Fish on "Tolerance"

[Sanford Levinson]

I believe that what Fish is getting at is less the difficulty of
"tolerating the intolerant" (which is actually not so difficult to do, see
liberals who defend the rights of the Satmar Chassidm or Christian
Fundamentalists), but, rather, the difficulty/impossibility of imputing
"reasonableness" to each and every idea that is found in the grand
marketplace of ideas.  (I see no reason, for example, to view either the
Satmars or Christian Fundamentalists as "reasonable" in their basic views
of the universe.)

Thus, he notes, altogether accurately, that those who defend the idea of
deliberative democracy often put in a 'reasonableness condition' with
regard to those ideas that one is obliged to take seriously and treat with
some requisite respect.  Certain ideas are ruled out of bounds because they
are defined as 'unreasonable."  He is, of course, absolutely right, since
no one could possibly be so catholic in one's intellectual hospitality as
to deem each and every idea (e.g., the best explanation for bin Laden's
attack is that he was responding to commands issued by Venusian spaceships)
"reasonable."  (Of course, if one is trying to achieve a modus vivendi
through compromise, one might have to pretend to treat as reasonable what
are "in fact" quite absurd views, but I take it that this doesn't defeat
the basic point.)

sandy