Eve Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 Can tolerance and virtue work together? What do you think? Its just that I often see that people can become so tolerant that they have no virtues or they are so intolerant that they cannot stick to their own virtues. Regards, Eve xx Link to post Share on other sites
Ronni_W Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 Tolerance of what we perceive as OTHER people's flaws, shortcomings, ignorance, etc. And also tolerance of Self, when we do not live up to our self-determined "code of conduct" and self-imaged full potential. To me, tolerance is about accepting what is...and then making new choices and decisions based on that; not using it to become complacent or as an excuse for the Self to stop aspiring to do "better", whatever self-defined "better" may be. Tolerance (patience, understanding, forgiveness, compassion) instead of judging and condemning Self and others. But not as an excuse to stop trying to improve things that are within our personal power and control. So, yes. I do believe that tolerance and virtue can happily co-exist within a single Self . It gets all funky, though, when we try to define, dictate, and/or set-up expectations of, "virtue" for things OUTSIDE ourselves. Link to post Share on other sites
Geishawhelk Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 Tolerance, is conditional. Acceptance is unconditional. The former is a trait. The latter is a virtue. Link to post Share on other sites
Author Eve Posted February 16, 2009 Author Share Posted February 16, 2009 Tolerance of what we perceive as OTHER people's flaws, shortcomings, ignorance, etc. And also tolerance of Self, when we do not live up to our self-determined "code of conduct" and self-imaged full potential. To me, tolerance is about accepting what is...and then making new choices and decisions based on that; not using it to become complacent or as an excuse for the Self to stop aspiring to do "better", whatever self-defined "better" may be. Tolerance (patience, understanding, forgiveness, compassion) instead of judging and condemning Self and others. But not as an excuse to stop trying to improve things that are within our personal power and control. So, yes. I do believe that tolerance and virtue can happily co-exist within a single Self . It gets all funky, though, when we try to define, dictate, and/or set-up expectations of, "virtue" for things OUTSIDE ourselves. I too can perceive tolerance as a process, the end result of which is acceptance and a moving forward to a deeper understanding. But I can see how being too tolerant can work in an opposite direction and a persons resolve or convictions can become weakened. Hence, I am not sure that we can truly accept things which we cannot tolerate. Maybe fear is a core component which decides what we can or cannot tolerate? Still, I see what you are saying. Thank you for a very insightful post. I am considering whether virtue is something which exists outside of the self. like an act... Regards, Eve xx Link to post Share on other sites
Ronni_W Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 I do get what you're saying (I think.) For me, if my resolve or convictions are weakened, I'm not so much seeing that as an indication of me being "too tolerant" as it is pointing to a lack of...something else. Motivation, determination, self-discipline, whatever. Guessing it might be a difference in our use/definition of "tolerance" -- I don't see it as similar to "easy-going" or "letting off the hook." For me, my personal preferences/dislikes dictate what I will/will not tolerate...and mostly relates to how people treat me, or act within my company. (Again, could simply be use/definition that is making the difference.) I do accept that things that are intolerable to me are not intolerable to others; and also that things that are commonly held has intolerable do happen/exist on our planet. From that perspective, I do accept things that I would prefer would not happen/exist -- I tolerate/accept them because they are there, not because I don't care that they are there. I don't actually contemplate 'virtue' too often -- I live within my belief/value system, and that's all I can do. Have no need to wonder if I am being "virtuous", and no desire to judge if others are -- that's up to them and their Higher Power. But I have heard the term, "a virtuous act" -- if that helps with your own contemplations . Then again, for me, I can only assess my own acts as "virtuous" or not...(because) who am I to decide what might be someone else's "virtuous act" or non-virtuous/ignoble act? Interesting! Link to post Share on other sites
Author Eve Posted February 17, 2009 Author Share Posted February 17, 2009 Crap, my messge was timed out. I replied in great detail too! In brief, tolerance defined as the acknowledgement of differences. Concern that tolerence is more about what we cannot do than what we can. Teasing away what is socially constructed towards (perceived) universal characteristics - this being crux of enquiry. Question as to whether the old fashioned term of 'virtue' is really a balm to quite personated views of tolerance, largely formed to direct the workforce. Note on the often unexpected results of looking beyond the self and engaging in 'virtuous acts' which equate to the 'right thing to do' as felt intrinsically. The element of virtue as an expression of the link to a higher power and what this says within religions such as Shamanism. Regards, Eve xx Link to post Share on other sites
