quote:The basic argument in favor of "pluralism" is that in a world in which beliefs do in fact differ it is the only way to achieve peace. The advantage of that argument, from the standpoint of those making it, is that it does away with the need to argue the truth, goodness or rationality of liberalism itself. It makes the unquestioned supremacy of liberalism a brute practical necessity that all other views must bow to as a precondition for avoiding the war of all against all and so being able to achieve any good whatever. For liberals, it's a shortcut to total victory.
What do you think of this? I've written a pretty thorough attempt at a rebuttal here, so it's no secret where I fall on this, but I thought I'd see what the (generally more balanced) views of Jatraqueros are on this issue, since it doesn't look like a reasonable discussion's likely to happen in the blogosphere any time soon.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I do not believe that "pluralism" would completely create peace, but I also do not believe that imposing a single religion or idea on people will create peace either. Eventually, whether it takes five minutes or a hundred years, someone will deviate, and the whole thing will start all over again.
Are you saying "pluralism" is tolerance of diversity? There must be three levels of "pluralism": Toleration, Acceptance and Embracement. It is obviously more likely that Embracement will be more peaceful than Toleration. Nobody wants to be merely tolerated.
However, even everyone embraces mixed cultures and mixed religions and colours and sexual preferances etc. there will still be the other deviation; those who are not embracing, accepting or tolerating. The Embracers will have to embrace that idea too, because that is what they believe.
This sets this one group, these non-pluralists apart, and as long they a minority, they can be ignored and emnraced along with every other diversion. But the group starts to grow and a split develops. They want to be recognised as different, they don't want to be understood and embraced, they want to be free of "pluralism".
And you're back where you started.
I don't think there is a formula for peace.
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
That's a good point. I wish I'd thought to raise it in my rebuttal.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Define pluralism...
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
Feel free to provide your own definition. I stuck to disputing the one provided by the guy who wrote the post I was rebutting; see the first link.