In an essay called “The Self-Poisoning of the Open Society,” Kolakowski dilates on this basic antinomy of liberalism. Liberalism implies openness to other points of view, even (it would seem) those points of view whose success would destroy liberalism. But tolerance to those points of view is a prescription for suicide. Intolerance betrays the fundamental premise of liberalism, i.e., openness. As Robert Frost once put it,
a liberal is someone who refuses to take his own part in an argument.Kolakowski is surely right that our liberal, pluralist democracy depends for its survival not only on the continued existence of its institutions, but also “on a belief in their value and a widespread will to defend them.” The question is: Do we, as a society, still enjoy that belief? Do we possess the requisite will? Or was François Revel right when he said that “
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it”? ..
The “openness” that liberal society rightly cherishes is not a vacuous openness to all points of view:
it is not “value neutral.” It need not, indeed it cannot, say Yes to all comers, to the Islamofascist who after all has his point of view, just as much as the soccer mom, who has hers. American democracy, for example, affords its citizens great latitude, but great latitude is not synonymous with the proposition that “anything goes.”
https://newcriterion.com/article/after-the-suicide-of-the-west/It is not 'phobic' to oppose and resist certain views, values and practices.
Not tolerating certain views and practices that are antithetical to a humane, enlightened society is not itself intolerance. It is an intellectiual, political immune system An immune system that does not detect and protect against destructive incursioins is defective.
A pseudo-liberal outlook that does not detect and protect against destructive incursiions of ideology is likewise a defective, suicidal outlook.
Forum
Pages: 1
Toleration (Read 182 times)
