• mrpants@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You simultaneously reject it and believe he wrote it to prove how unsustainable it is?

      You’re entirely wrong. No ideas need to be shared where people don’t want to hear them. You are free to speak and I am free to not listen. It’s truly a beautiful approach.

      Edit: I’d also like to add that the paradox Popper is referring to is that of tolerating intolerance. That’s the paradox.

            • mrpants@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              It’s called the paradox of tolerance. Tolerating intolerance is the paradox. So it says you can’t tolerate intolerance.

                • mrpants@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  No it doesn’t. This argument works only if you assume that “intolerance” is something that can be defined as “anyone against anything I’m doing”.

                  If fascists were able to say “they’re being oppressive of my desire to exclude them from our society” then that’s not a flaw in the paradox but their reasoning abilities. Any philosophy is irrelevant then.

                  The argument boils down to “it’s impossible to know if the opposing side is truly being intolerant.” You say it is impossible. I say it isn’t.