What behavior indicates tolerance. Ethnic tolerance in interethnic communication
Nowadays, intolerance in society has reached great intensity. We see this everywhere: in events happening in the world, the media, social networks, disputes, discussions. Tolerance and tolerance are synonyms. Do you need to be tolerant of what seems unacceptable to you and what may lead to it?
What is tolerance?
- this is not persecuting people whose thoughts and actions do not coincide with yours and cause you disapproval. If you consciously decide not to persecute those people whose manifestations are alien to you, you can be called a tolerant person.Important note! Tolerance does not require recognizing other people's behavior as positive and acceptable. It only means that you tolerate a person, group of people or phenomenon as a necessary evil. But tolerance does not mean indifference to breaking the law and crimes!
Tolerance is a non-aggressive attitude towards other people's views, beliefs, lifestyle, behavior. You give other people the right to live according to their ideas (not yours). Let’s say you don’t approve of same-sex love, you don’t like the fact that Muslim women wear long dresses and headscarves, you don’t like men squatting - but you are tolerant of this and do not persecute these people.
At the same time, you are not at all obliged to adopt an alien way of life and should not follow them. Being tolerant does not mean allowing someone to impose their beliefs on you. Both parties must respect each other's boundaries and not violate them.
Tolerance is a necessary condition for life in modern society, when people of different nations, religions, and customs live nearby. Tolerance indicates that society is confident in itself, in the reliability of its moral and spiritual foundations. It is aware of its strength and cohesion, so it is not afraid of comparison with other points of view and is not afraid of competition.
A mature, strong society respects other cultures, ways of life, ways of thinking and expressing itself. At the same time, tolerance does not mean concessions and condescension to social injustice, as well as imposing one’s way of thinking and behavior on other people.
Lack of tolerance: a danger to society
There are areas of life that especially often cause clashes of opinions and manifestations of intolerance. These are religious and political views, sexual orientation, characteristics of different races and nationalities, gender relations, perceptions of people with disabilities, etc.What does a lack of tolerance for other people's religious, ideological and political views lead to? It always leads to terrible wars, religious and political purges and other cruelties. Hundreds of millions of people become victims. There have been a huge number of examples of this in history.
How does this happen? First, intolerance is inflated in society, brainwashing occurs. There is one step from whipping up hatred to the conflagration of war.
Diversity of opinions: how to deal with intolerance?
What should be the limits of tolerance? Should I be patient? For example, some groups of the population hate the rich and destroy their mansions, while other groups of citizens hate people of other nationalities, persecute them and beat them? How should we approach this - should we show tolerance for such intolerance?Scientists believe that society must protect itself from such manifestations of intolerance. Tolerance is good as long as it does not pose a threat to the established order and the very existence of society.
How is this going in Russia?
In Russia, the attitude to this issue is determined by the Constitution. It prohibits manifestations of racism and racial discrimination, as well as actions aimed at inciting national and racial hatred, humiliation of national dignity, propaganda of exclusivity, superiority or inferiority of citizens based on their nationality or race. Such acts may result in civil or criminal liability. The ideal of tolerance
The only religion that actually practices tolerance is Buddhism. He does not impose his teachings on those who have not yet reached spiritual maturity. According to this philosophy, the student must come to the teacher on his own; his own spiritual quest must lead him there.Therefore, in Buddhism there is no missionary activity at all, as is the case in other religions. No one will push books that advertise religious views into your hands, invite you to meetings, convince you of the correctness of your religious views, etc.
We are convinced that we must respect the faith of others. They do not accept the forced dissemination of teachings. Moreover, in this religion they calmly treat schismatics and do not persecute them. Therefore, they have different interpretations of the teaching (in the end they still agree on one thing). Therefore, Buddhism has a huge number of followers not only in the Eastern but also in the Western world.
Critical attitude
The Russian Orthodox Church has a difficult attitude to the concept of tolerance. The clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church have many times expressed the idea that they are concerned about moral indifference, indifference to certain vices, religious truth, and to the values that have been formed in the country for centuries. Some priests are ready to show intolerance towards them; they actively oppose tolerance lessons in schools.In turn, authoritative public figures criticize the position of the Russian Orthodox Church. They say: “If society does not learn to understand that people can look different, eat different food, organize their lives and families differently, we will constantly be in a state of the most terrible war - not only social, but also war in soul."
In Western countries, schools teach lessons about tolerance. They teach children to look at phenomena from different points of view. For example, a student must make a judgment, prove and argue for it. Then he must take the opposite point of view and also prove and argue for it. Thus, children are taught to understand that in any clash of opinions, a middle path can be found, an optimal compromise solution that suits both sides. This understanding prevents inflexibility of thinking and ultimately works for peaceful coexistence.
TOLERANCE AND INTOLERANCE TOLERANCE AND INTOLERANCE
Let's agree to have disagreements.
Robert Louis Stevenson
I do not share your beliefs, but I will give my life so that you can express them.
Voltaire
Most people are ready to risk their lives to defend your right to express your beliefs, but they are not ready to listen to you.
Robert Brault
It's easy to be tolerant of other people's beliefs if you don't have any yourself.
Herbert Louis Samuel
Tolerance is another name for indifference.
Somerset Maugham
Tolerance is the unpleasant suspicion that others may be right after all. Others are ready to consider themselves liberals, having simply changed the object of their intolerance.
Wieslaw Brudzinski
Disgust for flies easily turns into sympathy for spiders.
Valeriu Butulescu
Be different and allow others to be different.
Henryk Jagodzinski
Beat the fanatics!
Henryk Jagodzinski
Intolerance should not be tolerated.
Modified Hippolyte Taine
(cm. FANATICISM)
(Source: “The Big Book of Aphorisms.” Dushenko K.V. Ed. 5th, revised. - M.: EKSMO-Press Publishing House, 2001.)
Consolidated encyclopedia of aphorisms. Academician 2011.
