There is something I don't quite understand in the idea of tolerance. And probably it is this: nature doesn't seem to be tolerant. Evolution wouldn't work if it tolerance would be the principle driving it. So why should this principle be applied for humanity?
@timetradesman Because we have consciousness & can choose to be kind to one another, and choosing so makes the life and experience of every human being on the planet a better one. Nature & animals have no such ability to choose, they live by instinct & random chance. If humans lived by instinct we would do so because we have chosen to & that would make our actions cruel & selfish. Tolerance therefore is our key to being good & moral - and therefore happier as a species.
@laRosson I don't think that being kind to fellow species is a characteristic that can be attributed only to humans.
But anyway I thought that being kind to one another, is not equal to being tolerant. Of course if Bertrand Russell used the word tolerance, to mean kindness, it is a different story.
@timetradesman Being kind to fellow creatures is not a trait only attributable to humans, but I didn't even remotely say that. Animals behave the way they do, kind or cruel, because it benefits their survival and they make their choice of how to behave based in instinct. Humans can make a logical and rational choice to be "tolerant" or "kind" (these can be exclusive behaviours but I think they have a congruence in this context) and do so because it is right.
@timetradesman Personally (and that is a question I can only really answer on a personal level), I would say the only logical time to become intolerant toward someone is when they become such a huge threat to you and your way of life (through their own intolerance of you, naturally) that you absolutely must defend yourself against their actions.
@timetradesman Beyond that, though, I believe that tolerance is the most logical way of living. It means accepting people as they are and seeing past the stereotypes and judgements that society instils in us and appreciating everyone as a human being equal of being treated with respect and granted freedom. That is fundamental to how I interpret Russell's words in this video.
Hopefully you'll get some answers from other people too to give you some different interpretations to consider. ;)
@laRosson Thank you for your replies! I surely agree with your points about seeing past the stereotypes and I agree that humans should be given equal rights and freedoms. I struggle with the idea that humans are all equal. Not sure it is so. I am afraid, definition of tolerance stated above, is different from the general widespread perception of this idea. I think my main problem is that tolerance in itself doesn't ask for a solution to deferences/problems, but merely permits them be.
@timetradesman In that regard, I agree with you. Humans *should* be equal, but aren't currently in our society: hence we have sexism, racism, classism and all other kinds of prejudice. Personally, I think the kind of tolerance stated by Russell is the answer to these problems and will help us become better people, without stripping us of our important & wonderful differences. And, yes, the media & newspaper-perpetuated idea of "tolerance" is, IMO, merely another form of intolerance & control.
@laRosson To add. If it is morally right and logical to seek to change certain beliefs, behaviors if they can cause harm not only to you, but also the upholders and followers, of such beliefs, behaviors, can you truly tolerate (have "fair, objective, and permissive attitude") toward this?
@timetradesman This comes in two forms, though, and the question to ask is, am I trying to change their behaviours because I see a rational conclusion in which we could all live better (e.g. in terms of anti-sexism, it is very logical and fair to argue that a woman is a human being deserving of all the rights a human should have) or because of my own prejudice (e.g. opposing same-sex couples merely because your culture opposes homosexuality)? The first is logical and the second is not......
@timetradesman .....and from that I would say that in the case of the first, you should tolerate the *person* and respect them as an individual, but do not passively accept their sexist behaviour. In the case of the second, you should tolerate the fact that the person has a different opinion and lifestyle to you and try and accept this.
But these are all questions for an individual to answer in terms of their own life and beliefs. That's just my two pennies.
@laRosson Agree on the approach. Can we stick to the first case? Isn't "tolerate the person, but not their actions" is kind of a hypocritical, not entirely personally honest?
On a side note what do you mean by "Humans *should* be equal"?
@timetradesman In an ideal world humans would all be treated equally but currently are not. Widespread social structures that we encounter and are a part of everyday create binary relationships of power and oppression. Therefore humans *should* be equal, but equality has not (and, some schools of thought would argue, cannot) be achieved.
Respecting a person, but not their actions is a fine line to walk (hence why conflict exists in the first place), but isn't hypocritical, for instance...
