The Most Dangerous Idea

I would like to preface this essay with a quote from the philosopher who posited the idea which I will discuss shortly: "Always remember that it is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood: there will always be some who misunderstands you." - Karl Popper. I feel the need to start this essay off with that statement because I may well be misunderstanding Popper's ideas here, and I while I've analyzed my thoughts deeply and believe them, they may be incorrect interpretations of his original intentions, though I do not think they are. 

In my readings thus far, I've been confronted with many ideas which have struck me as odd, some which I fundamentally disagreed with, and some which resonated deeply with my spirit, and of course every flavor in between. I've never been scared of an idea until I became familiar with Karl Popper's Paradox of Tolerance some weeks ago. In his The Open Society and its Enemies, Popper seeks to determine what a truly tolerant society would look like. Because I have not yet read the book (refer to the opening quote if this rubs you the wrong way), I won't be directly citing it, but the idea follows a basic, and dangerous, logic.

So imagine you're in a fully tolerant society, and that you seek to keep it that way. Suddenly, you're confronted with a person or group whose main dogma instills intolerance - think here of a classically (not post-modernly) defined bigot. What do you do if you want to maintain your tolerant society? Well you should obviously keep them in the society and allow them to be free - after all, being tolerant requires that you let people live as they wish. However, Popper points out that these intolerant people are rarely content to sit idle - they wish to seize power, and a fully tolerant society would let them, perhaps citing that their opinions must also be heard, no matter how horrifying or ignorant. Once these people get in power, they swiftly destroy any tolerance other than that of their own doctrine and create an authoritarian state.

Instead, you must be intolerant of intolerance from the moment it begins to manifest itself in your society, and in doing so you make yourself a hypocrite and in some sense intolerant yourself - hence the name of the idea: the Paradox of Tolerance. Popper also defines intolerance as, and I paraphrase here, "Any movement that preaches intolerance and persecution", with the key word being "persecution". Even the definition is vague - using a word in its own definition doesn't lend itself to reasonable interpretation.

When I first read this idea, I found it to be an interesting take on intolerance and society. It seemed odd, but logical to me. However, it stuck with me in the weeks that followed and I found myself dwelling on it a lot as I tried to grapple with the meaning of Popper's Paradox. If what he said was true, and I have every reason to believe it to be true, then it has horrifying implications, though I do not know if that was his intent. 

Who decides what is intolerant? Who pulls the lever on persecution? In Popper's own definition of intolerance he effectively labeled everyone fighting intolerance as intolerant, be it from the classic flaw in the logic of claiming love for all and then ostracizing a group, or from the simple fact that Popper defines an intolerant group as one that persecutes. Now we could be rational for a minute and impose some reasonable sanctions against, say, Neo-Nazis, but the easy part stops there. How do you distinguish between simple epistemological differences and true intolerance? You could look at it on a group level - that everyone who does not approve of a group deserves persecution, but in doing so you indict yourself.

Furthermore, Popper's idea could be catastrophic in the hands of the wrong group of people, whoever that might be. It could very well be the easiest idea to induct into any ideology imaginable, from post-modernists to libertarians. Every group could claim themselves to be saints and purely loving creatures simply seeking to rid themselves of the parasites who perpetrate intolerance in their society. It would simply depend on the ruling majority. I shudder at the thought of a dictatorship using the Paradox of Tolerance to oppress their own citizens, and that their justification would be valid - you simply cannot definite intolerance in a uniform manner across all domains of activity without contradicting yourself, and therefore any sensible and malicious person in a position of power could use Popper's Paradox to protect themselves from criticism.

Now, the Paradox of Tolerance can't start a totalitarian state on its own - there are other catalysts which accelerate the degradation of democracies, but in the hands of a powerful and hateful person it's a dangerous tool which can be used to stymie opponents through sophisticated gaslighting. Going back to the original example, say you're now a part of that group of bigots, and that you've managed, via either stealth or conversion, to hold some positions of power within the government. With a few decisive moves your people control large part of the status quo. Next, you begin pressing your ignorant ideas onto your nation. Initially, some resistance crops up, mostly in the form of verbal cries of indignation, but you silence them by mentioning how you're just trying to create a tolerant society, and that anyone who dissents is fundamentally intolerant. That, along with some well placed propaganda and exploitation will leave the world in your palms, for better or for worse.

What truly frightens me about this idea can be broken into a few keys. First, the knowledge I have of the proclivity for humans to think in packs and seek confirmation bias. Second, the understanding of how evil things can get in the world, objectively speaking,. Third, how easy it is for well organized democratic republics to fall into the pit of ideological possession, and finally; how the heightened sense of victimhood from a group often precedes genocide. As I've written bout in the past, the world is headed for a major collapse in the next 100-150 years, and this idea of Karl Popper could bring it about much sooner, as politics become more and more polarized. Now, there are things we can do to prevent Karl Popper's Paradox of Tolerance from seizing control of our systems, starting with simple awareness of the problem, but the real truth lies in the individual. You need to pay attention to the world, look at what you don't want to look at; listen to who you don't want to listen to; read what you don't want to read, and so on and so forth. While the pessimist in me thinks the Paradox of Logic will bring hellfire down upon the modern world, a part of me hopes we can come together and discuss what truly constitutes irrational intolerance versus a simple disagreement.