U. R. Kushaev senior researcher,

Tashkent Islamic University,

Tashkent, Uzbekistan


Philosophy as a science performs methodological functions in relation to the other branches of the social sciences at all times. Every historical period due to the deep and strong changes in the life of society is characterized by the manifestation of the eternal philosophical problems that have been updated in form and content. By virtue of diligence of responsive and talented philosophers put forward constructive ideas, develop new paradigms imposed effective ways and means to address vital issues. Of course, because of objective and subjective reasons, not all philosophical views, and do not always produce the expected results. However, undoubtedly, that the development of philosophical thought provides a powerful impetus, serves as a solid premise for the emergence of new philosophical theories, most of which today appear as a relatively independent social science.

The analysis shows that within the scope of modern science of philosophy researches are developing intensively and systematically on the issue of tolerance. So, for the past quarter of a century in the post-Soviet republics have been defended more than 500 theses for a variety of humanities, which reveals different aspects of the multifaceted phenomenon of tolerance. In this connection, of course, continually increasing the quantity of interpretations of the term, the subject of research expands. Of course, it must bound to happen, because, diversity of ideas and opinions, the availability of alternative visions creates an atmosphere of pluralism in science, that is the primary condition for the development of philosophical thought.

Within the scope of one article it is practically impossible to analyze all the currently existing interpretations of tolerance. However, we consider it expedient to pay attention to some of them. In one collective monograph tolerance is defined like that: ‘Tolerance is inherently socio-cultural phenomenon that includes knowledge and estimates of ‘other’ and ‘another’ values, as well as practical activities based on them’ [Ochildiev A. 2007, p. 9.]. This argument is of a general nature and, at the same time, needs to be improved. ‘Tolerance – a clear manifestation of respect for different opinions, beliefs, world culture, the perception of human values based on sufferance, as well as individual rights, aimed at the expression of his self’ – M. Hazhieva writes like this [Hazhieva M. 2008, p. 5]. This definition, on the one hand, purport to be comprehensiveness, but on the other hand, it is seen that there clearly observed in the logical sequence definition structuring provisions.

I. G. Artsybashev, the specialist on issues of tolerance, is inclined to such an approach, which in his view, is characterized by the perception of critical tolerance. And from this point of view, the concept is defined as follows: ‘a manifestation of a low socio-psychological sensitivity of the individual to the ‘otherness’, up to indifference; an ideology that claims to be the universal means of regulation of social and cultural relationships, spiritual needs, based on double standards, do not accept the pluralism of opinion forming in the mind of the individual indifference to manifestations of immorality does not coincide with the ethics of human solidarity; formal relationship to another entity, is estimated as an inevitable but useful ‘evil’; tolerance of others, devoid of love and compassion; that somewhere between full adoption and persecution; relative value, as may be the outward manifestation of goodwill only when humility with the behavior, beliefs and values of others; the concept is not suggesting a clear boundary between good and evil; the way to the loss of the elements of their cultural identity "[Artsyibashev I. G. 2008, p. 19]. Scientific evaluation of scientific manifestations of this phenomenon from different angles deserves attention, but, in our opinion, this interpretation does not correspond to the true essence of this creative phenomenon of tolerance, since this approach, it appears as a kind of state of marginalization at a time when we all know that tolerance – a vigilant, active, purposeful stance.

According to N. G. Stepanova, tolerance is a ‘positive attitude in the public consciousness that determines the productive activity of the relationship between different cultures’ [Stepanova N. G. 2008, p. 8]. Tolerance – a huge phenomenon, a social occurrence, which occurs in all spheres of society and at all levels of relations between actors. From this point of view, in our opinion, unpromising interpretation of tolerance as a positive installation makes sense only between different cultures.

E. N. Tretyakova’s opinion on this issue provokes interest. ‘Tolerance we consider as the spiritual and moral quality of a person, expressed in the adoption of the ‘other’ as an individual, taking it regardless of nationality, language, attitude to religion, beliefs, membership of voluntary organizations, social, property and official status (social and cultural characteristics), as well as age, health, sex, race (anthropological characteristics)’ [Tretyakova E. N. 2011, p. 4–5], – she says. It is remarkable that a scientist analyzing tolerance as a moral quality, as a result of long and complex educational process, and as a basic characteristic of the individual. And, by this the author reveals perfectly many specific features of tolerance.

