Thread: How far should tolerance go? Where do we draw the line?

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

"How far should tolerance go? Where do we draw the line?"
That is one of the great questions of mankind. I use to say it differently, What is the line of demarkation between the individual and society? This line of demarkation is obviously violated wholesale, but that is a tradition effected by immaturity of man himself.

A = A. A wise man once said it another way. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Yet people could not see that this was just another expression of "Eye for an Eye." They call the same expression, one time good, and another time evil. This is the fault of a mind too young to reason.

Where is your answer?

Originally Posted by greenhavoc

Where is your answer?

My aplogies, I did not recognize the seeing eye dog.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

My aplogies, I did not recognize the seeing eye dog.

I still don't see your answer. Will you point it out to me?

Originally Posted by greenhavoc

I still don't see your answer. Will you point it out to me?

he's philosopher8695, his posts need not explanation
*is being facetious*

Originally Posted by greenhavoc

I still don't see your answer. Will you point it out to me?

Let me give you a hint, it is what Plato was about, what Scripture is about, what all your education is about.

Is there a defining characteristic for man himself? Let us look at the Platonic presentation, is a doctor a doctor in so far as he is a doctor, a doctor at the time he fails as a doctor? Or look at a toaster, Is a broken toaster really a toaster? It has to do with the idea, can you subtract a defining characteristic of a thing, but still call it the thing defined?

We call certain people monsters based on their behavior. Is that really metaphorically?

The most common form of an ellipsis is one not even recognized in grammar teachings today--when we use a name that does not represent all the defining characteristics of that name.

Or look at how Christ put it, "Let the dead bury the dead."

It is something to think about. Can one say a man is a man if the defining characteristic of a man, i.e. his mind, is dysfunctional?

The idea is not strange, it is in fact, at the core of some judicial arguments about what it means to be in a peer group.

If the mind of man has a defining characteristic, not even the man himself can change it, no matter how insane he is. Thus, it is a tacit agreement, beyond the comprehension of that man, that he should be corrected in his behavior--Plato demonstrated this argument in, what was it? Gorgias? over 2400 years ago.

This is what I meant by the prior identity--the definition of what it means to be a man.

In some dim form of awareness, this is why men make laws, because there is a right way to be. Man is just too young to understand it yet.

Even in language itself, logic is not possible, unless the first identity is made--what the symbols actually name.

Plato's distinction in human action between doing what one pleases and what on wills, is very real.

The more you understand this, the greater your awareness is, the more you understand that we really do live in a world of zombies, monsters, and madmen, however, they do not know who they are nor what they do.

"To thyne own self be true." Has a real and valid meaning that has yet to be understood but by very, very few in history.

That's a little above my pay grade, so until you answer my question then I'll just assume you can't.