But let’s say for the sake of argument that wokism’s roots contribute nothing innovative or valuable to the canons of philosophical thought.
— Joshs

I'm certainly not committed to the idea that all philosophy is good...
— Count Timothy von Icarus

-

What I am talking about is humanizing (as in respecting)the claim as if it is made by a serious person.
— Antony Nickles

Isn't it confusing precisely because it involves lying to ourselves? Because it involves treating someone who we believe to be unserious as if they were serious?
— Leontiskos

-

It seems that a fundamental disagreement here is over the question of whether humans are capable of bad ideas. The woke, as well as Antony Nickles and @Joshs, seem to lean into the idea that humans are not capable of bad ideas.

Consider an analogy. Human beings and human culture are, in part, ideational. In part, they are collections of ideas. In both cases the ideas are domesticated into a sort of garden. Now gardens have lots of weeds, and require weeding. The camp that leans into the no-bad-ideas direction is effectively claiming that weeds do not exist, or that gardens should not be weeded, or that weeds can be pruned but should never be uprooted. I think that's crazy wrong. There are bad ideas aplenty, and they should be uprooted. Indeed, I would argue that the very idea that there are no bad ideas is itself a bad idea. This is true even though weeding requires energy and constant diligence, and even though it is possible to learn from bad ideas (because evil is a privation of goodness).

So backing up, do bad ideas exist? — Leontiskos

Let me use your analogy of the garden. It is a human-constructed niche, and like all of our built niches, what constitutes a proper or improper garden, a weed or a non-weed, is subject to criteria that change over time as a result of our ongoing interactions with gardens, people and other aspects of our world. So we can say that for a given person within a given time and culture, there will be specific criteria for the goodness or badness of a garden. What are such criteria of goodness based on, and can we generalize these criteria across persons and historical eras? I do believe in a certain notion of cultural progress, both empirical and ethical, so my answer is yes. But since the criteria I thinking are fundamental have to do with the concept of sense-making, it will be less clear in the case of aesthetic phenomena like gardens and works of art how this applies than in the case of the sciences or political systems.

Our understanding of the world is amenable to an unlimited variety of alternative interpretations. Any of these interpretations can ‘work’ , that is , be predictively useful. That’s why we shouldn’t wait until an scientific theory is invalidated to search for alternatives. It work beautifully in its way , with an underlying mathematics which is accurate to the millionth decimal, and yet we can come upon an alternative framework that we prefer because it reveals the relationships between the elements of the world in a more integral and intimate way. What the previous mathematically precise model assigned to randomness the new model organizes in a more meaningful way.

The one price one pays for abandoning the old model for the new one is that the new doesn’t simply correct the mistakes of the old and supplement it. It changes the sense of the old model’s concepts. As a result, in order to gain entry to this new approach, one must be persuaded to view the world in a different way.

Because the observations and facts are reliant on the overarching interpretive framework of the model for their intelligibility, it is. or necessarily a simply matter to be ‘converted’ to a new way of seeing. Especially if that new way has nothing to form a bridge between it and one’s familiar ways of thinking.

Therefore, our overarching systems of interpreting the world , empirically, politically, ethically, spiritually, have a certain necessary inertia to them. I may have happened on a theoretical or ethical or political model which I find better than the previous one I held, but I cannot foist it on you if your own system of interpretation does not have the resources within itself to form the necessary bridge to allow it to modify its organization to accommodate the new model. I may believe my way of thinking is better for me than your way of thinking, but that’s not the same as believing that my way of thinking is better for you than your present way of thinking.

I believe that all of us are continually evolving within our systems of thought, but at a pace that is determined by the limits of that system. My goal in debating with others is to understand their system of thought from their perspective as well as i can, and to test the validity of my efforts by attempting to plug into the leading edge of their own thinking. If my thinking doesn’t find them where they are at, I will just get the equivalent of a glassy eyes stare of incomprehension or outright hostility. If I am successful in plugging into their cutting edge, they will respond enthusiastically, seeing me as a partner in thought rather than as a threat.

If it's inevitable, we should value all the more the restraint our conservative nature gives us: first, do no harm. — frank

I’d rather audaciously stumble into the unknown. It beats a lobotomy.

You asked me if resistance is essential and I said that I wasn’t sure how to answer. I think it’s a good question, if extremely broad in scope. I tried to narrow the focus to the Bud Light fiasco and asked, if you regard it as a form of resistance, whether or not pushing back on that was essential. I didn’t think that I needed to say that the gesture was inessential.