@laRosson now, respecting and tolerating are not the same things. "Respect theists, but not their believes/actions" is not the same as "Tolerate theists, but be intolerant of their believes/actions."
"treated equally" based on their merit, or just treated equally?
@timetradesman We're too far into semantics now, I think. I said "respect their right" to speak/act, which I would equate to a form of toleration. After all, the word "tolerate" in itself doesn't imply all-encompassing acceptance of a person's behaviours, merely the acceptance that they have the right to believe something different to you & the knowledge that, for all you know, they may be right. Russell's "tolerance", therefore, tolerates all but allows for change with the application of logic.
@timetradesman Thank you for asking them. Many people just don't bother. And for being one of the few YouTube exchanges I've had where I haven't been sworn at or insulted!
@timetradesman ...you can respect the fact that, regardless of that person's views, it is their human right to express them without censorship (so long as what they say is not harassment or incitement to violence & what they do causes no physical harm) and it is your right to counter this with what you believe, through the arts of rhetoric, persuasion & (academic) criticism. You therefore respect their human rights, without necessarily letting their (presumably) negative beliefs go unchallenged.
@timetradesman And why is it "right"? Because one human being should not dictate others' beliefs, ideologies or lifestyles with oppression simply because it does not chime with their own beliefs. Groups of human beings can use logic and rationality to change the world for the better over time, by peaceful appeals to logic. But only through tolerance can we live peacefully together, without oppression and violence based on nothing more than cultural divisions and prejudiced stereotypes.
@chinguidinsky Absolutely brilliant question sir If I may get a speculatory crack at this lol . As you, I don't believe the world was designed with us in mind. and in the future mankind can probably find asway to stop aging process in us and in animals, and we can populate all of space when technology is advanced enough, couple hundred thousand years perhaps , but to be honest the Universe does'nt care we r here and won't care when we r extinct is my arguement . good day sir. ty
@chinguidinsky In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter. Of course, the idea of what "matters" and what doesn't is a human-made concept in itself. But, on a personal level, why do I personally think it is important that the human race continues? Because if I were to have been born a hundred years from now, I'd like to think that my ancestors spent the little time they were given on earth having fun, creating meaningful existences for themselves, & a better world for me to be born into.
"Never let yourself be diverted either by what you would wish to believe or by what you think would have beneficent social effects if it were believed. Look only at ... the facts."
Thank you for posting this, IaRosson.
writersblock26 3 weeks ago
Not most stupid Americans, they believe everything the bought and paid for media puts out along with or corrupt Government.
michaelsterling37 1 month ago
interresting ! what is the date of this interview ?
salmonfishandships 1 month ago
There is something I don't quite understand in the idea of tolerance. And probably it is this: nature doesn't seem to be tolerant. Evolution wouldn't work if it tolerance would be the principle driving it. So why should this principle be applied for humanity?
timetradesman 1 month ago
@timetradesman Because we have consciousness & can choose to be kind to one another, and choosing so makes the life and experience of every human being on the planet a better one. Nature & animals have no such ability to choose, they live by instinct & random chance. If humans lived by instinct we would do so because we have chosen to & that would make our actions cruel & selfish. Tolerance therefore is our key to being good & moral - and therefore happier as a species.
laRosson 1 month ago
@laRosson I don't think that being kind to fellow species is a characteristic that can be attributed only to humans.
But anyway I thought that being kind to one another, is not equal to being tolerant. Of course if Bertrand Russell used the word tolerance, to mean kindness, it is a different story.
Still my question stands.
timetradesman 1 month ago
@timetradesman Being kind to fellow creatures is not a trait only attributable to humans, but I didn't even remotely say that. Animals behave the way they do, kind or cruel, because it benefits their survival and they make their choice of how to behave based in instinct. Humans can make a logical and rational choice to be "tolerant" or "kind" (these can be exclusive behaviours but I think they have a congruence in this context) and do so because it is right.
laRosson 1 month ago
@laRosson ah, it was about the ability to make logical and rational choice to be kind/tolerant, got it, sorry. My bad.
