Ad
related to: paradox of tolerance philosophy pdf
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The paradox of tolerance is a philosophical concept suggesting that if a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance, thereby undermining the very principle of tolerance.
Paradox of tolerance: A tolerant society that tolerates intolerant ideas becomes less tolerant overall. Closely related paradoxes are: Closely related paradoxes are: Paradox of democracy : Outside of defensive democracy , voters may elect a tyrant, thus ending democracy.
Popper begins note 4 to chapter 7 by defining the paradox of freedom and then, as an aside, further defines the paradox of tolerance and another paradox, called the paradox of democracy, "or more precisely, of majority-rule; i.e. the possibility that the majority may decide that a tyrant should rule." [2]
Popper's influence, both through his work in philosophy of science and through his political philosophy, has also extended beyond the academy. One of Popper's students at LSE was George Soros , who later became a billionaire investor and among whose philanthropic foundations is the Open Society Institute , a think-tank named in honour of Popper ...
Paradox of tolerance – Logical paradox in decision-making theory; Ratchet effect – Restrained ability of human process reversal; Sanewashing – Downplaying the radical aspects of a person or idea; Single-issue politics – Political campaigning or support based on one essential policy goal
Polanyi's paradox, named in honour of the British-Hungarian philosopher Michael Polanyi, is the theory that human knowledge of how the world functions and of our own capability are, to a large extent, beyond our explicit understanding.
Kate Middleton ran a relatable errand after announcing that she is in remission from cancer.. The Princess of Wales, 43, was seen shopping at Finlay's store in the Notting Hill neighborhood of ...
A Critique of Pure Tolerance received a negative review from the sociologist Nathan Glazer in the American Sociological Review. [7] The book was also reviewed by the philosopher John Herman Randall Jr. in The Journal of Philosophy and L. Del Grosso Destreri in Studi di Sociologia. [8] [9] Glazer described the book as "peculiar".