Do you think the pushback was essential? — praxis

I’m not exactly sure if you are asking this of the woke or anti-woke ideologue.

One could say that Bud Light using a trans spokesperson was an act of pushback against a cisgender status quo, but I don’t think you are talking about that.

I think you mean whether the pushback from Kid Rock and all he represented was essential. So now I have to ask essential to what - is pushback essential to a traditionalist, anti-woke position? I’d say no. Traditionalists are the ones who don’t move and so they are the one’s progressive movement pushes up against.

Kid Rock was pushing back, but I think that was a sign of frustration that nothing else was working - no laws, no politicians, no arguments or discussions - just frustrated people showing off in their own bubble. I’m not sure it was activism or true policy making push back.

But you could also see it (and I think you did) as a reaction to seeing wokism as the institution and the entrenched position, so entrenched it took over Bud Light drinking - on that case, it was activism and pushback.

Last though, if you just look at what is at the essence of woke, I think activism and pushback are essential to it. Woke is more of a negative deconstruction, than it is a positive construction. We don’t need to know what gender means or is or can be, just that 3000 years of male-female binary dominance is over. We don’t need to know if African or Asian or Middle Eastern cultures belong on a hierarchy, just that White European culture should be on the bottom. Pushback is essential to how wokeism seems to express itself. It needs the big bad wolf first, to then mount its attack.

Maybe?

I’d rather audaciously stumble into the unknown. — Joshs

The human race needs that too. We temper one another.

If so, then an ‘anything goes’ relativist would have to embrace the proliferation of an unlimited multiplicity of diverse and incompatible totalitarian systems.

Why? Are they committed to some sort of inviolable principle that leads from the truth of relativism to this sort of open-ended tolerance? I don't see why they would be. — Count Timothy von Icarus

According to one way of reading Nietzsche on Will to Power, he is advocating the creation of values systems which , in themselves and in terms of their structure, may act in totalitarian fashion. My point about the radical relativist was not that they must tolerate all and sundry systems of power , but that what it means to be a value system is to constitute, for a time long or short, a monolithically self -perpetuating normative totality.

According to Deleuze’s way of reading Nietzsche, heterogeneity and difference inserts itself into every moment of the unfolding of any system of values, such that it is never the exact same system which unfolds itself every moment. As I said earlier, the idea of categorical identity is an illusion, but the most dangerous one. Deleuze writes:

When we say that the eternal return is not the return of the Same, or of the Similar or the Equal, we mean that it does not presuppose any identity. On the contrary, it is said of a world without identity, without resemblance or equality. It is said of a world the very ground of which is difference, in which everything rests upon disparities, upon differences of differences which reverberate to infinity (the world of intensity). The eternal return is itself the Identical, the similar and the equal, but it presupposes nothing of itself in that of which it is said. It is said of that which has no identity, no resemblance and no equality. It is the identical which is said of the different, the resemblance which is said of the pure disparate, the equal which is said only of the unequal and the proximity which is said of all distances. Things must be dispersed within difference, and their identity must be dissolved before they become subject to eternal return and to identity in the eternal return…

If repetition exists, it expresses at once a singularity opposed to the general, a universality opposed to the particular, a distinctive opposed to the ordinary, an instantaneous opposed to variation, and an eternity opposed to permanence… in univocity, univocal being is said immediately of individual differences or the universal is said of the most singular independent of any mediation…In this manner, the ground has been superseded by a groundlessness, a universal ungrounding which turns upon itself and cause only the yet-to-come to return.” (Difference and Repetition)

Deleuze doesn’t deny that values systems are produced out of this riot of differentiation, but these systems are only totalitarian from the illusory perspective of distance.

…the thesis from Deleuze's late 1960s writings holds identity to be a simulation or optical illusion…identity and fixed markers, which may be considered natural and pregiven or contingently constructed but indispensable, are surface effects of difference. Identities and fixed markers, I want to say, are like patterns on the surface of water, which appear fixed when seen from a great distance, such as from the window of an airplane in flight: their stability and substantiality, in short, are a matter of perspective.” ( Nathan Widder)

But you could also see it (and I think you did) as a reaction to seeing wokism as the institution and the entrenched position, so entrenched it took over Bud Light drinking - on that case, it was activism and pushback. — Fire Ologist

Why not let Bud Light drinking be taken over? According to Anheuser-Busch most their market segment didn't care, and there are many other brands to choose from. Modelo Especial took the lead after the incident, if I remember correctly. It's good, at least compared to Bud Light.