See what “TOLERANCE AND INTOLERANCE” is in other dictionaries:
Intolerance … Dictionary of antonyms
This article contains a list of sources or external references, but the sources of individual statements remain unclear due to the lack of footnotes... Wikipedia
This term has a subjective and objective meaning. In a subjective sense, T. denotes a direction of mind that is equally different from indifference (indifferentism) and stubborn recognition of the truth only of one’s own opinions (fanaticism). T. there is a sign of high... ... Encyclopedic Dictionary F.A. Brockhaus and I.A. Ephron
Intolerance- a negative spiritual and moral quality of a person that characterizes a person’s attitude towards unusual (different) views, assessments, tastes, customs, habits, faith. This is the rejection of everything “different”, not accepted, unconventional, extraordinary,... ... Fundamentals of spiritual culture (teacher's encyclopedic dictionary)
Tolerance, tolerance- This concerns a sharply negative external speech reaction to unacceptable moral, political, religious beliefs, and aesthetic tastes of a communication partner. The rules of good manners dictate showing tolerance if your beliefs... ... Encyclopedic Dictionary of Psychology and Pedagogy
tolerance- TOLERANCE1, and, g The ability to put up with someone else, be lenient towards other people’s opinions, customs, behavior, etc.; Syn.: peacefulness; Ant.: intolerance. Taking advantage of every opportunity, Lyubishchev demanded an honest, reasoned debate,... ... Explanatory dictionary of Russian nouns
Religious tolerance- an essential component of freedom of conscience, the principle of approach to followers of any religion. currents, worldview systems, characterized (at a minimum) by the absence of discrimination, infringement of rights on the basis of religion, worldview.... ... Religions of the peoples of modern Russia
tolerance- , tolerance This concerns a sharply negative external speech reaction to unacceptable moral, political, religious beliefs, and aesthetic tastes of a communication partner. The rules of good manners prescribe to show tolerance,... ... Culture of speech communication: Ethics. Pragmatics. Psychology
Ulyanova Natalya,
Krasnoyarsk Pedagogical College No. 1
named after M. Gorky, 3rd year
Intolerance and tolerance in the teacher’s verbal communication
Life in society develops in a person the ability and need to serve socially constructive goals. Often these goals are related to solving specific tasks and problems. For example, developmental education prepares citizens to participate in the processes of social, cultural and economic development, while environmental education provides knowledge about threats to nature and encourages behavior aimed at eliminating them. Education should contribute to the achievement of socially constructive goals, ensure social processes based on respect for human rights and democratic principles. Such education is directly aimed at addressing the problem of intolerance, which poses a serious and very significant threat to human rights, democracy and peace.
In modern society, among other universal human values, there is tolerance, considered today as respect and recognition of equality, rejection of domination and violence, recognition of the multidimensionality and diversity of human culture.
Tolerance is an important component of a mature personality, who has her own values and interests and is ready, if necessary, to defend them, but at the same time respects the positions and values of other people.
Thanks to the efforts of UNESCO in recent decades, the concept of “tolerance” has become an international term, the most important keyword in peace issues. In 1995, the UN adopted the “Declaration of Principles of Tolerance,” which reveals the essence of the concept of tolerance as fundamental in human relationships. The Declaration, in particular, states: “Education for tolerance begins with teaching people what their common rights and freedoms are, in order to ensure the exercise of these rights and to strengthen the desire to protect the rights of others” [Declaration 1995: 1]. The problem of fostering tolerance is becoming most relevant these days, when as a result of the intensification of international terrorism, tension in human relations has sharply increased [Lvov 2000: 4]. In many cultures, the concept of “tolerance” is a kind of synonym for “tolerance”. In the “Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language”, edited, “tolerance” is completely identified with the category “tolerance”. In the Dictionary of Foreign Words and Expressions, this concept is also defined as “tolerance of other people’s opinions, beliefs, behavior, condescension towards something or someone [Krysin 2000: 2].
In different languages, depending on the historical experience of peoples, the concept of tolerance has different semantic shades. In English, “tolerance” is “the willingness and ability to accept a person or thing without protest,” in French it is “respect for the freedom of another, his way of thinking, behavior, political and religious views.” In Chinese, “to be tolerant” means “to allow, allow, be generous towards others”; in Arabic “tolerance” is “forgiveness, forbearance, benevolence, patience, disposition towards others,” in Persian it is “patience, tolerance, endurance, readiness for reconciliation.”
In the Russian language there are two words with a similar meaning - “tolerance” and “tolerance”.
Currently, the problem of developing tolerance is particularly acute. This is explained by a number of reasons: the sharp stratification of world civilization along economic, social, moral, ethical, and other grounds and the associated growth of intolerance and religious extremism; aggravation of interethnic relations caused by local wars, refugee problems, changes in moral paradigms, etc.
The profession of a teacher belongs to professions of “increased speech responsibility”, since the activity of a teacher is embodied in speech and realized through speech [Ladyzhenskaya 1998: 3].
Pedagogical communication creates great opportunities for the manifestation of tolerance. The work of a teacher is creative; there is no strict regulation in it, so a teacher can show a tolerant style in different teaching and learning situations.
Tolerance in a teacher’s speech is a unique system of speech means and methods of pedagogical influence, characteristic of a master teacher and revealing his unique individuality. It reflects the style of pedagogical communication as an individual form of teacher communicative behavior.
Speech tolerance is influenced by the natural properties of the teacher’s personality - temperament, thinking style, abilities - and social properties - skills of verbal expression of thoughts.
Tolerance in speech is an indicator of a high level of pedagogical skill and mastery of professional speech, since the choice of speech means that reveal an individual approach presupposes the teacher’s knowledge of the whole variety of these means and his or her individual rhetorical nature.
Unfortunately, intolerant speech behavior of a teacher is quite common, which is expressed in ridicule, evaluative hints, ironic remarks, and deliberate changes in speech etiquette formulas. Sometimes intolerance in a teacher’s speech can manifest itself in the form of threats, shouting, open insults, and sometimes in the use of reduced vocabulary.
We began to conduct research in the aspect of our topic: “Tolerance and speech culture of a teacher.” Here are a few examples of expressions from future 3rd year student teachers at our college, in and out of class:
§ in a math lesson: “What a fool”;
§ in a history lesson: “It’s in your blood to lie!”;
§ in a Russian language lesson: “Well, why are you lying?”;
§ after lessons: “Some stupid people!”;
§ in a fine arts lesson: “Why are you so upset!?”
In our opinion, these remarks humiliate the dignity of the schoolchild and the student himself, because such an attitude violates all relationships. And we condemn it.
Speech aggression can have the most undesirable and dangerous consequences both for students and the teacher himself, and for the educational process as a whole.
Over many years, our society has formed the speech ideal of a teacher - a system of characteristics of speech behavior that correspond to the humanistic principle and embody the reference model of the teacher’s personality. “Do no harm” - this is the commandment of professional speech behavior of a teacher, which includes the following components:
§ avoid verbosity;
§ be clear about why you entered into the conversation;
§ speak simply, clearly and clearly;
§ avoid monotony of speech;
§ master the basic rules of language culture;
§ be able to find a common language;
§ know how to not only speak, but also listen;
§ follow high standards;
The teacher’s speech behavior should be tolerant, it should evoke respect from the students, because it is a reflection of a socially approved type of behavior, a role model.
Literature.
UNESCO Declaration of Principles of Tolerance dated January 1, 2001. Krysin dictionary of foreign words. M., 2000. Ladyzhensky speech as a means and subject of teaching. M., 1998. Lvov speech theory. M., 2000. Reardon. - the road to peace. M., 2001. Filippov’s teacher’s speech. M., 2001.
Ivanova Alexandra,
Cheremkhovo State Pedagogical College,
3rd year
Lexico-semantic classification of godonyms
Many domestic linguists have dealt with the problems of nomination as a purposeful activity to create new linguistic units. Among them are those who studied the interaction of language and thinking, language and reality, and the choice of features underlying the nomination. Research by other scientists has made a significant contribution to the development of a general model of the nominative process, the very technique of creating nominations, identifying the principles of nomination, analyzing the typology of linguistic nomination, classifying nominative features and methods of nomination.
Back in 1928, a well-known linguist in his work “On the linguistic study of the city” outlined the problem of studying the linguistic appearance of the city, developing a system of concepts and terms for the language of the city and its structure, principles of nominations [I 1997: 189].
Currently, a new discipline, recently separated from microsociolinguistics, linguistic urban studies, is studying changes in the characteristics of language. In the article “Linguistic Urban Studies” he considers “linguistic urban studies” as “an object of philological research that involves turning to the language of the city as a fragment of urban culture, the most important of the subsystems of urban semiotics, which is considered in the context of other semiotic subsystems” [1998: 78].
The language of the city is studied in different aspects: diverse forms of linguistic communication in the city space, various forms of communication in the city are explored and described, texts of the urban environment are analyzed. One of the important problems of linguistic urban studies is the problem of studying the language of the city, associated with the study of texts of the urban environment (toponymy, epigraphy, urbonymy), and the description of the “nominative picture” of the city.
Urbanonyms, whose function is to designate intra-city topographical objects, represent the most mobile part of toponyms, as they reflect not only linguistic changes, but also cultural and ideological trends of their time. Urbanonyms are a set of nominations for urban objects [1988: 21]. The naming of intracity objects is carried out administratively by self-government bodies, therefore urbanonyms are systematic and purposeful in nature. Urbanonyms include godonyms, ergonyms, agorononyms, hydronyms and other groups of nominations.
Achievements in the field of toponymy are currently actively used in the analysis of various types of urban anonymous nominations that make up the texts of the urban environment. Thus, in his work “Russian urban toponymy: Methods of historical and cultural study and creation of computer dictionaries” he emphasizes: “Urban toponyms, remaining monuments of history, language and dialects, culture, historical geography, traditions, way of thinking, etc. of the Russian ethnos , at the same time included in a strong and objective system of historical, cultural and spatiotemporal milestones in the life of Russian cities” [1996: 4].
In our study, we analyze homonymy (names of planar (districts, microdistricts, urban settlements) and linear (streets, alleys, squares, boulevards and driveways) intracity objects). Following, we consider godonymy as “a set of godonyms, as a fact of the linguistic life of a modern city, which represents a constantly changing phenomenon,” and godonymy as “the name of districts, microdistricts, urban villages, streets, alleys, squares, boulevards, avenues and passages” [ 1988: 22].
In this article, we have made an attempt to lexico-semantically classify the godonyms of the collected card index, numbering 200 nominations. The description of godonyms is based on the lexical-semantic classification developed by [1991: 35].
In the structure of Cheremkhovo godonymy, the following groups of linear urbanonyms – godonyms – are distinguished:
1. Agionyms - Godonyms based on a proper name (anthroponym) are the most extensive group of material we collected (34%).
1.1. anthroponyms of historical figures- generals, Decembrists, political figures of the Soviet era, military leaders of the Great Patriotic War, which is 76.7% (Dzerzhinsky St., Kalinin St., Stepan Razin St., Pugachev Lane, Ordzhonikidze St., Marat Lane, etc. );
1.2. anthroponyms of writers, poets, which is 16.8% of the recorded agionims (Belinsky St., Gorky St., D. Bedny St., Dostoevsky St., Yesenin St., Mayakovsky St. and others);
1.3. anthroponyms of famous Russian and foreign composers and artists, which is 6.5% of the recorded agionims (Glinka St., Tchaikovsky St. and others).
In our opinion, this group of godonyms reflects the cultural and historical development of the city of Cheremkhovo and the inclusion of such a large number of anthroponyms shows the importance of perpetuating the memory of people whose activities left a mark on the history of the country, region, and city.
2. Toponyms - lexemes with locative semantics (15.4%).
Toponymy of the region is reflected in the following toponymic godonyms, which are based on astyonyms (city names) (68%), for example, st. Angarskaya, per. Irkutsk, st. Cheremkhovskaya. In addition, the toponymy of the region is reflected in the godonyms, which received their name from komonimov(names of rural objects) – 32%, for example, st. Alarskaya, per. Golumetsky, per. Zabituisky and others.
3. Numerical godonyms(nominations created on the basis of the numerical principle) . In the city’s godonymy, the numeric principle of naming streets is productive (13% of all recorded nominations), for example, the godonym “Gornyatskaya” was recorded 3 times (1st Gornyatskaya St., 2nd Gornyatskaya St., 3rd Gornyatskaya St.), the godonym “Krasnoarmeyskaya” was recorded 3 times (1st Krasnoarmeyskaya St., 2nd Krasnoarmeyskaya St., 3rd Krasnoarmeyskaya St.), the godonym “Nagornaya” was recorded 3 times (1st Nagornaya St., 2nd St. Nagornaya, 3rd Nagornaya st.). A large number of words of professional affiliation indicate the historical construction of the railway in Siberia.
4. Names of symbols of the socialist era, which is 11.8% of all examples of collected material, for example, st. Komsomolskaya, st. Communist, per. October Revolution, trans. Proletarsky, per. Soviet and others.
5. Names of people by profession and occupation, public roles , as well as denoting groups of people who are assessed positively by society - 10% (for example, Bortsov Revolyutsii St., Gornyatskaya St., Zaboishchika St., Kuznechnaya St., Stroiteley St., Shakhterskaya St., Uglekop St. and others).
6. Names describing the terrain(4.2%), for example, st. Kariernaya, st. Lesnaya, st. Sadovaya, per. Bugrovoy, per. Nagorny and others.
7. Names with spatial semantics, make up 3.8% of all recorded nominations. Such nominations include streets that are named according to the cardinal directions (Verkhnyaya Zaozernaya St., Western St., Yuzhnaya St. and others).
8. Godonyms containing a mention of any materials, which is 3.8% of all recorded nominations (Grafitnaya St., Rudnichny Lane, Ugolny Lane, Khrustalny Lane, Slyudyanoy Lane and others).
9. Godonyms containing coloratives(words with a color meaning) make up 2% of the recorded nominations, for example, lane. Svetly, st. Green, st. Red and others.
10. Emotional and characteristic names(2%), for example, st. Friendship, st. Svobody, st. Yubileynaya and others.
Thus, these nominations are extremely interesting both in terms of reflecting the social, ethnic, cultural-historical and linguistic processes that have taken place and are taking place in the city, and in themselves, i.e. their consideration in the urbonymic system will allow us to better understand the main trends in development and determine the patterns of nomination principles. The identification of lexical-semantic types of godonyms revealed some features of the classification of godonyms of the city of Cheremkhovo. In our classification, there is a predominance of godonyms containing anthroponyms (34%), which is explained by the importance for a person of perpetuating the names of historical figures, writers, poets, artists. The vast majority of godonyms reflect some features of urban objects, different spheres of human life, the worldview of the subject of the nomination and the real natural conditions of the territory.
Literature:
1. “Russian urban toponymy: Methods of historical and cultural study and creation of computer dictionaries, M. - 1996.
2. , Rozanova clothes of Moscow//Russian speech.-1994. - No. 3.
3. On the linguistic study of the city // I Research of the Russian language and general linguistics. – M.: Education, 1977.
5. Podolsk Russian onomastic terminology. – 2nd edition. – M.: Nauka, 1988. – 192 p.
6. Podberezkina urban studies (on the prospects for studying the linguistic appearance of Krasnoyarsk) // Theoretical and applied aspects of speech communication: Scientific method. Bulletin-Krasnoyarsk University, 1998.- issue. 6.
7. Shmeleva godonymy: semantics and semiotics. Linguistic local history. Perm: Publishing house PGPI, 1991.
8. Shmeleva city. Spatial landmarks: M. Development - Krasnoyarsk: Krasnoyarsk University, 1990.
Volkova Marina,
KSPU named after. , 3rd year
Linguistic sign as a reflection of speech and thinking
activity of the subject
The desire to study language from the point of view of a linguistic sign determines the current state of linguistic research, developing the ideas of the linguistic philosophy of V. von Humboldt, de Courtenen, who paid attention to the close relationship of linguistic characteristics with the processes of higher nervous activity of individuals.
Based on this, we can say that a word consists of segments (signs) that have their own content. A linguistic sign is the main component of a word, and, therefore, of language. Since language is a system of phonetic, word-formation, lexical and syntactic means that are a tool for expressing thoughts, feelings, expressions of will, serving as the most important means of communication between people (LES), and a sign is a further indivisible, indecomposable unit of language, then a linguistic sign is the minimum element of linguistic thinking.
If a sign is isolated in a word known to the subject, then it may have the basic characteristics of a morpheme (the presence of semantics, reproducibility, independence and materiality). However, in different words it can be expressed differently, remaining minimal and indivisible. The identification of a sign depends on the speech-mental activity of the individual (subject), on the images and associations that arose as a result of it.
“Since sounding linguistic signs are really existing physical objects, in our minds they are reflected in the form of the same images as the images of any other objects that can be generalized and abstracted.” When encountering an unknown word, our consciousness puts together a certain sound-letter complex (linguistic sign), images and associations arise, on the basis of which variants of meaning appear and the main one, most suitable for the given context, is selected.
Considering a word as a sign, we decided to find out how significant the subject’s verbal and mental activity is in determining the meaning of an unknown word.
For this purpose, an experiment was conducted: students were offered a word (bigeminy), the meaning of which they did not know. Next, they were asked to write down and make an assumption about its lexical meaning.
Inferred meanings driven by specific associations were identified. Thus, 28% of respondents associated the concept of bigeminy with a disease or medical term, 16% - with science, 16% - with running or activities related to running, the same number of informants answered that bigeminy is the name of a plant or the science of plants, 8% were undecided answer, and 16% indicated other meanings.
These options were: bigeminy - “something incomprehensible, associated with abra-kadabra”, “something terrible, disgusting”, “a type of polysemy”, “something related to size”, “an artistic device, a type of metaphor”, “a female hippopotamus, or female cub."
It is necessary to note not only the different definitions of meaning, but also the different spelling. Opinions about writing E or I in the first syllable were equally divided, but in the second syllable, 58% of students preferred the letter I; 62% wrote bigeMiNia, 38% - bigeNiMia.
Exact meaning of the word bigeminy- this is “(from bi... and lat. geminus - double, paired) type of cardiac arrhythmia, in which each normal heartbeat is followed by an extrasystole.”
Connection with the name of the disease. Students determined the meaning of a word based on the subjectivity of the language, i.e., they put meaning into this concept by correlating certain sign units of the word with sign paronyms of other words. So, for example, the final –niya, - niya in bigeminy correlated with semantic matches (quasimorphemes) in the names of some diseases (anemia, leukemia, schizophrenia, dystonia). sign bi - found paronyms in English words bi- g [bi-g], be- gin [bi-gin], as well as –min- correlated with English. verb mean, which means “to designate.”
E/I in 1 syllable | E/I in 2nd syllable | MiNiya/NiMiya | |||
begeminia | bigIminia | bigeMiNia | |||
bigenymy | bigEminia | bigenymy |
Reason for writing | explanation |
Nimiya, - miniya, - niya | Anemia, leukemia, schizophrenia, dystonia, angina pectoris |
|
· from English big – “big”; something serious, life-threatening, i.e. illness · from English begin – “the beginning” of something serious; mean (English) – “to designate” |
|
“something to do with meningitis” |
Mechanism for determining the value bigeminy How name of plant or plant science same. But, as the analysis shows, it played a certain role indexical sign(a sign that is related by contiguity to an object, without being similar to it, and causes associations to arise with it).
E/I in 1 syllable | E/I in 2nd syllable | MiNiya/NiMiya | |||
begeminia | bigIminia | bigeMiNia | |||
bigenymy | bigEminia | bigenymy |
Reason for writing | Example |
Begonia, geranium |
|
Dieffenbachia, okra, gardenia |
|
Unusual sound | Monstera, tradescantia, chlorophytum |
Indexical signs be-, ge- gave associations associated with the names of colors – be persecution and ge early. This explains the spelling E in the first two syllables (75%).
At the same time, the unusual sound reminded me of the names of other plants that were difficult to remember (Monstera, Tradescantia, Chlorophytum).
As is known, the subject writes part of a word after the brain finds the corresponding homonymous part in another word, i.e., selects a test word. In our experiment, for example, 100% of respondents who noted connection between bigeminy and movement or running, written in the first syllable E, comparing bigeminy with words with a root -run-. Also 100% wrote - MiNiya, which gives reason to believe about a brain-selected homonym from English. mean. That is, literally “meaning running.”
E/I in 1 syllable | E/I in 2nd syllable | MiNiya/NiMiya | |||
begeminia | bigIminia | bigeMiNia | |||
bigenymy | bigEminia | bigenymy |
Reason for writing | explanation |
Root run- | Running, running |
Roots run- And - min- | Mean (English) – to designate, i.e. “denoting running” |
-min- | "running through a minefield" |
When determining bigeminy like science Opinions about the spelling of word parts were equally divided. Apparently, semantic matches were found in such names of sciences as x- name, anato- mia, zoologist- and I, geometrician and I, epistemologist- and I.
Tolerance is one of the concepts most widely discussed both in the scientific literature (and in all spheres of humanitarian knowledge) and in the field of pedagogical practice and methodology. Moreover, the concept of “tolerance” has a fairly ancient history. Here it is appropriate to recall an extremely instructive story legalization of Christianity. One of the first official legal documents dedicated to tolerance was apparently "Tolerance Edict" roman emperor Gallery, published in 311 AD. e. Seeing that it was not possible to overcome Christians “with fire and sword,” Galerius “was forced” to issue this document, which provided Christians with a certain freedom in the practice of worship and ordered that they be treated tolerance, that is, treated as a “necessary evil.” Here the underground history of Christianity ended and a new one began. In 313 the emperors Licinius and Constantine(who then received the title “Great”), the famous “Edict of Milan” was issued, which already legalized Christianity and, at the same time, marked a new stage religious tolerance. We are talking about civil freedom of religion, about parity of religious teachings. Finally, a new stage came and tolerance was ended: in 341 and 346. edicts were issued prohibiting paganism, pagan religion. The interests of the state prevailed, seeing in the Christian Church a powerful ideological support for governing society and the desire of the church itself to “protect” citizens from “false truths” and direct them to the “correct” spiritual and moral path.
Religious intolerance has resulted in many troubles and bloodshed for humanity. Today's idea religious tolerance shared by major religious denominations. Moreover, Muslim historians and theorists, for example, even claim a certain historical priority of Islam in matters of religious tolerance, citing the fact that it was Islam that was the first to proclaim: “human rights and freedoms are not part of the natural state of man, but are granted to humanity by God himself " But the history of religious tolerance has not yet been written, although, obviously, it contains a lot of instructive things for modern times and could make serious adjustments to the modern understanding of spiritual and moral progress. In any case, it was within the framework of the ideas of verothermalism that one of the most pressing questions that are the subject of today’s discussions was posed - about the “boundaries” of tolerance and intolerance (intolerance), about the connection between the problems of tolerance and the question of “individual rights”.
The problems of tolerance have been discussed for centuries along the lines of philosophy. Here, a special place is occupied by the Age of Enlightenment - the 18th century - a significant period for Western European understanding of the basic problems of culture and civilization. Usually the beginning of broad discussions about tolerance is associated with the name of the English philosopher and politician John Locke who in his famous "Letters on Tolerance" published in London in 1689, formulated a number of important ideas that have not lost their relevance today. Firstly, speaking about the causes of unrest and wars that occurred on the basis of religion, he argued that their cause was not an inevitable difference in views, but “ unwillingness to respect other people's views." Secondly, it was J. Locke who sharply raised questions about the boundaries between church and state, about the non-interference of the state in the private life of citizens, about the separation of the personal and social hypostasis of citizens.
But we cannot and will not consider here the entire history of the discussion of the issue of tolerance, but we will only emphasize that this history speaks about the main thing - the problems of tolerance are among the main problems central to society at all stages of its historical development, since affects the basic characteristics of interpersonal communication and social communication. This is one of the “cross-cutting” problems of human consciousness and behavior in society. Moreover, by the beginning of the 21st century, the importance of tolerance increased even more due to the increase in manifestations of intolerance and aggressiveness throughout the world, the escalation of numerous conflicts on ethnic and religious grounds, and the emergence of a new threatening factor in international life - world terrorism.
Almost all humanities and social sciences have addressed the problem of tolerance. A feeling began to be created that tolerance is a panacea for all the ills of humanity, but the connection between theory and practice in the development of problems of tolerance remains quite weak. In addition, there is still no holistic, comprehensive, metascientific understanding of this phenomenon, which turned out to be “scattered” among departments of different fields of knowledge, each of which gave its own understanding of it, developed its own methodology for its study.
We will primarily be interested in the question not about the “departmental” interests of this or that humanities science in relation to tolerance, but why in any classification or typology of tolerance, which almost unsuccessfully tries to “cover” all areas of manifestation of tolerance, the problem of tolerance is necessarily present interethnic, international. For example, in one of the latest major studies on tolerance, a psychologist G. L. Bardier is considering 10 types of tolerance. This - intergenerational, gender, interpersonal, interethnic, intercultural, interfaith, professional, managerial, socio-economic and political. With all the depth of the psychological analysis of the problems of tolerance carried out in this work, the question remains open about the basis for the classification of tolerance, about the “nearby position” of the identified types. This question is not only theoretical, but also deeply practical. Previously, considering the problem ethnicity, we have already noted that it does not affect a separate sphere of personal or public life, but turns out to be its special and rather specific side, a kind of “slice”. This, returning to the above classification, means that ethnic aspect There is everyone has selected types of tolerance, i.e. for all types of relationships - intergenerational, intergender, interfaith, etc. We have already examined some of them in more detail in our tutorial.
Accordingly, we must come to the conclusion that ethnic (national) tolerance is not a separate type of tolerance associated with some separate type of activity (apparently ethnic), but a necessary side of any type of tolerance. This also means that it is impossible separately and purposefully form some special ethnic tolerance, regardless of its other types. It should be about the formation, development a certain universal, integral feature (property) of consciousness and behavior, which also manifests itself in interethnic communication (or interethnic communication).
Moreover, the greatest “brightness” of manifestations here is found not in tolerance itself, but precisely in its opposite - intolerance – We are talking about xenophobia, racism, nationalism, ethnocentrism, the specific manifestations of which lead to troubles and suffering for people. There is a strong opinion that in ethno-racial discrimination based on race, colour, descent, national or ethnic origin, intolerance in modern society is expressed most clearly.
The fact that ethnic tolerance/intolerance is so significant obviously indicates that ethnicity affects some deep status foundations of the individual related to the stability of its existence, connections and interactions at different levels of its bio-socio-spiritual reality.
Earlier, speaking about interethnic conflicts as clashes of identities, we noted that in the event of a clash of value systems, the conflict becomes practically insoluble. The basis for agreement and interaction becomes universal dimension of ethnic values. Among these universal human values, obviously also applies tolerance, as the ability to accept differences, otherness, dissimilarity as natural properties of the world of human relations. This, in our opinion, can be considered a general, basic definition of tolerance.
The main thing, obviously, is that the formation tolerance how world - and human - relations require, obviously, a change in mentality or formation new mentality. But in fact, this novelty is relative. In our opinion, one of the deepest justifications of nature and no alternative tolerance was formed in the process of philosophical understanding of the essence national character and more precisely, Russian national character. This is about conciliarity. This category, with which the Russian mentality is traditionally associated, has long ago, alas, lost its true meaning in numerous comments, and has acquired the meaning of a synonym in the mass consciousness faceless collectivism, mass character. This was greatly facilitated by the corresponding forms of collectivism that were implanted in society, and by the neglect of the deep traditions of Russian philosophical thought, which did not fit well within the framework of a one-sided social-class understanding of reality, with the underlying ideas of antagonistic, insoluble contradictions.
As a result, an understanding of this most important category for Russian philosophy was formed, which can rather be called a “perverted” conciliarity and which is associated with the idea of the “swarm” non-singleness of the “I”.
Sobornost in fact, should be understood as an “ensemble of individuals,” as a kind of “polyphony,” in the words of M. M. Bakhtin. And, perhaps, it is in M. M. Bakhtin, an outstanding Russian thinker, in his “dialogue concept” of personality that we find the deepest justification tolerance(although he obviously did not use this term), as the internal law of its existence, being.
We are talking essentially about the humanistic neo-traditionalism of the position of an outstanding scientist, opposing the Western tendency to understand personality, which is characteristic of modern postmodernist,“destructuring” and “deconstructing” the world of popular philosophical concepts of R. Barthes or J. Derrida. The idea of the “solitary consciousness” of an isolated person, who has “his own truth” and “his own logic”, characteristic of postmodernism, turns out to be fundamentally intolerant.
