The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Tolerance is a very dull virtue. It is boring. Unlike love, it has always had a bad press. It is negative. It merely means... Options
Daemon
Posted: Friday, February 8, 2019 12:00:00 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/7/2009
Posts: 28,289
Neurons: 84,045
Location: Inside Farlex computers
Tolerance is a very dull virtue. It is boring. Unlike love, it has always had a bad press. It is negative. It merely means putting up with people, being able to stand things.

E. M. Forster (1879-1970)
KSPavan
Posted: Friday, February 8, 2019 12:27:47 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 1/28/2015
Posts: 7,031
Neurons: 3,386,189
Location: Kolkata, Bengal, India
Quotation of the Day

Tolerance is a very dull virtue. It is boring. Unlike love, it has always had a bad press. It is negative. It merely means putting up with people, being able to stand things.

E. M. Forster (1879-1970)
Adyl Mouhei
Posted: Friday, February 8, 2019 2:13:00 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/1/2017
Posts: 2,148
Neurons: 392,711
Location: Casablanca, Grand Casablanca, Morocco
Tolerance is hard and yet we cannot ignore its benefits. one of the most important advantages is that it helps us to free ourselves from being self-centered and enables us to see things from different perspectives.
Wilmar (USA)
Posted: Friday, February 8, 2019 7:21:23 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/4/2015
Posts: 2,849
Neurons: 787,803
Location: Vinton, Iowa, United States
monamagda
Posted: Friday, February 8, 2019 9:14:32 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 2/4/2014
Posts: 7,287
Neurons: 5,375,582
Location: Bogotá, Bogota D.C., Colombia

The passage below, “Tolerance,” by E. M. Forster was first published in 1938 as the world headed into a second world war. It comes from a longer work entitled “Two Cheers for Democracy” or, as it is sometimes called, “What I Believe.” In the portion of the essay excerpted below, Forster offers his solution to world conflict in a friendly, earnest manner to persuade his audience to change their attitudes towards people they perceive as different from themselves.


(Originally released July 1941 on the British Broadcasting System)

1) Surely the only sound foundation for a civilization is a sound state of mind. Architects, contractors, international commissioners, marketing boards, broadcasting corporations will never, by themselves, build a new world. They must be inspired by the proper spirit, and there must be the proper spirit in the people for whom they are working. . . .

2) What though is the proper spirit? . . . There must be a sound state of mind before diplomacy or economics or trade conferences can function. But what state of mind is sound? Here we may differ. Most people, when asked what spiritual quality is needed to rebuild civilization, will reply “Love.” Men must love one another, they say; nations must do likewise, and then the series of cataclysms which is threatening to destroy us will be checked.

3) Respectfully but firmly, I disagree. Love is a great force in private life; it is indeed the greatest of all things: but love in public affairs does not work. It has been tried again and again: by the Christian civilizations of the Middle Ages, and also by the French Revolution, a secular movement which reasserted the brotherhood of man. And it has always failed. The idea that nations should love one another, or that business concerns or market boards should love one another, or that a man in Portugal should love a man in Peru of whom he has never heard—it is absurd, unreal, dangerous. It leads us into perilous and vague sentimentalism. “Love is what is needed,” we chant and then sit back, and the world goes on as before. The fact is we can only love what we know personally. And we cannot know much. In public affairs, in the rebuilding of civilization, something much less dramatic and emotional is needed, namely, tolerance.Tolerance is a very dull virtue. It is boring. Unlike love, it has always had a bad press. It is negative. It merely means putting up with people, being able to stand things. No one has ever written an ode to tolerance or raised a statue to her. Yet this is the quality which will be most needed after the war. This is the sound state of mind which we are looking for. This is the only force which will enable different races and classes and interests to settle down together to the work of reconstruction.

