Philosophy – “A Problem with Tolerance” – 5/24/2022

“To compel love does not result in love. Love cannot be forced, unless hypocrisy happens to be one’s motto. When one enforces love, love cannot come naturally. When love forces itself, it becomes rape, or it becomes what one cannot tolerate.”

– Modern Romanticism

Human nature dictates that a person must fall in love or form a human connection, on accident. That accident had been a result of being unaware of where a connection will go. Soon as information becomes flooded into a receiver’s mind, there will be more doors to open for that receiver to give their information over, under a banner of trust.

On a dating website, where deliberation intends for love to happen with purpose, there can be emotional attachments formed. However, accident had been that connection’s initial formation, due to that same ingredient of trust for all of a giver’s information. Information becomes given to a person who has also been trusted enough to present their care for it. Without their exploitation of said information, further trust can be enhanced, and thus deepen this connection.

Tolerance depicts itself as an enforcement of it. However, its way for being hypocritical resides in not being aware of one specific fact. That fact comes in an idea that no human can absolve themselves of preference. As preference remains opposite of prejudice, a person who enforces tolerance will be unaware of their preferences and their prejudices. Such comes with an unawareness of both human traits describing like and dislike. As a person tolerates, so too can they be intolerant of another’s presence. To believe we can be tolerant of all means an ordinary human being can be capable of renouncing their innate characteristics of preferring against a sight of them being prejudiced. As all humans hold appetite, their hunger for something preferred happens to be outside of their desire to be apart from where they express dislike or prejudice.

To enforce tolerance will be no different than enforcing someone to like another thing. In that, a rapist’s mentality exists. A rapist will force someone to submit to liking their acts, as within a law’s understanding of rape, even arousal does not mean consent.

If rape, of its definition, can be compared to theft, one can believe that compelling love will refer not to love, though to unconditional and unbarred trust. To trust, that of itself can only be unconditional if one happens to be being manipulated. Stealing information, therefore, falls under this definition of unconditional trust or to compel love. As love cannot be compelled, it will refer to trust. Forcing another to trust them can be no different than a victim to a rapist who hopes for no greater extent of harm to come to them, after this forceful act concludes itself.

To steal information means to take such on an enforcement of tolerance to what cannot be enforced, though happens to be believed as possible. Tolerating theft will remain of its own understanding under a tyrannical policy similar to Bolsheviks who took property from those who were wealthy to allow it for those who were poor. Tolerance for those who are poor of their own information or who have nothing to steal from means that those who hold or have success are truer victims to a scenario of this hypocrisy. One cannot be tolerant for those who are claimed, from people who enforce it, to be victims without not comprehending that tolerance can only be a mere compelling of desire and lust, not love, upon those who have material possessions.

Leave a Reply