Contributions
Barbara Pasamonik
The Maria Grzegorzewska College
For Special Education in Warsaw
PARADOX OF TOLERANCE: BETWEEN OPINION AND TRUTH
I propose short, abstractive reflection on practising of tolerance. There are many definitions of tolerance, but life as usually goes far beyond any theory and definitions. Let us start from the following definition: „tolerance rely on the respect for somebody else's opinions and beliefs" (Dictionary of Polish Language). I propose to focus on the difference between the opinion and the belief (truth).
Let us to imagine the confrontation between two persons: agnostic liberal and catholic (orthodox). Our interlocutors disagree in the subject: to make genetic experiments or not to do. The liberal wants to discuss this question. He will think off different arguments to convince the opposite side that the experiments are useful, important for the next generation etc. But the believer will be offended because of such behaviour of liberal. For believing catholic this question cannot be discussed. Genetic experiments are unmoral and should be prohibited. The morality is unique and it cannot be the subject of discussion; man cannot chose the morality for his own. The morality of believing Christians follows from their religious convictions. Discussing the morality they question fundaments of their religion - but the faith and religion base on revealed truths not on social consensus. Thus the believer may feel offended by the liberal who tends to discussion.
So, what does happen? We have a conflict between two persons and two rights. The first person is tolerant eager to discuss his opinions, because he knows that there are only better or worse opinions. The second person is the believer who has his truth which, like every truth, is not disputable - truth is only one. It means that every right different than the truth must be false. How can he be tolerant in front of the untruth? So, our believer is not tolerant - he cannot be tolerant, because the truth is not tolerant. It is the confrontation of two opposite attitudes: tolerant and intolerant. Believer cannot be tolerant, but what can do liberal in this situation? There is no sense to discuss with the truth. Should he agree with the truth? Should he stay indifferent? Or should he reject the truth? In which case he will be tolerant person?
The situation will be more complicated when the believer has the truth and the power to impose his beliefs to the rest. It can be the belief in necessity of censure in mass-media. What should do liberal in such situation? If he agree with believer mass-media stop to be tolerant, and in consequence he will be limited in his freedom. If he stay indifferent, mass-media can stop be free, and he can be limited in his freedom. If he not accept this truth, mass-media stay free, but he not stay tolerant person. Of course our interlocutors can discuss without limits about different matters: about the painting of Giotto, last book of Milan Kundera or polish football. There are many subjects which can be discussed in the atmosphere of tolerance by liberal and believer. We cannot find believer as total intolerant person.
Described confrontation is not exceptional. In our political and quotidian life we meet very often with conflicts between opinions and truths. And the believers are not unique group who have intolerant truth. A scientific dogma is equal intolerant as the religious dogma. The scientist are not eager to discuss the scientifically proved fact with laymen. The Fermat hypothesis was not decided by open discussion, but by mathematical proof, which is completely incomprehensible for overwhelming majority. So, we can say that scientists are not tolerant persons in the area of their truth - scientific facts.
Sometimes we observe the confrontation of two truths: religious and scientific one. In such situation there is no place for tolerance, dialogue, discussion. But the area of tolerance and intolerance is historically changing. Fact that the Earth circulate around the Sun Roman Catholic Church accepted in the beginnings of eighteen century! The Church's tolerance is growing. It accepted Copernicus theory, incorporated the theory of evolution and, in general, accept the authority of science in many areas of life. Besides, there is some common free area of dialogue where can meet scientist and believer - the area free from scientific experience and religious dogma.
But believers and scientists are not unique occasionally intolerant group. Everybody use to have some opinions and some truths. We can discuss our opinions, not truths. Tolerance and free discussion stop in the moment, when we come in the area of truth - it may be a religious truth, a scientific one or any other personal truth. What is more, we cannot demand tolerance from people who know the truths - they do not accept the pluralism of truths. So, being tolerant we should be sensitive for the difference between the opinion and the truth.
The conclusion is the following. We can be tolerant when confronted with other opinions. It is much more difficult to be tolerant when the other has the truth - not opinion, especially, when he wants to impose his truth on us.
The question to discuss is: can one be tolerant in confrontation with other truth? If yes, what does it mean?
Free discussion is only one aspect of tolerance. You can say that I pass over cultural and ethnic problems of tolerance. But in the fact, the phenomenon of nationalism or chauvinism relies on treating opinions as truths. Nationalism and racism are ideology for us, belief for others. It is why the dialogue with nationalist and chauvinist is so difficult. The belief makes much more emotions then the opinion. It is difficult to discuss with emotions.
But there is one question yet. We not accept the racism, nationalism, chauvinism. More, we want to overcame them. So, what we do in such a situation? The racism is for us a kind of opinion which wants to be the truth. We can try to unmask it showing that such truth is not based on any solid base. But, in this moment we propose our base, our authorities - our truths. We try discuss with other's truth with help of our truth. Dialogue of two truth is impossible. It is a blind alley.
We are intolerant for nationalism, racism, chauvinism. They are intolerant for liberalism and tolerance. The problem is not how to convince us to tolerance, the problem is how to talk with those who have not arrived here - to Prague.
To not finish in the pessimistic way, I propose to look for the hope in historical reality. After all, the idea of tolerance, democracy, liberalism become more and more popular in the human history. In spite, the dialogue between two truths or between opinion and truth seems hopeless, in longer, historic perspective something is changing. The best example is Church. The changes are slow, but progressive.