Geishawhelk Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Tolerance to me, means simply putting up with something one disagrees with, but having a limit. Acceptance implies that, whether one likes/approves or not, one is willing to permit things to take place, in final and content resignation. This is ultimately healthier, in the long run. Link to post Share on other sites
Trialbyfire Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Virtue to me means living to the highest degree of your personal ethics. This is internal. Tolerance, much like Geish's, especially the comment about within limits. More than anything, it's about choosing to do nothing or ignoring, as long as there's no malice or cruelty intended within the acts you see. This is a view to the external. So, overall, yes, they can work together, in that you don't try to control externally, but hold yourself to your own standards. Link to post Share on other sites
wuggle Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 If some of the definitions of 'tolerance' are accepted, e.g :- the power or capacity of an organism to tolerate unfavorable environmental conditions permissiveness: a disposition to allow freedom of choice and behavior willingness to recognize and respect the beliefs or practices of others Then surely extreme tolerance is in itself a virtue ? When you say that you see people who are so tolerant that they have no virtues what exactly do you mean ??. I prersonally would love to be ultimately tolerant, this to me would be totally virtue, it is my base humanity and ego that makes me intolerant. Link to post Share on other sites
Author Eve Posted February 18, 2009 Author Share Posted February 18, 2009 If some of the definitions of 'tolerance' are accepted, e.g. :- the power or capacity of an organism to tolerate unfavorable environmental conditions permissiveness: a disposition to allow freedom of choice and behavior willingness to recognize and respect the beliefs or practices of others Then surely extreme tolerance is in itself a virtue ? When you say that you see people who are so tolerant that they have no virtues what exactly do you mean ??. I prersonally would love to be ultimately tolerant, this to me would be totally virtue, it is my base humanity and ego that makes me intolerant. Being too tolerant can be a false standard. It can be a way to justify various self beliefs/societal expectations rather than engage with the problem at hand. Extreme tolerance within relationships can be the equivalent to emotional suicide in that people can shy away from making judgements because they do not want to appear to be intolerant. Hence being too tolerant can prevent further exploration of poor decisions; it can create or harbour an environment whereby lack of motivation, skill or decisiveness goes unchallenged. Virtue is external to the individual because the actuation of a virtuous act cannot occur without an interaction. Hence there cannot be any such thing as a virtuous self. Virtue by and large is a socially constructed model of meanings attributed to what makes a 'good person'. This can also be a false standard because of lack of fluidity within different environments. One example, people are fine when in Church and are poor citizens when outside of Church. Or people work within the definitions of tolerance within work codes but go against the same codes within their personal lives. Tolerance and virtue cannot work together unless they are part of a code of conduct which is higher than human base desire and so cannot be defined by the self. Regards, Eve xx Link to post Share on other sites
Geishawhelk Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Being too tolerant can be a false standard. It can be a way to justify various self beliefs/societal expectations rather than engage with the problem at hand. I have no idea what you mean here, Being Tolerant is not a question of justifying anything. Being tolerant is putting up with, up to a point, but how does that make it a justification?Explain please....? Extreme tolerance within relationships can be the equivalent to emotional suicide in that people can shy away from making judgements because they do not want to appear to be intolerant. Extreme tolerance within a relationship is equal to being a doormat. Hence being too tolerant can prevent further exploration of poor decisions; it can create or harbour an environment whereby lack of motivation, skill or decisiveness goes unchallenged. I don't necessarily agree with this. being too tolerant is actually being complacent. Tolerance means an evaluation of a specific circumstance has taken place, and a person has decided to take something on the chin up to a certain level. Virtue is external to the individual because the actuation of a virtuous act cannot occur without an interaction. THis