At the heart of Bakhtin’s personalism are 3 main important points. Firstly, unlike a thing personality has an internal space or “internal sociality.” The core of personality is irreproducible (unique) and indestructible (belongs to eternity). Personality is pure meaning and, like any meaning, it is actualized, self-determined and self-revealed only when meeting with with a different meaning. Actually, for this she needs the thing-corporeal sphere of sign material, i.e. culture. As M. M. Bakhtin wrote, “a single truth requires a plurality of consciousnesses..., it is fundamentally incompatible within one consciousness..., she is, so to speak, by nature events and is born in point of contact between different consciousnesses" Secondly, the concept deserves special attention here "eventfulness". This is both historical eventfulness and “co-existence” (which is reflected in the etymology of this word), that is, “shared” existence with the “different”, the other. It is impossible to “become yourself,” argued M. M. Bakhtin, “without another.” Accordingly, nothing else can be conceivable without “relation to me.” Thirdly, thinking consciousness is understood by M. M. Bakhtin as an integral “mental” part of being in its truth, morality and beauty. Therefore, these values “are not brought into the world by the subject “from himself,” but also do not have a place in the subjectless objective presence of things. They co-existential, convergent" This is about dialogical interdependence thinking associated with mutual his responsibility. Therefore in the word "consciousness" there is a dialogue - "consciousness", that is shared knowledge. Every thought is a response to another thought. As V.I. Tyupa notes, “the central problem of all Bakhtin’s creativity is the problem of solitary consciousness, or, more precisely, the problem evental lack of privacy from within oneself and “for oneself” of a lonely participant powerful communicative processes of “small” and “big” time of culture.”
We needed this fairly popular presentation of M. M. Bakhtin’s philosophical concept in order to explain the logic of his understanding dialogue as an internal characteristic of “co-existence” (co-existence) and “co-knowledge” of the individual. Exactly dialogical(“dominant on the other,” as the creator of the theory of dominance, Ukhtomsky, would say) and is internal and has no alternative BASIS personal tolerance, it lies at the core and is not simplistically understood conciliarity, as “polyphony”, “ensemble of individuals”.
Let us recall that it is precisely on this understanding dialogical communication as a “subject-subject” connection, as a mutual “involvement” that distinguishes communication from informational communication at its core, we insisted, revealing the meaning developed culture of interethnic communication.
Thus, it turns out that tolerance laid down in the very nature of the personality, in particular, at one of the deepest levels of its existence - ethnic, connecting it with other individuals in the processes of “co-existence” and “co-knowledge”. And vice versa, intolerance turns into a departure from the individual, from the fullness of its existence and fulfillment, from its identity. That is why, as we showed in the previous section of our tutorial, xenophobia associated with insufficient self-realization, with problems of self-identification, with insufficient personality stability. Therefore, in our opinion, the formation of tolerance as a form or type of attitude towards the “other” must begin “with oneself,” that is, with the moral, spiritual education of oneself, one’s personality, with self-identification. Otherwise, fighting intolerance will be of a purely external nature, not affecting the essence, and therefore will be ineffective.
But, of course, this trait, this property of consciousness and behavior can be specified and revealed through other concepts. A definite impetus for intensifying research in this direction was the adopted November 16, 1995 at the UNESCO General Conference “Declaration of Principles of Tolerance”. Consider the definition of tolerance given here: “ Tolerance means respect, acceptance and proper understanding of the rich diversity of our world's cultures, our forms of self-expression and ways of expressing human individuality. It is promoted by knowledge, openness, communication and freedom of thought, conscience and belief. Tolerance is harmony in diversity. This is not only a moral duty, but also a political and legal necessity. Tolerance is a virtue that makes peace possible and helps replace the culture of war with a culture of peace».
It is noteworthy that already in the very first paragraph we are essentially talking about the phenomenon that interests us "ethnonational tolerance" since it is on ethnicity that cultural diversity of the world, To respect, acceptance and correct understanding which the Declaration calls for, as well as the rights to individual expression. Let us further note that among the factors contributing to tolerance are knowledge, openness and communication, as well as freedom of thought, conscience and belief. In addition, tolerance is seen as internal need, and not just a moral duty. And finally, tolerance is given a moral assessment as virtues i.e. one of the universal human values.
Further attention should be paid to two more significant emphases made in this document. Firstly, that tolerance is “ not concession, indulgence or indulgence", A “an active attitude formed on the basis of recognition of universal human rights and fundamental freedoms" This immediately establishes parity tolerant relations, equality of the parties and, in our opinion, the “linguistic” dispute is “removed”, whether it is possible to translate tolerance into Russian as “ tolerance" In addition, the shade of passivity contained in another translation of tolerance as “patience” is eliminated (“God endured and commanded us,” says one of the “mentally characteristic” Russian sayings). The UNESCO document talks about the fact that in the domestic pedagogical literature it received the not entirely euphonious abbreviation “AZhP” - active life position.
Secondly, an attempt is made here to indicate limits of tolerance: “The manifestation of tolerance, which is consonant with respect for human rights, is not means a tolerant attitude towards social injustice, abandoning one's own or yielding to someone else's beliefs. It means that everyone is free to hold their own beliefs and recognizes the same right for others. This means recognizing that people by nature differ in appearance, attitude, speech, behavior and values, and have the right to live in the world and maintain their individuality. This also means that one person's views cannot be imposed on others."
Here, in our opinion, the Declaration contains an element of “abstract humanism”. It is in the sphere ethnonational relations too often “freedom to hold one's own convictions” is not accompanied by “recognition of the same right for another” (this “recognition” is not accompanied in the document by the verb “shall”). It turns out that a racist, a Nazi, a xenophobe has the same freedom, as well as his “victims”, who in fact turn out to be not free “by definition”. The freedom of one must end where the freedom of another begins. Here the “freedom” of the racist turns into the “not freedom” of his victim...
In this sense, tolerance should not be understood as absolute value. Just how to count intolerance - absolute evil. As we noted earlier, sometimes achieving tolerance sometimes requires "intolerance to intolerance." In addition, according to some scientists, an urgent problem in the further development of the interdisciplinary theory of tolerance and finding ways of its “applied” use is the task of developing gradations or degrees of tolerance located between the “tolerance/intolerance” poles. This, of course, is also a question of pedagogical practice, designed, in particular, to solve the problem of the “ascent route” of the individual along the stages of tolerance to its most complete embodiment.
As some domestic researchers note, a very important and largely symptomatic point in the said UNESCO Declaration is the new point it contains: a shift in emphasis from education, previously always prevailing in international documents of this kind, on upbringing. That is, we are talking about overcoming a one-sided cognitive (cognitive - informational) understanding of the content of education and underestimation of its value-motivational component, which previously, in line with literal democratic ideas, was often associated with the ideologization of education, violation of “freedom of choice,” etc. Obviously , that it was the increase in conflict in the interethnic and interfaith spheres that aggravated the problem of managing communication processes through the education and upbringing system.