According to Anheuser-Busch most their market segment didn't care — praxis

They saw a 28.2% y on y drop in sales at the highest effective point in June 2023 and 20% stock loss by the end of May that year. That's about 26 Billion. That continued until quite recently, where sales have stabilized. I'm not sure how more disingenuous a statement could be made on that specific issue.

Fortunately for me, almost all mainstream beers are terrible (Miller, Bud, Modelo, chinese Corona (now that it's not made in Mexico) among others. But that's not the point. Neither is this:

Modelo Especial took the lead after the incident, if I remember correctly. It's good. — praxis

This leapfrogs the point and reflects a meme about liberal responses:

No, it didn't happen ->
Ok, it happened, but it's a good thing ->
Ok, it happened and is bad, but who cares?

Not saying you're doing this. Just getting a little meta about what's being discussed.

This leapfrogs the point — AmadeusD

Seriously, why not, as Fire put it, let Bud Light drinking be taken over?

Deleuze writes:

When we say that the eternal return is not the return of the Same, or of the Similar or the Equal, we mean that it does not presuppose any identity. On the contrary, it is said of a world without identity, without resemblance or equality. It is said of a world the very ground of which is difference, in which everything rests upon disparities, upon differences of differences which reverberate to infinity (the world of intensity). The eternal return is itself the Identical, the similar and the equal, but it presupposes nothing of itself in that of which it is said. It is said of that which has no identity, no resemblance and no equality. It is the identical which is said of the different, the resemblance which is said of the pure disparate, the equal which is said only of the unequal and the proximity which is said of all distances. Things must be dispersed within difference, and their identity must be dissolved before they become subject to eternal return and to identity in the eternal return…

If repetition exists, it expresses at once a singularity opposed to the general, a universality opposed to the particular, a distinctive opposed to the ordinary, an instantaneous opposed to variation, and an eternity opposed to permanence… in univocity, univocal being is said immediately of individual differences or the universal is said of the most singular independent of any mediation…In this manner, the ground has been superseded by a groundlessness, a universal ungrounding which turns upon itself and cause only the yet-to-come to return.” (Difference and Repetition) — Joshs

"There is no Nietzsche-the-self, professor of philology, who suddenly loses his mind and supposedly identifies with all sorts of strange people; rather, there is the Nietzschean subject who passes through a series of states, and who identifies these states with the names of history: "every name in history is I. . . The subject spreads itself out along the entire circumference of the circle, the center of which has been abandoned by the ego. At the center is the desiring-machine, the celibate machine of the Eternal Return. A residual subject of the machine, Nietzsche-as-subject garners a euphoric reward (Voluptas) from everything that this machine turns out, a product that the reader had thought to be no more than the fragmented oeuvre by Nietzsche . No one has ever been as deeply involved in history as the schizo, or dealt with it in this way. He consumes all of universal history in one fell swoop." (AO, pg 21)


This D&G’s perspective on Nietzsche and eternal return could also help resolve the problem of wokeness’s moral absolutism. Likely, the subject of wokeness also is a residual product of affective, hyper-intensive processes. The subject receives those intensities and translate them into ultimate truth. Feeling of ultimate moral certainty resembles the ‘return of all names and intensities of history.’ It is the result of hyper-intensified machinic affect.

Well, I'm not even quite sure what you mean by that so i responded in kind, there.

So yeah, not sure what you mean. You could mean a few things:

1. allow Bud drinking to move over to a different demographic (feminine men? Idk);
2. allow Bud's marketing strategy be taken over by the same group (aesthetically, not identity); or
3. allow Bud to go broke because its demo doesn't understand social justice properly.

Allowing for some case-specific nuance, the answer should be roughly the same:

Its disrespectful to the existing market demo, severs no economic purpose and obviously sews social division. It tells the demo the producer doesn't care to retain their custom, that they do not care to make money from their product particularly, and that they do not mind causing easily predictable social dis-ease.

You could say "yeah, that doesn't matter because 3." but this, again, leapfrogs the issue: Why would you even get into the headspace of wanting to run this experiment, other than to upset people? And hte answer, in context, is virtue signalling in order to pick up market share (so, we can probably both drop this example - it was cynical regardless).

And hind-sight is 20/20. The biggest reason is because it wont work. It'll either tank the company, or make people vastly more abrasive to the "trans agenda" such as it exists (i'm a happy to sya it does in terms of marketing, at least).

@Number2018 @Joshs @Count Timothy von Icarus @Fire Ologist

It seems that a fundamental disagreement here is over the question of whether humans are capable of bad ideas. — Leontiskos

What I am suggesting is that we do not, as yet, understand the underlying interests, needs, judgments, and criteria, and that that is important before we judge what to do (or whatever “idea” represents here) or even before we agree or disagree on those interests, etc., before we have them fleshed out. I am not suggesting we naively attribute the most altruistic interests, just ones that take the claim seriously. Now do our interests ultimately conflict? Sure, but at least we now understand each others terms and so our disagreement is, in that sense, rational as in: explicit, intelligible—not talking past each other.

For example, people often dismiss or try to solve skepticism, but Wittgenstein investigated why we do go there, and, attributing real concerns to it, found a truth hidden there, though it is easy to immediately judge it as a mistake, or wrong, or silly, or “bad”.

To say that someone is skipping something is to imply that they should do it. — Leontiskos

Yes, I am saying we should, while I do acknowledge all the ways in which it fails through no fault of our own, and understand that it is ultimately a decision and there may very well be other considerations to not do what I am suggesting, but I am only asking we consider the ways we get in our own way, especially philosophically.

When I say that wokeness is irrational what I mean is that wokeness is reliant upon clear falsehoods. I don't mean that wokeness is incompatible with my own personal set of criteria. Indeed, "irrational" does not mean, "incompatible with some arbitrary set of criteria," which is why such a word is being used. — Leontiskos

Well, Kant sets out and requires a certain standard for what he considers “rational”, and precludes any other criteria (as does Wittgenstein in the Tractatus, leading to his silence; as Plato excludes poetry); that exclusion is what I am saying is what philosophy sometimes labels as “irrational”. I am arguing that label and exclusion come before looking into the underlying interests. Now I see you are using “irrational” as in a person’s actions are contradictory, hypocritical, that we have grounds to dismiss their argument (not factually correct @Amadeus), etc., but, again, I am saying we have work to do apart and before that judgment about their claim.

when you think of someone who is "woke" you are thinking of someone who is rational but misunderstood. — Leontiskos

Setting aside “rational”—let’s call it: possible of being serious about their interests and capable of having those be intelligible, explicit—I am not saying their argument is better, say, if we could only understand it (if it were expressed better, more “rationally” etc.) I’m saying that we are not yet aware of those interests, before jumping into the argument. I take this as needed on both “sides” of our culture as it stands as well as those of the moral claim.

What if someone holds that we shouldn't adhere to systems which are reliant upon clear falsehoods, even if there is a great deal at stake? What if someone holds that the end doesn't justify the means? — Leontiskos

All legitimate concerns; but these are discussions about deciding what to do, and the reasons for them. All I’m saying is this is an abstract discussion without knowing what the interests and criteria are of our current ”systems”, what matters about this “reliance”, what IS at stake?

I don't see that the critique of wokeness depends on what is at stake, and therefore it is not clear why one would need to do a deep dive into the "stakes" before dismissing wokeness — Leontiskos

One does not need to; dismissing something is the easiest thing. Just look at how some of the philosophy here is done: find a weakness, throw out the rest, don’t learn a thing. I would just say we (all of us) can and should do better. I realize this is an argument for ethics, but, philosophically, the stratification of rational—emotional is where I started here.

everyone who judges something understands it (to one extent or another). — Leontiskos

I’m tripped up on “to one extent or another”. Isn’t it the easiest thing to judge something without understanding it (even at all)? I, mean, isn’t there a scale of understanding? presumption, prejudgment, prejudice, jumping to a conclusion, on and on, etc.?

Why do you assume that those who judge the woke do not understand them? — Leontiskos

All I was trying to point out is that we should not dismiss a claim before understanding, not the argument, but what is at stake, what the interests are, what are the actual/proposed criteria, the shared and new judgments, etc. I’m just trying to draw attention to how and maybe why everyone misses that step.

So I must pose the question: …you think that your own understanding is sufficient for that judgment. — Leontiskos

I need to split a hair. I am not making a claim about “wokeness” as if to argue against your judgment of it, that it is “mistaken”, say, claiming that you don’t yet have justification (grounds), evidence. I am asking us to stop the judgment, turn, and draw out the terms and criteria., etc. To look at our history, to attempt to see something perhaps overlooked in or by our current culture, etc.

If I wanted to reverse roles and take up your own methodology I would simply say, "You must understand the anti-woke before you judge them," thus implying that your judgment is premature. — Leontiskos

But I absolutely agree with that; we must understand all interests, our current criteria and the reasons they show us about the judgments we currently make, etc. I am not saying I understand those concerns nor am I judging the arguments, nor the people.