So you basically replying to my question that by choosing to be tolerant , we make lives of other people better?
If so, my question would be: Are there cases it is more logical to choose to be intolerant to certain behaviors?
timetradesman 1 month ago
@timetradesman Personally (and that is a question I can only really answer on a personal level), I would say the only logical time to become intolerant toward someone is when they become such a huge threat to you and your way of life (through their own intolerance of you, naturally) that you absolutely must defend yourself against their actions.
laRosson 1 month ago
@timetradesman Beyond that, though, I believe that tolerance is the most logical way of living. It means accepting people as they are and seeing past the stereotypes and judgements that society instils in us and appreciating everyone as a human being equal of being treated with respect and granted freedom. That is fundamental to how I interpret Russell's words in this video.
Hopefully you'll get some answers from other people too to give you some different interpretations to consider. ;)
laRosson 1 month ago
@laRosson Thank you for your replies! I surely agree with your points about seeing past the stereotypes and I agree that humans should be given equal rights and freedoms. I struggle with the idea that humans are all equal. Not sure it is so. I am afraid, definition of tolerance stated above, is different from the general widespread perception of this idea. I think my main problem is that tolerance in itself doesn't ask for a solution to deferences/problems, but merely permits them be.
timetradesman 1 month ago
@timetradesman In that regard, I agree with you. Humans *should* be equal, but aren't currently in our society: hence we have sexism, racism, classism and all other kinds of prejudice. Personally, I think the kind of tolerance stated by Russell is the answer to these problems and will help us become better people, without stripping us of our important & wonderful differences. And, yes, the media & newspaper-perpetuated idea of "tolerance" is, IMO, merely another form of intolerance & control.
laRosson 1 month ago
@laRosson To add. If it is morally right and logical to seek to change certain beliefs, behaviors if they can cause harm not only to you, but also the upholders and followers, of such beliefs, behaviors, can you truly tolerate (have "fair, objective, and permissive attitude") toward this?
timetradesman 1 month ago
@timetradesman This comes in two forms, though, and the question to ask is, am I trying to change their behaviours because I see a rational conclusion in which we could all live better (e.g. in terms of anti-sexism, it is very logical and fair to argue that a woman is a human being deserving of all the rights a human should have) or because of my own prejudice (e.g. opposing same-sex couples merely because your culture opposes homosexuality)? The first is logical and the second is not......
laRosson 1 month ago
@timetradesman .....and from that I would say that in the case of the first, you should tolerate the *person* and respect them as an individual, but do not passively accept their sexist behaviour. In the case of the second, you should tolerate the fact that the person has a different opinion and lifestyle to you and try and accept this.
But these are all questions for an individual to answer in terms of their own life and beliefs. That's just my two pennies.
laRosson 1 month ago
@laRosson Agree on the approach. Can we stick to the first case? Isn't "tolerate the person, but not their actions" is kind of a hypocritical, not entirely personally honest?
On a side note what do you mean by "Humans *should* be equal"?
timetradesman 1 month ago
@timetradesman In an ideal world humans would all be treated equally but currently are not. Widespread social structures that we encounter and are a part of everyday create binary relationships of power and oppression. Therefore humans *should* be equal, but equality has not (and, some schools of thought would argue, cannot) be achieved.
Respecting a person, but not their actions is a fine line to walk (hence why conflict exists in the first place), but isn't hypocritical, for instance...
laRosson 1 month ago
@laRosson now, respecting and tolerating are not the same things. "Respect theists, but not their believes/actions" is not the same as "Tolerate theists, but be intolerant of their believes/actions."