4) The world is very full of people—appallingly full; it has never been so full before, and they are all tumbling over each other. Most of these people one doesn’t know, and some of them one doesn’t like; doesn’t like the color of their skins, say, or the shapes of their noses, or the way they blow them or don’t blow them, or the way they talk, or their smell, or their clothes, or their fondness for jazz, or their dislike of jazz, and so on. Well, what is one to do? There are two solutions. One of them is the Nazi solution. If you don’t like people, kill them, banish them, segregate them, and then strut up and down proclaiming that you are the salt of the earth.The other way is much less thrilling, but it is on the whole the way of the democracies, and I prefer it. If you don’t like people, put up with them as well as you can. Don’t try to love them: you can’t; you’ll only strain yourself. But try to tolerate them. On the basis of that tolerance a civilized future may be built. Certainly I can see no other foundation for the postwar world.

5) For what it will most need is the negative virtues: not being huffy, touchy, irritable, revengeful. I have lost all faith in positive militant ideals; they can so seldom be carried out without thousands of human beings getting maimed or imprisoned. Phrases like “I will purge this nation,” “I will clean up this city,” terrify and disgust me. They might not have mattered when the world was emptier: they are horrifying now, when one nation is mixed up with another, when one city cannot be organically separated from its neighbors. . . .

6) I don’t then regard tolerance as a great eternally established divine principle, though I might perhaps quote “In my Father’s house are many mansions” in support of such a view. It is just a makeshift, suitable for an overcrowded and overheated planet. It carries on when love gives out, and love generally gives out as soon as we move away from our home and our friends and stand among strangers in a queue for potatoes. Tolerance is wanted in the queue; otherwise we think, “Why will people be so slow?”; it is wanted in the tube, or “Why will people be so fat?”; it is wanted at the telephone, or “Why are they so deaf?” or conversely, “Why do they mumble?” It is wanted in the street, in the office, at the factory, and it is wanted above all between classes, races, and nations. It’s dull. And yet it entails imagination. For you have all the time to be putting yourself in someone else’s place. Which is a desirable spiritual exercise.


http://ontrack-media.net/english_gateway/E3/g_E3RdM3L05/g_E3RdM3L05s5.html
monamagda
Posted: Friday, February 8, 2019 9:15:23 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 2/4/2014
Posts: 7,287
Neurons: 5,375,582
Location: Bogotá, Bogota D.C., Colombia

The passage below, “Tolerance,” by E. M. Forster was first published in 1938 as the world headed into a second world war. It comes from a longer work entitled “Two Cheers for Democracy” or, as it is sometimes called, “What I Believe.” In the portion of the essay excerpted below, Forster offers his solution to world conflict in a friendly, earnest manner to persuade his audience to change their attitudes towards people they perceive as different from themselves.


(Originally released July 1941 on the British Broadcasting System)

1) Surely the only sound foundation for a civilization is a sound state of mind. Architects, contractors, international commissioners, marketing boards, broadcasting corporations will never, by themselves, build a new world. They must be inspired by the proper spirit, and there must be the proper spirit in the people for whom they are working. . . .

2) What though is the proper spirit? . . . There must be a sound state of mind before diplomacy or economics or trade conferences can function. But what state of mind is sound? Here we may differ. Most people, when asked what spiritual quality is needed to rebuild civilization, will reply “Love.” Men must love one another, they say; nations must do likewise, and then the series of cataclysms which is threatening to destroy us will be checked.

3) Respectfully but firmly, I disagree. Love is a great force in private life; it is indeed the greatest of all things: but love in public affairs does not work. It has been tried again and again: by the Christian civilizations of the Middle Ages, and also by the French Revolution, a secular movement which reasserted the brotherhood of man. And it has always failed. The idea that nations should love one another, or that business concerns or market boards should love one another, or that a man in Portugal should love a man in Peru of whom he has never heard—it is absurd, unreal, dangerous. It leads us into perilous and vague sentimentalism. “Love is what is needed,” we chant and then sit back, and the world goes on as before. The fact is we can only love what we know personally. And we cannot know much. In public affairs, in the rebuilding of civilization, something much less dramatic and emotional is needed, namely, tolerance.Tolerance is a very dull virtue. It is boring. Unlike love, it has always had a bad press. It is negative. It merely means putting up with people, being able to stand things. No one has ever written an ode to tolerance or raised a statue to her. Yet this is the quality which will be most needed after the war. This is the sound state of mind which we are looking for. This is the only force which will enable different races and classes and interests to settle down together to the work of reconstruction.