How will we know when our understanding is sufficient for judgment? — Leontiskos

Well, good question. I would argue that our goal is not “judgment”. In a moral situation like this, it comes down to whether we see that our (once drawn out) interests are more alike than apart, that we are able to move forward together, extend or adapt our criteria, reconsider our codified judgments, etc. Obviously the feeling here is that all went out the window through politics, moral bullying, etc. but the promise of justice is only ever good-enough.

let Bud Light drinking be taken over? — praxis

I meant trans promotion had taken over bud light promotion. It wasn’t clearly stated. But not too important. @praxis is kind of running with it.

that they do not mind causing easily predictable social dis-ease. — AmadeusD

It was a predictably stupid business decision.

it wont work. It'll either tank the company, or make people vastly more abrasive to the "trans agenda" such as it exists — AmadeusD

If we make drinking alcohol legal and socially acceptable, do we have to push alcohol to all people of all ages in all settings, or is there any value to arranging a decorum and propriety surrounding alcohol consumption? Same thing with transgender. Time and a place, and read the audience. If bud light started marketing to kids and heavy machinery operators you might see kid rock shooting up cases of beer too.

we can probably both drop this example - it was cynical regardless — AmadeusD

At least we (me and praxis included) should be more clear about what we are trying to use it for.

Thank you for the clarification. I’ve read books and articles that are critical of trans activism, so I’m familiar with some of the negative aspects.

I understand how some people might feel that the negative impacts outweigh the positive gains made for the trans community, and therefore see resistance to trans activism as necessary. Personally, I don’t know enough to say that such resistance is essential, down to the last beer can anyway.

- I am going to need to come back to this post of yours, but let me say just a few clarificatory points:

everyone who judges something understands it (to one extent or another). — Leontiskos

I’m tripped up on “to one extent or another”. Isn’t it the easiest thing to judge something without understanding it (even at all)? I, mean, isn’t there a scale of understanding? presumption, prejudgment, prejudice, jumping to a conclusion, on and on, etc.? — Antony Nickles

I don't think anyone judges something without understanding it at all. When we speak that way we are apparently involved in hyperbole. It is easy to judge something prematurely, but it is impossible to judge something without understanding anything about it. If we understood nothing about X then there could be no judgment about X. So yes, there is a scale of understanding and that has to do with the "extent" to which it is understood, but there is no such thing as judging something that is understood to zero extent.

More simply, people who make judgments obviously think their judgments are rooted in understanding, and therefore it does not further the rational discussion to simply call into question their understanding without providing any argument for why.*

All I was trying to point out is that we should not dismiss a claim before understanding, not the argument, but what is at stake, what the interests are, what are the actual/proposed criteria, the shared and new judgments, etc. I’m just trying to draw attention to how and maybe why everyone misses that step. — Antony Nickles

I understand that, and my post was responding to it. When I said this:

I think your basic position is, "You must understand the woke before you judge them." — Leontiskos

...by "understand the woke" I meant, "understand their argument/interests/criteria/stakes/etc." That is what my post was about. You seem to simply be presuming that we do not understand the woke. Many of your posts seem to reduce to the assertion that, "You guys don't understand the woke. You need to understand them before you make judgments." It may be worthwhile to revisit with this in mind.

I need to split a hair. I am not making a claim about “wokeness” as if to argue against your judgment of it, that it is “mistaken”, say, claiming that you don’t yet have justification (grounds), evidence. I am asking us to stop the judgment, turn, and draw out the terms and criteria., etc. To look at our history, to attempt to see something perhaps overlooked in or by our current culture, etc. — Antony Nickles

I mean, if you really don't think you are implicitly claiming that my understanding of wokeness is insufficient (and that this is why I need to improve my understanding of interests/criteria/stakes/etc.), then what's the problem? If my understanding of wokeness is not insufficient, then what is wrong with judging wokeness on the basis of that understanding? If my understanding of wokeness is not insufficient, then why do I need to improve my understanding?

Well, good question. I would argue that our goal is not “judgment”. In a moral situation like this, it comes down to whether we see that our (once drawn out) interests are more alike than apart, that we are able to move forward together, extend or adapt our criteria, reconsider our codified judgments, etc. — Antony Nickles

But isn't it coercive to tell me what my goal is? The reason many of us have judged wokeism wanting is precisely because we have judged that our interests are not more alike than apart; that we are not able to move forward together, etc. If we thought that our interests were more alike than apart and that we were able to move forward together, then we wouldn't have judged wokeism wanting in the ways that we have.