"treated equally" based on their merit, or just treated equally?
timetradesman 1 month ago
@timetradesman We're too far into semantics now, I think. I said "respect their right" to speak/act, which I would equate to a form of toleration. After all, the word "tolerate" in itself doesn't imply all-encompassing acceptance of a person's behaviours, merely the acceptance that they have the right to believe something different to you & the knowledge that, for all you know, they may be right. Russell's "tolerance", therefore, tolerates all but allows for change with the application of logic.
laRosson 1 month ago
@laRosson got your point. Thank you for taking time to reply to my questions.
timetradesman 1 month ago
@timetradesman Thank you for asking them. Many people just don't bother. And for being one of the few YouTube exchanges I've had where I haven't been sworn at or insulted!
laRosson 1 month ago
@timetradesman ...you can respect the fact that, regardless of that person's views, it is their human right to express them without censorship (so long as what they say is not harassment or incitement to violence & what they do causes no physical harm) and it is your right to counter this with what you believe, through the arts of rhetoric, persuasion & (academic) criticism. You therefore respect their human rights, without necessarily letting their (presumably) negative beliefs go unchallenged.
laRosson 1 month ago
@timetradesman And why is it "right"? Because one human being should not dictate others' beliefs, ideologies or lifestyles with oppression simply because it does not chime with their own beliefs. Groups of human beings can use logic and rationality to change the world for the better over time, by peaceful appeals to logic. But only through tolerance can we live peacefully together, without oppression and violence based on nothing more than cultural divisions and prejudiced stereotypes.
laRosson 1 month ago
Old fool.
eddiepepper99 1 month ago
@eddiepepper99 Young twat.
laRosson 1 month ago 5
My question is, why does it matter if the human race remains? I am asking honestly I accept your answer with respect. Thank you.
chinguidinsky 1 month ago
@chinguidinsky Absolutely brilliant question sir If I may get a speculatory crack at this lol . As you, I don't believe the world was designed with us in mind. and in the future mankind can probably find asway to stop aging process in us and in animals, and we can populate all of space when technology is advanced enough, couple hundred thousand years perhaps , but to be honest the Universe does'nt care we r here and won't care when we r extinct is my arguement . good day sir. ty
surrfers73 1 month ago
@chinguidinsky In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter. Of course, the idea of what "matters" and what doesn't is a human-made concept in itself. But, on a personal level, why do I personally think it is important that the human race continues? Because if I were to have been born a hundred years from now, I'd like to think that my ancestors spent the little time they were given on earth having fun, creating meaningful existences for themselves, & a better world for me to be born into.
laRosson 1 month ago
fantastic!what a brilliant mind!
r0se171 2 months ago
what a massive lad.....
cellist2010 2 months ago
Bertrand Russell IS the shit.
erichs6193 2 months ago
"Never let yourself be diverted either by what you would wish to believe or by what you think would have beneficent social effects if it were believed. Look only at ... the facts."
hamidppp 2 months ago
Stick to the facts and ignore bullshit. This is his message.
prakkari 3 months ago
So simple, so rational. His words should be taught in every school.
WestonPDX100 3 months ago 10
there should be more posts here people!! get off Paris Hilton and learn something important here!!
windstorm1000 4 months ago 4
wonderful man, and a great mind
gl1tchofficial 4 months ago in playlist gl1tchofficial's favorites 17
ทางปัญญาก็คือ ขอให้ศึกษาและมองสิ่งต่างๆ โดยดูเพียงแต่ "ข้อเท็จจริง" (facts) ไม่ใช่พยายามมองให้เห็นสิ่งที่เราเชื่อ หรือสิ่งที่สังคมกำหนดไว้ว่าเป็นเช่นนั้น และส่วนในทางศีลธรรม ความรักนั้นฉลาด ความเกลียดนั้นโง่ เราต้องเรียนรู้ที่จะมีความอดกลั้นขันติธรรมต่อคนอื่น แม้ว่าเราจะไม่ชอบสิ่งเขาเป็นหรือแสดงออกก็ตาม นี่เป็นหนทางเดียวที่จะทำให้มนุษยชาติมีชีวิตอยู่ร่วมกัน ไม่ใช่ตายร่วมกัน และทำให้มนุษย์ยังคงดำรงอยู่ในโลกพิภพใบนี้ : Vira Somboon
Virote63 4 months ago
What about being tolerant towards intolerant people?
smatta1 5 months ago 3
Very wise, indeed!
ideologger 6 months ago 3
Well said!
cnyambas 6 months ago 2