One of the following definitions formulated as follows: ‘Tolerance is the natural socio-cultural norm, positive attitude to the individual in relation to the surrounding differentiated society, consisting of the construction-friendly assessment of others and refusal to confront’ [Purtova A. S. 2012, p. 16]. In studies of K. V. Vasylyuk we see quite a detailed analysis of tolerance. Particularly, the scientist proposes to divide tolerance into the types: ‘the first type can be called tolerance to the others, and the second – tolerance of development, the third – tolerance of adoption, and the fourth – the limit of tolerance.’ In developing her idea, she argues that ‘tolerance typology allows us to formulate a simplified diagram types and suggest the hypothesis that the transition from the first to the second type of tolerance is a universal prerequisite for the resolution of conflicts in the existence of human being. It is sufficiently for everyday life’ [Vasilyuk K. V. 2014, p. 64].

Besides the above mentioned there are hundreds of definitions, each of which can be and, when it is appropriate, need to be critically evaluated. However, together they draw a general picture of the modern theory of tolerance and each of them shows certain inalienable truths of the total tolerance.

As a consequence of such a powerful trend in philosophical science, we were invited to a certain vision of problems as well. In particular, which emerged in 2014, in The Encyclopedic Dictionary of Tolerance, we proposed the following definition of the concept. ‘Tolerance – the central concept of the philosophy of tolerance, reflecting the open, sincere, disinterested, gratuitous, impartial relationship among people, social groups, peoples, nations, states and others. Subjects of social relationships based on attention, respect, friendship, love, indulgence, sympathy, solidarity, mutual interest, equality, justice, tolerance, etc. high moral qualities’ [Kushaev U. R. and Doroshina I. G. 2014, p. 403]. In addition, it was used and analyzed certain expressions, which in our opinion, can serve as a methodological principles of the philosophy of tolerance. Let us consider some of them.

‘The right to be the other’ – the principle of tolerance, denoting the need to recognize and respect individual social actors, unlike other traits of people, social groups, communities, ethnic groups, nations, states, and etc, and a forbearing attitude towards them. It is right in tune with the natural and positive right. With this principle combines harmoniously with another principle of tolerance ‘unity in diversity’, which is a real triumph of compliance with this right. The principle of ‘right to be the other’ includes the following basic points:

– Availability of the necessary conditions for the realization of their creative abilities;

– Creating opportunities for self-expression, self-realization;

– The right to express alternative views, opinions and beliefs;

– To promote co-existence on an equal and equitable basis among other races, nationalities and peoples of other cultures carriers;

– Support and promote the full communication, dialogue, contact between different people, groups and cultures;

– Free use of the material and spiritual values along with others regardless of gender, race, religion, language, culture and social background and so on.

Everyone from his or her birth realizes individuality, uniqueness, owns special genetic, physiological traits, inherited from their ancestors and their own, unlike any one soul. And in the process of formation of identity, socialization, along with common to all the knowledge and skills available and developing new complements the individual characteristics that are unique to him. In other words, the social life of the person in the course of life takes on a very motley picture, but it is a unique characteristic of the man. The object and subject of the principle of ‘the right to be the other’ serve all social structures, and this right must be observed by all social actors, but in this case we can talk about tolerance and indulgence [Kushaev U. R. and Doroshina I. G. 2014, p. 312–313].

The next principle of tolerance philosophy advocates the idea of 'me and the other’. This principle denotes an approach to interpersonal relations in the process of realization of the individual's place in the social interaction and the importance of the characteristics, and the consequent understanding of the place, the differences between moral and cultural property of another, his own kind of man. ‘Me and the other’ is a common formula that allows us to identify the object of tolerance actions, behavior, attitudes and relationships at the interpersonal level of interaction. As the ‘other’ can serve any person who is different traits, patterns of behavior, gender, age, race, nationality, religion, social origin, and etc.

The significance of this scheme is that the awareness of the subject itself, and ‘other’ is an initial, fundamental step in the formation of his specific relation to the people around. In this regard, we can say that the time of this state coincides with the individual's awareness of his ‘me’. However, a clear distinction between him and others, of course, does not fully mean of tolerance towards others. This determined notion acquires the level of importance of moral culture and education, social mobility, activity and communication skills of the individual. The notion ‘me and the other’ as a synthesis of the necessary concepts, knowledge and experience involves a certain level of social consciousness of the individual. Thus, the cognition of the other, some people improved with the development of moral, aesthetic, legal, political, ideological, economic, and other forms of human consciousness.

Among other things, knowing their place and the place of the ‘other’ in a certain social environment, cultural environment and society in general, a person begins to rationally understand the involvement in the events taking place around him. This, in succession, promotes feelings of harmony, solidarity and cooperation, which are the guarantee of stability, bearable and tolerant relations between people [Kushaev U. R. and Doroshina I. G. 2014, p. 474–475].

In our opinion, promising use of the theory as a principle of tolerance such methodological formula as ‘Unity and diversity of cultures.’

