Twice Shy - Seamus Heaney

Her scarf a la Bardot,

In suede flats for the walk,

She came with me one evening

For air and friendly talk.

We crossed the quiet river,

Took the embankment walk.

Traffic holding its breath, 

Sky a tense diaphragm:

Dusk hung like a blackcloth

That shook where a swan swam,

Tremulous as a hawk

Hanging deadly, calm.

A vacuum of need

Collapsed each hunting heart

But tremulously we held

As hawk and prey apart,

Preserved classic decorum, 

Deployed our talk with art.

Our Juvenilia

Had taught us both to wait,

Not to publish feeling

And regret it all too late -

Mushroom loves already

Had puffed and burst in hate.

So, chary and excited,

As a thrush linked on a hawk,

We thrilled to the March twilight

With nervous childish talk:

Still waters running deep

Along the embankment walk.

Seamus Heaney (1939 - 2013)

Shooting "Libération": when information is threatened

Yesterday morning, a young photographer, aged 23, has been shot in Paris. Associations such as "Reporters without frontiers" report everyday on journalists being injured or killed for their work worldwide. Only this time this photographer was in a lift, in the entrance hall of French national newspaper "Libération". He wasn't working yet. He was charging his camera, unaware of what was going to happen. A man arrived, didn't speak a word, and opened fire on the first person he could see. Within seconds, the photographer collapsed, seriously injured. Within seconds, this man's life has been changed forever. We don't know the reason for it. But how could there be one? There is no reason for fatality. There is none, yet, it's extremely shocking to think that in our so-called civilization this kind of random and unfair event might cost a young man his life. Beyond the act itself, which looks like an isolated action committed by an unbalanced person who obviously holds a grudge against the press, this attack is also threatening all means of information. In what kind of society do we live, where newspaper's headquarters have to be protected? Do we have to install security checks at the entrance of every building out there because we are unable to shield ourselves from the act of one amongst millions? There are so many sad questions raised by this isolated yet devastating attack. They can't be answered because what happened isn't rational. What is, though, is the desire to convey information, to inform, to instruct through the circulation of knowledge. And "Libération" means freedom. Freedom of information. Neither its journalists nor any other out there will stop informing because violence won't silence them, as long as some of them are (still) standing. They were, are and always will be the eyes of our world.

If you have time please check Committee to Protect Journalists and Reporters Without Borders .

On Tolerance

I was having a discussion the other day on what could be tolerated in matter of beliefs and what couldn't be. In that particular case, in a conversation held by a group of atheists, the object was faith. To what extent can an atheist tolerate a believer? Not in the sense of getting rid of it alltogether in a violent manner but rather what does an atheist do of a believer's opinion? I like to think that I'm tolerant, yet I was made feel like I was rather bland for not being strongly opinionated against believers, as an atheist. Some of my friends do believe in God, and the reason why they remain being my friends despite our divergent beliefs is because I see it as a sign of open-mindedness that I don't judge the way they apprehend the world. 

The question raised – to what extent can one tolerate a divergent opinion in the case of faith? - got me thinking about the notion of tolerance itself. I found a very interesting paragraph on the French wikipedia page on what tolerance isn't. Tolerance isn't indifference, for the latter implies that one isn't concerned, one way or another, with the subject of its (dis)interest. Tolerance isn't submission, for that would imply coercion and not a deliberate choice of accepting a divergent opinion. Tolerance isn't indulgence, because that implies a tendancy to forgive what one can't understand, while tolerance can also be a sign of condescendence. Tolerance isn't permissiveness. Contrary to indulgence, permissiveness implies a propension to forgive anything unconditionnally. Finally, tolerance isn't respect. Respect implies that one understands and shares the values of a person and judge them favorably. Tolerance, on the other hand, is the fact that one tries to accept something or someone in spite of the negative judgement one has on it/him/her.

In Early Modern times, tolerance mostly meant that a group of believers, the tenants of the catholic faith, should accept that another group, the protestants, worshiped God in another way. Thomas More emphasised tolerance in his Utopia, while not applying it in his own politics as Lord Chancellor. In Letters concerning Tolerance, John Locke, contrary to Hobbes, argues in favour of a state within which multiple religions would be tolerated, as a means to pacify society. However, this society couldn't tolerate atheists, because "those who deny the existence of a God shouldn't be tolerated, because promises, contracts, oaths, and good faith, which are the main links to civil society, couldn't force an atheist to keep his word". 

In Buddhism practices, tolerance is employed against external and negative elements. It is a means of self-protection and well-being against adversity. Tunisian philosopher Albert Memmi describes it as "a conquest on oneself". In The Open Society and Its Enemies, Karl Popper evokes The Paradox of Tolerance: "Illimited tolerance shall lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend illimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we aren't ready to defend a tolerant society against the impact of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and with him tolerance. (…) we should revendicate the right to eradicate the intolerants, even by force if needed (…). Thus we should revendicate, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. (…) If one shows absolute tolerance, even towards intolerants, and if tolerant society isn't protected against their attacks, tolerants will be destroyed and, with them, tolerance." Following the same line of thought, in A Theory of Justice, John Rawls argues that one should tolerate intolerants, for it would be intolerant not to do so, but he also states that no society has the moral obligation to tolerate people or things that aim at its destruction.

All that got me thinking: where do I stand as far as tolerance is concerned? Am I a tolerant person, or do I show too much indulgence towards things that shouldn't be tolerated anymore? Faith doesn't bother me to the point that I have to actively make an effort to tolerate it in others. On the contrary, I respect it, even though I neither understand nor share it. Then if there is a notion of respect, does that also imply that of indulgence, and are those two notions really unrelated to that of tolerance? For now I will rely on Voltaire, who stated in 1767, in his Treaty on Tolerance: "Of all the surperstitions, isn't the most dangerous that which leads someone to hate its neighbour for his opinions?"