is complete gobbledygook. How can a virtue be external to the individual? You need an individual to manifes Virtue, therefore it must be integral! I have met virtuous people who are virtuous as people, without the need for extermnal stimulus or impetus.... Hence there cannot be any such thing as a virtuous self. Oh, of course there can! Virtue by and large is a socially constructed model of meanings attributed to what makes a 'good person'. This can also be a false standard because of lack of fluidity within different environments. One example, people are fine when in Church and are poor citizens when outside of Church. Or people work within the definitions of tolerance within work codes but go against the same codes within their personal lives. Virtue, as an attribute, cannot be constant, just as anger cannot be constant, just as boredom cannot be constant.... Tolerance depends on the stimulus at the time, just as the manifestation of any other attribute does. Tolerance and virtue cannot work together unless they are part of a code of conduct which is higher than human base desire and so cannot be defined by the self. What the heck is that supposed to mean.....? Link to post Share on other sites
wuggle Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 In my understanding, many of the worlds religions promote 'total' tolerance (eg turn the other cheek in christianity) or total deference to the will of God (christianty, Islam, Judaism etc) (not completely sure about Budhism ?), so surely if an individual was 'supremely' tolerant as thier religion requested then Tolerance and Virtue (even if this was a societal construct) would be in sync. For instance, Jesus was pretty tolerant , wasn't he virtuous ? Link to post Share on other sites
Geishawhelk Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 In my understanding, many of the worlds religions promote 'total' tolerance .... (not completely sure about Budhism ?) Buddhism does not teach tolerance. If something is good, fine. If something is not good, we should try to prevent it, stop it avoid it or confront it. But then, evaluation of what is 'good' and what is 'bad' is up to the individual, so Perception is often Deception. Buddhism teaches Acceptance. Acceptance because things are as they are, because they are what they are. Impermanent, transitory, ephemeral. getting worked up about things is futile, because we cannot change others, we can only change ourselves. So even if we find things tolerable, or intolerable, we ALSO practice acceptance, because if we can change it, we accept we can change it. If we can't change it we accept we can't change it. And we accept that at one point or another, it will all pass, anyway. Hope this helps. Link to post Share on other sites
Trialbyfire Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Bottom line, nothing matters beyond your own opinion of yourself and your choices in life. It's not how others view you or your actions. It's how you view yourself and your actions. Look inside. Are you being true to your core foundations or have you justified them all away? If you've justified much of your core foundations away, you're going to be lost at sea, battered back and forth by external opinions and validations. If you're true to yourself, you've always got an anchor at sea. Link to post Share on other sites
Lovelybird Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 One's perspectives can be blinded by own bias, lack of understandings When one is justifying, he won't know it, that's the problem Link to post Share on other sites
Author Eve Posted February 21, 2009 Author Share Posted February 21, 2009 In my understanding, many of the worlds religions promote 'total' tolerance (eg turn the other cheek in christianity) or total deference to the will of God (christianty, Islam, Judaism etc) (not completely sure about Budhism ?), so surely if an individual was 'supremely' tolerant as thier religion requested then Tolerance and Virtue (even if this was a societal construct) would be in sync. For instance, Jesus was pretty tolerant , wasn't he virtuous ? Thank you Wuggle for writing this. I have been considering your post for a while. I would conclude that Jesus was tolerant to those who very specifically recognised and partook with His mission to reconcile man with God. He never attempted to change anyone who did not want this and was killed because He did not succumb to this very human trait. Jesus was totally focused on the job at hand and was very specific in stating that He would turn away many at Judgement Day because He never knew them... Hence He did not tolerate hypocrites. The end point being that He was authentic. Jesus was and is Jesus. By not watering down his message to be popular etc He accomplished what He came to do. I think this is a good system of creating virtuous acts because realistically we can only ever provide ways for people to leave the ways they want to leave. Noone, not even God will stop a person from travelling down their own path. So I suppose I have to conclude that context defines whether tolerance and virtue can work together.. Regards, Eve xx Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts