Sees itself as the bearer of change, yet refuses dialogue: How to understand the student movement's actions?
In contemporary discussions about democracy, Karl Popper, the renowned Austrian philosopher and author of 'The Open Society and Its Enemies,' is often invoked as an authority. His paradox of tolerance has become almost a commonplace – a formula used to justify drawing lines and rejecting those whose views we deem unacceptable. It is precisely here, however, that its most frequent misreading begins.
TL;DR
- Karl Popper's paradox of tolerance is often misinterpreted; his goal was to preserve the conditions for discussing ideas, not to shield society from them.
- Disagreement is natural in a living society, but the problem arises when dialogue ceases, leading to withdrawal rather than argument.
- The boundary of tolerance lies between the willingness and unwillingness to engage in dialogue, not between 'right' and 'wrong' views.
- Freedom of expression protects not just agreeable opinions but also those that are foreign or unacceptable.
- Popper's tolerance involves a willingness to engage in constructive dialogue and be challenged, rather than passive acceptance.
- The student movement's refusal to dialogue with authorities, opposition, or other initiatives raises questions about its democratic legitimacy.
- Refusing conversation means abandoning the space where politics is shaped; dialogue is democracy's fundamental mechanism.
- A movement seeking change but avoiding dialogue finds itself in an undemocratic position, seeking influence outside the process of gaining it.