At the same time, achieving tolerance in the system of social and, in particular, interethnic relations depends on many specific historical and socio-psychological factors. Therefore, the provisions of this UNESCO Declaration must be perceived “not as dogma, but as a guide to action.” In different countries, the situation sometimes develops completely differently. Having conducted research on social identification processes in the post-Soviet space in the 90s, M. N. Guboglo came to the conclusion that in order to overcome conflict and develop tolerance, it is first of all necessary to build it a new system of relations with authorities based on trust and solidarity. Antipode of trust - suspicion,“serves, in the words of M. N. Guboglo, as the midwife of extremism.” The inability of the Russian authorities to protect their citizens during the crisis period of the 90s dulled civic identity and weakened “the sense of co-citizenship, interpersonal and group trust and solidarity.” The resulting “identification vacuum” began to be filled with “hypertrophied ethnicity or religiosity, which leads to the polarization and split of Russian society.” Our earlier analysis of the situation in Chechnya clearly illustrates this conclusion of the ethnosociologist. Intolerance here is interconnected with polarization, the opposition of ethnic and civil identities, the construction of ethno-confessional confrontation, and an attempt to use ethno-regional identity for separatist purposes.
In the social psychological study mentioned above G. L. Baldier The dependence of the level of tolerance on other social factors was clarified: professional employment (people in highly technologized professions are less tolerant); region of residence (in “hot spots” the level of tolerance and uncertainty is lower) And stages of socialization, where representatives of the group are located (adults have more reasons to show tolerance than students and high school students).
A huge role in the formation of interethnic tolerance is played by mass media. The atmosphere of tolerance in society largely depends on the dosage of information and its value emphasis. At the beginning of the new century, a significant number of studies devoted to this issue were carried out in Russia. But this is the topic of a special large study that goes beyond the scope of this textbook.
ABOUT TOLERANCE
Tolerance (or, in modern language, tolerance) corresponds to the principles JUSTICE.
The Preamble of the UN Charter proclaims the readiness of nations to “show tolerance and live together in peace with each other, as good neighbors.” The principles of tolerance are developed in the corresponding UNESCO Declaration of November 16, 1995:
1.1 Tolerance means respect, acceptance and proper understanding of the rich diversity of our world's cultures, our forms of self-expression and ways of expressing human individuality. It is promoted by knowledge, openness, communication and freedom of thought, conscience and belief. Tolerance is harmony in diversity. This is not only a moral duty, but also a political and legal necessity. Tolerance is a virtue that makes peace possible and helps replace the culture of war with a culture of peace.
1.2 Tolerance is not concession, leniency or indulgence. Tolerance is, first of all, an active attitude formed on the basis of recognition of universal human rights and fundamental freedoms. Under no circumstances can tolerance justify attacks on these fundamental values; tolerance must be exercised by individuals, groups and nations.
1.3 Tolerance is a responsibility to promote human rights, pluralism (including cultural pluralism), democracy and the rule of law. Tolerance is a concept that means the rejection of dogmatism, the absolutization of truth and the affirmation of the norms established in international legal acts in the field of human rights.
1.4 The manifestation of tolerance, which is consonant with respect for human rights, does not mean tolerating social injustice, abandoning one’s own or yielding to others’ beliefs. This means that everyone is free to hold their own beliefs and recognizes the same right for others. This means recognizing that people by nature differ in appearance, attitude, speech, behavior and values and have the right to live in the world and maintain their individuality. This also means that one person's views cannot be imposed on others.
ABOUT “HOUSEHOLD” TOLERANCE
To be tolerant means to recognize someone's right
to act as he considers necessary and correct.
This is very difficult, by the way!
Especially when you know what’s best...
Veronica Ivanova
Tolerance at the national and international level is a reflection of the great principle of tolerance that each of us can follow. After all, as Nicholas Roerich pointed out, “the concepts of tolerance or intolerance are expressed precisely in everyday life.” That is, it is at the everyday level that our essence can and does express itself - it is in everyday communication with other people that we show ourselves as we are.
Essentially, tolerance is reflected in the same areas in which we tend to be intolerant.
For example, the place of nationalism and racial intolerance is taken by tolerance - the ability not to transfer the shortcomings and negative actions of individual representatives of a nationality to all other representatives of it, to treat any person from the position of “presumption of national innocence” (Michial Matskovsky). We stop measuring people by the yardstick of our prejudices.
In the area of sexual preferences, we can calmly accept the fact that someone wants to enter into same-sex marriage. And we will not be indignant if people want to declare their rights - even at some kind of demonstration. We will not be afraid that our children, after such a demonstration, will themselves become homosexuals, because our open-mindedness can help us understand that they do not become homosexuals due to an excess of relevant advertising.
Respect for the elderly and children, the disabled and migrant workers, the homeless and prisoners is quite natural - as people, as we ourselves once were, as we ourselves will someday become, or in whose place we can also easily find ourselves (from the scrip and from prison, As you know, they don’t promise).
Tolerance is also required from us in ordinary contact with our loved ones, neighbors, and colleagues. Someone said (in our opinion) something stupid - should we ridicule or despise him? If someone's decision goes against our habits or beliefs, it is still wise to accept it rather than try at all costs to convince the person to do differently.
We do not allow ourselves to interfere with the freedom of our neighbors. Freedom of opinion, choice and decision making. The only correct position will be that of an outside observer.
Lyudmila Ulitskaya believes that “if we do not learn to understand that people can look different and eat different food, arrange their families differently and react to many everyday things, we will always be in a state of the most terrible war, which maybe - wars at home."
But if we teach our children from an early age to live according to the principles of justice and love, then perhaps Nicholas Roerich’s anticipation will come true: “What many prejudices and superstitions will be removed from life! How many new friendly looks and heartfelt sympathies will be created!”
Michial Mackovsky emphasizes that a person benefits from choosing a position of tolerance, which is due to:
1. with a sharp change in the number, volume and nature of conflict situations in various areas of life, the formation of a positive attitude towards life (which, among other things, is a serious psychophysiological therapy that allows you to reduce stress).
2. with the influence of tolerant attitudes on external forms of behavior that prevent aggressive forms of interaction, including those of an illegal nature.
Therefore, we will tolerate and accept everything that concerns the actions and beliefs of our neighbors - even if we do not really like it. More precisely, we will endure almost everything. But it is precisely this “almost” that contains what is fundamental.
They may think that it would be important, for example, to persuade a person to move to certain positions - say, concerning Christian or Muslim doctrine. After all, it would seem that it is so important that our neighbor can also experience the joy of communicating with God from the “correct” perspective. But no, this is not fundamental (although for each individual person it may turn out to be very important).
What will be fundamental is the violation or observance by us and other people of the principles of justice, respect or infringement of the freedoms of other people. It is not without reason that Nicholas Roerich reminds us that “tolerance does not at all mean tolerance of evil and crime.”
Therefore, tolerating unjust actions and evil can be harmful, dangerous and even criminal. From this point of view, we consider as evil the deliberate infringement of the interests of another person, causing him a deliberate offense. There can be no tolerance for such behavior.
But we must be sure that the person who commits such an act does so consciously and to the detriment of us or other people. What exactly we do in a given situation depends on each specific case - and we have to make an informed and responsible decision each time (as, indeed, in any other circumstances).
