little understand the threats of uncontrolled intolerance may end at losing the very freedom they prize so much. Philosophers such as Popper give a lead: to maintain a tolerant society, it cannot be the case of leave the hardling unchecked. One as much needs liberty in democracy as rights, and the fear to act where that liberty has been turned against the principles with which it was intended to serve. The interpretation of this equilibrium is not merely a philosophical activity- but a practical requirement of safeguarding of values of justice, equality, and human dignity in our contemporary world.
.jpeg)
0 Comments