4) The world is very full of people—appallingly full; it has never been so full before, and they are all tumbling over each other. Most of these people one doesn’t know, and some of them one doesn’t like; doesn’t like the color of their skins, say, or the shapes of their noses, or the way they blow them or don’t blow them, or the way they talk, or their smell, or their clothes, or their fondness for jazz, or their dislike of jazz, and so on. Well, what is one to do? There are two solutions. One of them is the Nazi solution. If you don’t like people, kill them, banish them, segregate them, and then strut up and down proclaiming that you are the salt of the earth.The other way is much less thrilling, but it is on the whole the way of the democracies, and I prefer it. If you don’t like people, put up with them as well as you can. Don’t try to love them: you can’t; you’ll only strain yourself. But try to tolerate them. On the basis of that tolerance a civilized future may be built. Certainly I can see no other foundation for the postwar world.

5) For what it will most need is the negative virtues: not being huffy, touchy, irritable, revengeful. I have lost all faith in positive militant ideals; they can so seldom be carried out without thousands of human beings getting maimed or imprisoned. Phrases like “I will purge this nation,” “I will clean up this city,” terrify and disgust me. They might not have mattered when the world was emptier: they are horrifying now, when one nation is mixed up with another, when one city cannot be organically separated from its neighbors. . . .

6) I don’t then regard tolerance as a great eternally established divine principle, though I might perhaps quote “In my Father’s house are many mansions” in support of such a view. It is just a makeshift, suitable for an overcrowded and overheated planet. It carries on when love gives out, and love generally gives out as soon as we move away from our home and our friends and stand among strangers in a queue for potatoes. Tolerance is wanted in the queue; otherwise we think, “Why will people be so slow?”; it is wanted in the tube, or “Why will people be so fat?”; it is wanted at the telephone, or “Why are they so deaf?” or conversely, “Why do they mumble?” It is wanted in the street, in the office, at the factory, and it is wanted above all between classes, races, and nations. It’s dull. And yet it entails imagination. For you have all the time to be putting yourself in someone else’s place. Which is a desirable spiritual exercise.


http://ontrack-media.net/english_gateway/E3/g_E3RdM3L05/g_E3RdM3L05s5.html
monamagda
Posted: Friday, February 8, 2019 9:15:49 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 2/4/2014
Posts: 7,287
Neurons: 5,375,582
Location: Bogotá, Bogota D.C., Colombia
The passage below, “Tolerance,” by E. M. Forster was first published in 1938 as the world headed into a second world war. It comes from a longer work entitled “Two Cheers for Democracy” or, as it is sometimes called, “What I Believe.” In the portion of the essay excerpted below, Forster offers his solution to world conflict in a friendly, earnest manner to persuade his audience to change their attitudes towards people they perceive as different from themselves.


(Originally released July 1941 on the British Broadcasting System)

1) Surely the only sound foundation for a civilization is a sound state of mind. Architects, contractors, international commissioners, marketing boards, broadcasting corporations will never, by themselves, build a new world. They must be inspired by the proper spirit, and there must be the proper spirit in the people for whom they are working. . . .

2) What though is the proper spirit? . . . There must be a sound state of mind before diplomacy or economics or trade conferences can function. But what state of mind is sound? Here we may differ. Most people, when asked what spiritual quality is needed to rebuild civilization, will reply “Love.” Men must love one another, they say; nations must do likewise, and then the series of cataclysms which is threatening to destroy us will be checked.

