“it is easy to see fanaticism in others but difficult to spot in oneself. Discuss with reference to “Tolerance” by Forster.
Ans:
In his essay,
“Tolerance’ E.M. Forster says that going back about four hundred years,
to Holland, there is the Dutch scholar Erasmus, who stood apart from the
religious fanaticism of the Reformation and was abused by both parties,
Catholic and Lutheran, in consequence.
In the same century, there was
the Frenchman, Montaigne, subtle, intelligent, witty, who lived in his
quiet
country house and wrote essays which still delight the civilised. And England, too, there was John Locke, the philosopher; there was Sydney Smith, the Liberal and liberalising divine; there was a man who recently died, Lowes Dickinson, writer of a little book called A Modern Symposium, which might be called the Bible of Tolerance.
And Germany, too — yes, Germany: There was Goethe. All these men testify to the creed which I have been trying to express: a negative creed, but very necessary for the salvation of this crowded jostling modem world.
E.M. Forster has given two remarks. The first is that it's very easy to see fanaticism in other people, but difficult to spot in oneself. Take the evil of racial prejudice.
We can easily detect it in the Nazis; their conduct has been infamous ever since they rose to power. But we ourselves—are we quite guiltless? We are far less guilty than they are? Yet is there no racial prejudice in the British Empire?
Is there no colour question? He further says that I ask you to consider that, those of you to whom Tolerance is more than a pious word. My other remark is to forestall a criticism.
Tolerance is not the same as weakness. Putting up with people does not mean giving in to them. This complicates the problem. But the rebuilding of civilisation is bound to be complicated.
I only feel certain that unless the Lord builds the House, they will labour in vain who build it. Perhaps, when the house is completed, love will enter it, and the greatest force in our private lives will also rule in public life.
country house and wrote essays which still delight the civilised. And England, too, there was John Locke, the philosopher; there was Sydney Smith, the Liberal and liberalising divine; there was a man who recently died, Lowes Dickinson, writer of a little book called A Modern Symposium, which might be called the Bible of Tolerance.
And Germany, too — yes, Germany: There was Goethe. All these men testify to the creed which I have been trying to express: a negative creed, but very necessary for the salvation of this crowded jostling modem world.
E.M. Forster has given two remarks. The first is that it's very easy to see fanaticism in other people, but difficult to spot in oneself. Take the evil of racial prejudice.
We can easily detect it in the Nazis; their conduct has been infamous ever since they rose to power. But we ourselves—are we quite guiltless? We are far less guilty than they are? Yet is there no racial prejudice in the British Empire?
Is there no colour question? He further says that I ask you to consider that, those of you to whom Tolerance is more than a pious word. My other remark is to forestall a criticism.
Tolerance is not the same as weakness. Putting up with people does not mean giving in to them. This complicates the problem. But the rebuilding of civilisation is bound to be complicated.
I only feel certain that unless the Lord builds the House, they will labour in vain who build it. Perhaps, when the house is completed, love will enter it, and the greatest force in our private lives will also rule in public life.
Post a Comment