The Idea
This claim maintains that tolerance is not an original concept in all periods, but rather a modern concept that took shape in a new historical context. What this means is that the use of the word today cannot automatically be understood within the old language itself. The statement therefore calls for caution against projecting contemporary concepts onto eras that did not know their conditions or their problems in the same form.
Concise Formulation
Tolerance: a modern concept
Its Place in the Book’s Argument
This claim appears within a broader argument that emphasizes the need to distinguish between historical language and modern language when reading the heritage. Concepts such as human rights and tolerance are not simply extracted from old texts as if they were present in them from the beginning. In this way, the book supports a method that rejects reading the past through the lens of the present without attention to temporal and semantic differences.
Why It Matters
The importance of this claim is that it prevents a common confusion between modern values and their original historical frameworks. It also helps explain why Arkoun insists on reordering the relationship between tradition and contemporary concepts. The point is not to deny the possibility of dialogue, but to prevent reductionism that makes everything insertable into a single language.
Brief Evidence Passage
The text states that tolerance and human rights are modern concepts. This means that their use today cannot be automatically understood within the old language itself. The statement therefore calls for caution against projecting contemporary concepts onto eras that did not know their conditions in the same form.
Reading Questions
- What changes when we understand tolerance as a modern concept rather than an ancient one?
- How does this distinction affect the way we read and interpret heritage texts today?
Documentation Level
High: the claim appears in a clear location in the book material.