3) Respectfully but firmly, I disagree. Love is a great force in private life; it is indeed the greatest of all things: but love in public affairs does not work. It has been tried again and again: by the Christian civilizations of the Middle Ages, and also by the French Revolution, a secular movement which reasserted the brotherhood of man. And it has always failed. The idea that nations should love one another, or that business concerns or market boards should love one another, or that a man in Portugal should love a man in Peru of whom he has never heard—it is absurd, unreal, dangerous. It leads us into perilous and vague sentimentalism. “Love is what is needed,” we chant and then sit back, and the world goes on as before. The fact is we can only love what we know personally. And we cannot know much. In public affairs, in the rebuilding of civilization, something much less dramatic and emotional is needed, namely, tolerance.Tolerance is a very dull virtue. It is boring. Unlike love, it has always had a bad press. It is negative. It merely means putting up with people, being able to stand things. No one has ever written an ode to tolerance or raised a statue to her. Yet this is the quality which will be most needed after the war. This is the sound state of mind which we are looking for. This is the only force which will enable different races and classes and interests to settle down together to the work of reconstruction.

4) The world is very full of people—appallingly full; it has never been so full before, and they are all tumbling over each other. Most of these people one doesn’t know, and some of them one doesn’t like; doesn’t like the color of their skins, say, or the shapes of their noses, or the way they blow them or don’t blow them, or the way they talk, or their smell, or their clothes, or their fondness for jazz, or their dislike of jazz, and so on. Well, what is one to do? There are two solutions. One of them is the Nazi solution. If you don’t like people, kill them, banish them, segregate them, and then strut up and down proclaiming that you are the salt of the earth.The other way is much less thrilling, but it is on the whole the way of the democracies, and I prefer it. If you don’t like people, put up with them as well as you can. Don’t try to love them: you can’t; you’ll only strain yourself. But try to tolerate them. On the basis of that tolerance a civilized future may be built. Certainly I can see no other foundation for the postwar world.

5) For what it will most need is the negative virtues: not being huffy, touchy, irritable, revengeful. I have lost all faith in positive militant ideals; they can so seldom be carried out without thousands of human beings getting maimed or imprisoned. Phrases like “I will purge this nation,” “I will clean up this city,” terrify and disgust me. They might not have mattered when the world was emptier: they are horrifying now, when one nation is mixed up with another, when one city cannot be organically separated from its neighbors. . . .

6) I don’t then regard tolerance as a great eternally established divine principle, though I might perhaps quote “In my Father’s house are many mansions” in support of such a view. It is just a makeshift, suitable for an overcrowded and overheated planet. It carries on when love gives out, and love generally gives out as soon as we move away from our home and our friends and stand among strangers in a queue for potatoes. Tolerance is wanted in the queue; otherwise we think, “Why will people be so slow?”; it is wanted in the tube, or “Why will people be so fat?”; it is wanted at the telephone, or “Why are they so deaf?” or conversely, “Why do they mumble?” It is wanted in the street, in the office, at the factory, and it is wanted above all between classes, races, and nations. It’s dull. And yet it entails imagination. For you have all the time to be putting yourself in someone else’s place. Which is a desirable spiritual exercise.


http://ontrack-media.net/english_gateway/E3/g_E3RdM3L05/g_E3RdM3L05s5.html
Bully_rus
Posted: Friday, February 8, 2019 9:32:33 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/26/2013
Posts: 2,895
Neurons: 238,036
Location: Minsk, Minskaya Voblasts', Belarus
Daemon wrote:
Tolerance is a very dull virtue. It is boring. Unlike love, it has always had a bad press. It is negative. It merely means putting up with people, being able to stand things.

E. M. Forster (1879-1970)


Yeah. Tolerance isn’t the end station of the route. It’s just a transition point...
Gary98
Posted: Friday, February 8, 2019 10:21:00 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/23/2014
Posts: 1,675
Neurons: 4,452,208
Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
Tolerance is a very dull virtue. It is boring unlike love, but it makes up the threshold of civilized society.
Halit Arik
Posted: Friday, February 8, 2019 3:32:41 PM

Rank: Newbie

Joined: 2/4/2019
Posts: 4
Neurons: 20,386
Location: Diyarbakır, Diyarbakir, Turkey
Tolerance is a very dull virtue. It is boring unlike love, but it makes up the threshold of civilized society.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2019 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.