This main principle of the philosophy of tolerance means, on the one hand, cultural integrity, the unity of mankind, on the other hand, its diversity in cultural terms. Democracy, ensuring basic human rights and freedoms and other universal principles of nature give a new impetus to the process of ethnic, national self-expressions of the peoples of the world. Taking into account that currently there are more than 3000 ethnic groups, peoples and nations, and the number of countries reaching over 200, we can say that this process will be prolonged and difficult, because the peoples of the world are at different levels of development and have different opportunities to build their own independent states.

It should be noted that the national cultures are the basis of human values. However, national culture does not disappear, and in the framework of universal values manifests itself more brightly. It is common knowledge that if the nuclear arsenal will be applied by the world countries owning them, it is theoretically enough power to destroy the Earth's biosphere several times. In addition, the exacerbation of unhealthy in terms of tolerance by the existing ethnic and religious differences and conflicts artificially make useless all the efforts of individual nations and hundreds of international organizations, to ensure equality, fairness and transparency in the relationship. It indicates that the awareness of all cultures themselves as a unique manifestation of a single human civilization is determined by objective and subjective circumstances.

Openness, great attention to other cultures, respectful, tolerant attitude towards them are important requirements tolerant scope of the today’s world. A careful study of each other, the establishment of mutual contacts aimed at partnership and cooperation contribute to the rapprochement of cultural values, the expansion of the interaction, mutual influence. There is no any way to the peaceful coexistence of all peoples of mankind except continuous improvement of the level of culture of tolerance. In this context, the meaning of a culture of tolerance is put on the same footing as the meaning of the concept of a culture of peace.

Integration processes, the development of mass media, information technology, on the one hand, are a strong factor of close interaction of cultures of the world, on the other hand, they as opportunities and the resources are used for selfish purposes – to provoke inter-ethnic, inter-religious conflicts, the usage of ethnic and religious factors in the implementation of geopolitical interests, and so on. And modern realities require mankind to promote tolerant relationships between different cultures. These various convenient facilities, resources, science and technology should be used for peaceful purposes – to strengthen the friendly ties between the peoples and nations to develop new effective mechanisms of intercultural dialogue, to open new ways to the mutual enrichment of cultural values and, thus, to expand the horizons of the scope of tolerance on a world scale.

All must be more deeply realized that the culture of one or another nation, nationalities cannot achieve progress without interaction with the universal human values, to the success of world science and technology. Today, the socio-economic development, material and spiritual progress of all peoples and nations based on general social patterns of complementarity and mutual enrichment. In this regard, ‘the unity and diversity of cultures’ in favor of the central category of the philosophy of tolerance, which is a fruitful cooperation between people, nations, ethnic groups towards a common cultural progress [Kushaev U. R. and Doroshina I. G. 2014, p. 126–128].

Thus, the above-listed principles allow consider and interpret the social behavior of the subject in relation to each other in terms of tolerance, as well as most clearly reveal the objective and subjective assessment of the behavior of the various social forces. Additionally, it should be noted that the principles of tolerance are most effective when they interact with new paradigms of general philosophical theory, the formation of which, of course, dictated by the acute global problems of present time, including questions relating to the theory of tolerance that have a special place.



  1. Arcybashev I. G. Cennostnaja al'ternativnost' religioznoj tolerantnosti i veroterpimosti: rossijskij opyt: avtoref. dis.… kand. filos. nauk: 09.00. 13. – Ekaterinburg, 2008. – 235 s.
  2. Ochildiev A. Baғrikenglik – barқarorlik va taraққijot omili. – Toshkent : Toshkent islom universiteti, 2007.
  3. Vasiljuk K. V. Tolerantnost' v simvolicheskom potreblenii. Dissertacija na soiskanie uchenoj stepeni kandidata filosofskih nauk. – Omsk, 2014.
  4. Kushaev U. R., Doroshina I. G. Tolerantnost': jenciklopedicheskij slovar'. –  Penza : Nauchno-izdatel'skij centr «Sociosfera», 2014. – 484 s.
  5. Purtova A. S. Osobennosti tolerantnosti v obshhestve social'nogo tranzita. Avtoreferat dissertacii na soiskanie uchenoj stepeni kandidata filosofskih nauk. – Arhangel'sk, 2012.
  6. Stepanova N. G. Mezhjetnicheskaja tolerantnost' v sovremennom rossijskom obshhestve (social'no-filosofskij analiz). Avtoreferat dissertacii na soiskanie uchenoj stepeni kandidata filosofskih nauk. – Barnaul, 2008.
  7. Tret'jakova E. N. Tolerantnost' kak duhovno-nravstvennoe kachestvo lichnosti: avtoref. dis. …kand. filosofskih nauk. – Sankt-Peterburg, 2011.
  8. Hazhieva M. Ўzbekistonda tolerantlik zharajoni. – Toshkent : ABU MATBUOT-KONSALT, 2008.


Ваш ник:
Ваш email:
Текст комментария: