Tolerance comes under the virtue of prudence. In other words, one must make judgment calls about when it is wise to be tolerant to the human being(s) you are dealing with, in order to attain higher goods.
As such, I would describe it as an accidental attribute of Prudence in the Thomistic sense. That or maybe it falls under Long Suffering - forgive me, but I'm not going to break out my copy of the Summa at the moment for this. But I do believe that the militant posturing against such positions is losing some of the humane treatment and Prudent judgment in the swing back towards the correct mean.
Which is understandable. Aristotle and Thomas both say that in order to find the mean, one often has to over correct in order to habitualize oneself to the correct behavior. That applies to societies as well. But that doesn't mean that we, as individuals, should lose sight of what that golden mean is nor try to pull the society back towards it.
Tolerance for its own sake without context is not a virtue and is actually inherently hypocritical.
If Tolerance is an end unto itself, then in order to achieve it, one must be intolerant of intolerance, which is a violation of the initial premise. It is a self-defeating concept.
The left demonstrates this every day. "Cancel culture" is a manifestation of this principle. When they discover someone who has ever made a statement or performed an act that they deem "intolerant" they do not tolerate it...they shun that person, attack them, shut them out of the means of discourse and even attempt to destroy their professional lives and future prospects as well.
Doesn't sound very "tolerant" to me.
In other words, they are not "tolerant" of everyone and everything, they choose what to tolerate and what not to tolerate.
Just like everyone else does...even those horrible "intolerant" Christians who have the temerity to insist that behaviors specifically decried as sins in the Bible are actually [gasp!] sinful and are not to be tolerated.
Once upon a time there was a strange little valley where dwelt two strange peoples. One was away in a sapphire city, catheaded folk they were, elegant in doings and deathly silent in mealtimes, magicians were they, the magimogs. One was scattered throughout the valley roaming in ruby wagons with herds of shaggy sheep, savage were these dogheaded folk and noisy festivals were their mealtimes, barbarians were they, the barbarks.
Now it came to pass that after years of not having much to do with each other, the magimogs favouring silence and the barbarks favouring sound...
A foul haze descended upon the valley, poisonous and noxious, sickening cathead and doghead alike, and from the haze came chthonic horrors, so both the peoples fled into the mountains to the long abandoned fortress of long extinct folk. Only by carvings was there evidence that velvet headed star nosed folk once dwelled within.
Secure in the fortress, the two peoples resisted against the monstrosities with might of mind and force of flesh, but they had a problem that vexed the elders of both direly.
Mealtimes were unbearable! The silence desired by magimogs was detestable to the barbarks, and their noise nasty to the magimogs.
Tensions ran high, but in the debates, the two folk uncovered something terrifying! The barbarks had shamans who burnt incense just like the haze, and the magimogs had warlocks with crystal balls that issued chthonic whispers! These two were making plans to open wide the fortress!
So the matter of meals was forgotten soon enough as both magimogs and barbarks hunted the traitors in their ranks, killing and placing the corpses on stakes outside the fortress.
In time, the haze in the valley was blown away, and the last chthonian horror was slain.
Most magimogs returned to their silent meals in the city and most barbarks returned to roam the valley.
Some remained in the fortress, and the cityfolk found these folk too noisy, while the valleyfolk found them too quiet.
Thus this tale ends, it hasn't all the thoughts, doubts and objections this teller has on this topic, but it is what it is, and it is what he was compelled to make.
I'll go check it when I get to my computer eventually. I often rewrite sentences and miss little things like making sure that nots are in the right place.
Tolerance comes under the virtue of prudence. In other words, one must make judgment calls about when it is wise to be tolerant to the human being(s) you are dealing with, in order to attain higher goods.
As such, I would describe it as an accidental attribute of Prudence in the Thomistic sense. That or maybe it falls under Long Suffering - forgive me, but I'm not going to break out my copy of the Summa at the moment for this. But I do believe that the militant posturing against such positions is losing some of the humane treatment and Prudent judgment in the swing back towards the correct mean.
Which is understandable. Aristotle and Thomas both say that in order to find the mean, one often has to over correct in order to habitualize oneself to the correct behavior. That applies to societies as well. But that doesn't mean that we, as individuals, should lose sight of what that golden mean is nor try to pull the society back towards it.
Well said.
In my humble opinion:
Tolerance for its own sake without context is not a virtue and is actually inherently hypocritical.
If Tolerance is an end unto itself, then in order to achieve it, one must be intolerant of intolerance, which is a violation of the initial premise. It is a self-defeating concept.
The left demonstrates this every day. "Cancel culture" is a manifestation of this principle. When they discover someone who has ever made a statement or performed an act that they deem "intolerant" they do not tolerate it...they shun that person, attack them, shut them out of the means of discourse and even attempt to destroy their professional lives and future prospects as well.
Doesn't sound very "tolerant" to me.
In other words, they are not "tolerant" of everyone and everything, they choose what to tolerate and what not to tolerate.
Just like everyone else does...even those horrible "intolerant" Christians who have the temerity to insist that behaviors specifically decried as sins in the Bible are actually [gasp!] sinful and are not to be tolerated.
In other other words: they are hypocrites.
Yes. Exactly... By making tolerance and idol they become intolerant.
When tolerance is part of a process or purpose, as you so wisely put it, that's quite a different thing.
Once upon a time there was a strange little valley where dwelt two strange peoples. One was away in a sapphire city, catheaded folk they were, elegant in doings and deathly silent in mealtimes, magicians were they, the magimogs. One was scattered throughout the valley roaming in ruby wagons with herds of shaggy sheep, savage were these dogheaded folk and noisy festivals were their mealtimes, barbarians were they, the barbarks.
Now it came to pass that after years of not having much to do with each other, the magimogs favouring silence and the barbarks favouring sound...
A foul haze descended upon the valley, poisonous and noxious, sickening cathead and doghead alike, and from the haze came chthonic horrors, so both the peoples fled into the mountains to the long abandoned fortress of long extinct folk. Only by carvings was there evidence that velvet headed star nosed folk once dwelled within.
Secure in the fortress, the two peoples resisted against the monstrosities with might of mind and force of flesh, but they had a problem that vexed the elders of both direly.
Mealtimes were unbearable! The silence desired by magimogs was detestable to the barbarks, and their noise nasty to the magimogs.
Tensions ran high, but in the debates, the two folk uncovered something terrifying! The barbarks had shamans who burnt incense just like the haze, and the magimogs had warlocks with crystal balls that issued chthonic whispers! These two were making plans to open wide the fortress!
So the matter of meals was forgotten soon enough as both magimogs and barbarks hunted the traitors in their ranks, killing and placing the corpses on stakes outside the fortress.
In time, the haze in the valley was blown away, and the last chthonian horror was slain.
Most magimogs returned to their silent meals in the city and most barbarks returned to roam the valley.
Some remained in the fortress, and the cityfolk found these folk too noisy, while the valleyfolk found them too quiet.
Thus this tale ends, it hasn't all the thoughts, doubts and objections this teller has on this topic, but it is what it is, and it is what he was compelled to make.
Yep That about sums it up.
A trivial correction that points to an addendum.
In an earlier sentence Mrs. Wright uses the word "approbation" - typo - for disapprobation, or condemnation.
I would add that tolerance allows those tolerated to praise vice, while stifling the tolerators option to praise virtue.
Finally fixed
I'll go check it when I get to my computer eventually. I often rewrite sentences and miss little things like making sure that nots are in the right place.
Thanks!
So do I! Even when I proof-read on a screen I miss the obvious.
Only paper works.