TOLERANCE FOR EVERYONE, OR IS THERE A LIMIT TO TOLERANCE?
Tolerance is a very difficult virtue,
For some, heroism is more difficult...
Our first impulse and even the subsequent one -
this is hatred for everyone,
who doesn't think like us.
Georges Lemaitre
Tolerance, both in the behavior of an individual and a group of people (up to society at the level of an individual state or all of humanity), is manifested in the refusal to persecute those whose beliefs or actions do not coincide with generally accepted ones (or accepted by an individual).
At the same time, we should not at all approve of the behavior of these people or justify what they do. But even if we very much dislike what these people do or think, we consciously decide to “tolerate them with their beliefs and practices. Tolerance thus lies at the heart of the guarantee of social diversity.
But it must be borne in mind that from the point of view of justice, patience should not be unlimited. John Rawls noted that those who accept the principle of justice must be tolerant of the intolerant, so far as the safety of free institutions allows. Religious intolerance and racial discrimination are unjust. Groups that compromise the principles of justice and thereby threaten the freedom of other members of society may have their freedoms limited.
Moreover, as John Rawls notes, “the freedoms of some are not simply suppressed for the sake of greater freedom for others. Justice prohibits such considerations regarding freedom, as well as regarding the amount of advantages. Only the freedom of the intolerant should be limited, and this is done in the name of equal freedom under a just constitution, the principles of which the intolerant themselves would recognize in the original position. Justice is infringed whenever equal freedom is denied without sufficient grounds. The question, then, is whether one's intolerance of others is a sufficient reason for limiting one's freedom... But even when the freedom of the intolerant is limited in order to protect a just constitution, it is in the name of maximizing freedom.”
John Rawls especially draws our attention to the fact that “when the Constitution itself is secure, there is no reason to deprive the intolerant of their liberty.”
John Rawls believes that liberties for the intolerant can induce them to believe in freedom, because, in his opinion, “the people whose rights are protected by a just constitution, who benefit from it, will, in the course of time, become, other things being equal, loyal to it ... “.
Tolerance is a derivative of freedom. “The problem of freedom is the choice of the principle by which the claims of men against each other in the name of their religion will be regulated,” writes John Rawls. “From the fact that the intentions of God must be agreed upon, it does not follow that one person or institution has the power to interfere with another person's interpretation of his religious obligations."
Here is what John Rawls writes: “No particular interpretation of religious truth can be considered binding on all citizens; Nor can we agree that there should be any one authority with the right to decide questions of theological doctrine. Every individual must insist on the equal right of all to decide what their religious obligations are. He cannot transfer this right to another individual or authority... An individual exercises his freedom by deciding to consider someone else as an authority, even if he considers that authority to be infallible, since in doing so he in no way gives up their equal freedom of conscience as part of constitutional law. After all, this freedom, guaranteed by justice, is inseparable from a person: an individual is always free to change his belief, and this right of his does not depend on how often he used his options and to what extent wisely.”
TOLERANCE AS AN ACTIVE POSITION
“People mistake tolerance for a sign of weakness.
It seems to me that this is not so.
Anger has its source in fear,
but fear arises from weakness.
So if you are strong,
then you will have more courage.
And this is where tolerance comes in.”
Dalai Lama
In the explanatory dictionary “Politics” (authors D. Underhill, S. Barrett, P. Burnell, P. Burnham, etc.), tolerance is defined as “the willingness not to interfere with the beliefs, positions or actions of others, despite the lack of sympathy or even hostility towards them. The value of tolerance is said to be the refusal to intervene despite an initial negative reaction, even when there is opportunity (or authority) to intervene.”
Ushakov’s Dictionary (1935-1940): Property, the ability to be tolerant of something, to tolerate something (religious tolerance; tolerance for other people’s opinions...). It is interesting to note that the author of the dictionary also included tolerance towards enemies here. But due to the prevailing ideology at that time, this provision was given in the following wording: “ criminal tolerance towards enemies."
But one way or another, it is clear that one of the foundations of tolerance is patience.Its other basis is freedom.
Ernest Radlov (Encyclopedic Dictionary of F.A. Brockhaus and I.A. Efron. - St. Petersburg: Brockhaus-Efron. 1890-1907.): “The idea of personality contains the concept of freedom of the inner world, without which personality is unthinkable; from the idea of personality, as its consequence, follows freedom of conscience and freedom of speech; Freedom of teaching is only one type of freedom of speech. Actions are subject to objective assessment, but not motives, opinions and beliefs. T. is a sign of a high culture of mind, the result of struggle and doubt; it is expressed in respect for other people’s opinions and beliefs.”
Both patience and the desire for equal freedom for all are manifestations of the human spirit that require determination, which is based on the choice in favor of one or another norm of behavior based on a certain system of values.
Michial Mackovsky notes that tolerance is a system of values, which include, in particular, the following:
The presumption of personality is the assessment of each person based on his specific traits and actions, and not on the basis of expectations associated with his national, religious and other characteristics;
Presumption of human rights - every person has the right to any manifestations of national, religious and other characteristics in his behavior and statements in the event that they do not contradict the norms of law and morality of society and community;
Focus on tolerance for the shortcomings, weaknesses and mistakes of other people, if they do not contradict the norms of morality and law, or, speaking in another language, the willingness to forgive people all their sins, with the exception of especially serious ones;
The value of consent and non-violent conflict resolution;
The value of human life and the absence of physical suffering;
The value of following the rules of law;
The value of compassion, empathy, empathy.
TOLERANCE AS LOVE
Love is inseparable from tolerance,
which gives her strength.
Mark Levy
Justice is impossible without a feeling of affection, without a warm attitude towards your neighbor. Therefore, tolerance, which grows from the principles of justice, is unthinkable without compassionate love for those who are like us, and therefore have (like us) their own beliefs, interests and aspirations.
Hatred towards dissidents only leads to hatred and war (no matter what its manifestation). Patience and tolerance show other people that we see and respect them as the same person as ourselves. “An intolerant person, first of all, is not merciful, which means he is not generous and does not know trust,” says Nicholas Roerich.
It is easy to give in to anger at someone who is different from us. Sometimes just one such dissimilarity is enough for an outburst of anger and hatred. For this you don’t need a lot of intelligence, a lot of strength, or even a lot of courage. Everything happens as if automatically: a cascade of emotions bursts through, overwhelming the mind.
If we actively choose the principles of justice as a basis for ourselves, then we will need a lot of courage to treat our neighbor as ourselves, to be open-minded about his characteristics, to tolerate his otherness, to learn to look at the situation and the world through the eyes of “ another."
But after we have mastered ourselves, accepted the other with all his originality, then considerable strengths appear in us, which are the forces of love for our neighbor, so similar to us, and so different from us.
True love is always reciprocal to one degree or another - at least in the desire not to do to another what you do not want to experience yourself. And for this you cannot do without condescension. Therefore, I would like to end this section with a statement from Ivan Sergeevich Turgenev: “Whoever has lived and not become lenient towards others does not deserve leniency himself. And who can say that he does not need leniency?“