In a similar, but distinct context to the immediate predecessor of this writing, (viz., #M.3 “EXIGENT SURGURY”) the present essay concerns itself with a single word, viz., “tolerance” but, in bright contrast, our aspiration, at present, is for the limited and nuanced use of a certain, ubiquitously, used word, rather than its elimination from our vocabulary, as previously urged regarding, “race.”
In our view, the appropriate utility of the word “tolerance,” is limited to its pragmatic and contextual use in the declaration of empirical limits or properties of objective subject matter; such as relevant to a particular metal’s tolerance for torque, the comparative tolerance, during dry spells, of ryegrass as opposed to red fescue, the basic limit of tolerance for the average human being to extreme, freezing temperatures.
By emphatic contrast, we, on moral principle emphatically object to the common use of the word, contextually in the area of race relations or other instances of bigotry, as a complimentary observation of individual behavior.
The fundamental essence and dynamics of “tolerance,” reside in its function as a positive comment in response to observed action or words that indicate the actor or speaker’s evident choice not to object to diverse points of view, or, perhaps, more frequently in response to observed virtue in the treatment accorded to others whose appearances are nuanced or who behave differently. The word is ordinarily intended to be complimentary, as an expression of moral approval or recognized rectitude, however, in our view, its fundamental dynamics (often, unwittingly) are presumptuous and arrogantly, judgmental.
It may logically and equitably be asked, who is it that uniquely has the franchise to determine the extant acceptability of other individuals or points of view? The themed word implicitly and necessarily connotes (wittingly or not) an individual’s chosen judgment or derived conclusion, to forebear from criticism, and exercise his choice to accept another individual. Who has been granted the authoritative franchise, morally and justifiably, to arrogate to himself such judgmental authority? In our view “tolerate” and the noun, “toleration,” is nothing short of an expression of an unwarranted, presumptuous generosity to morally or reasonably suffer, or imperiously, approve, the existence of another human being or point of view. The intention of the word is intrinsically, self-defeating in its dynamics as to its mundane and insensitive intention, evidently due to its thoughtlessly, but implicitly mandatory, judgmental connotation.
The conception and use of the word “tolerance,” is inarguably, lightyears in preference to words of disapproval or those expressing feelings of atavistic prejudice, nevertheless, when employed as an attempt to express virtue, it pales in comparison with those words which express humanities aspirational traits (which, disappointingly, appear to be somewhat, lacking) such as “brotherhood,” “friendship,” “universal equality,” “respect,” “empathy,” to suggest stated qualities, of far more humanistic value and clarity than our themed, misunderstood and ill-used word “tolerance.”
-p.
plinyblogdotcom 