It's as if you see someone critiquing wokeism and you tell the person, "Our goal is not critique; it is such-and-such." But obviously the (proximate) goal of the person critiquing wokeism is critique. It seems very strange to walk up to a person providing a critique and tell them that their goal is not critique.


* Edit: A good example of an attempt to demonstrate an inadequate understanding can be seen by looking at post. That sort of thing is precisely what is needed in order to go beyond a mere assertion of an insufficient understanding. For a post like that to succeed would be for it to show that the understanding in question is inadequate.

How would you want to start this reassessment [of vaccination]? — frank

Spitballing here, but it seems the individual has an interest in whatever negatives there are in getting vaccinated. We could say a society has an interest in the expense. The pharma companies have an interest in continuing the status quo? Then there’s the interest of society to avoid the effects if it allows for individuals to choose not to get vaccinated.

Does that sound fair? What would be the criteria each would use to decide? Individual liberty, economics, influence on contracts?, the common good…

I would argue that our goal is not “judgment”. In a moral situation like this, it comes down to whether we see that our (once drawn out) interests are more alike than apart, that we are able to move forward together, extend or adapt our criteria, reconsider our codified judgments, — Antony Nickles

Who wants to go first? Dig up an interest or set a criteria.

So yes, there is a scale of understanding and that has to do with the "extent" to which it is understood, but there is no such thing as judging something that is understood to zero extent. — Leontiskos

I agree. If I say “I know nothing about brain surgery” I am exaggerating the fact that I know very little. If I knew absolutely nothing about it, I couldn’t even call it “brain surgery.” And I would argue that I used judgment to admit I know very little about brain surgery - judgment of what I do know, and judgment of what brain surgery is.

So part of our initial criteria can’t be not to judge at all. We need some judgment to progress through a discussion, to define, to identify, to finish with a thought and judge its safe to move on to the next.

That sort of thing is precisely what is needed in order to go beyond a mere assertion of an insufficient understanding. — Leontiskos

It is time for some meat on the bone, right? I asked @praxis before and now @Antony Nickles, what don’t I understand about wokeism, or a key woke position - be it a whole position of just a key underlying interest, criteria, etc.?

I think in the end you will find that we have different interests, that maybe we can agree on criteria, and that we won’t get to the substance of an actual issue. To each of us it will look like bad-faith in the other. I hope not, but that has been my experience. If we are too careful we get frustrated before getting anywhere, and if we are not careful enough, we yell at each other instead of conversing.

So to start over:

Over-arching rule of engagement: goodwill towards the others in the discussion, and good-faith in all things proffered in the discussion. I will assume you what you say and you can assume I do as well.

Interest 1: the well-being of strangers
Criteria 1: we all know something of what it means to care for the well-being of strangers.

Interest 2: rule of law
Criteria 2: law/policy as an end in itself, and a means to effectively enforce the interests protected in individual laws.

Interest 3: reason
Criteria: use argumentation that allows for verification in fact and in validity of logic

What needs revision above and what else do we need to set the stage for a reassessment of wokeness?

As Tom Waits put it: "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy".

As to wokeism; I wonder why there must be such partisan polemic regarding it. Surely there were, and are, real concerns that lead to advocating wokeism as an attempt to deal those problems. No social movement is immune from downsides. Correcting those rather than rejecting the whole of woke culture would seem to be a better strategy. Instead we see more instances of black and white thinking from the ideologues on both sides.

This actually brings to mind the epithet "social justice warrior." There is a bit of truth here, in that conflict and crusade are part of the ideological framing. Warrior societies tend to generate wars, and I'd argue that "activist" societies will tend to likewise generate social conflicts. If these are the arenas where status is won and identities are built, than one must "take to the field." — Count Timothy von Icarus

An interesting observation. :up:

New Age and secularized Eastern religions offered one escape path here, but the Christian ethic of social justice and the ideal of freedom and perfection as the communication of goodness to others (agape descending, not just eros leading up) is pretty hardwired into Western culture, such that secularized Buddhist mindfulness can be found lacking in a certain degree of outwards focus.

So, there is a closure of other outlets, which funnels people towards social justice activism as their "worthy aim." At the same time, people are shut out of lives spent pursuing these higher ends because academic and non-profit jobs becomes extremely coveted and scarce, and the rise of the low paid adjunct and unpaid intern make the "life of meaning" increasingly class-based, in that one needs wealthy parents to (comfortably) support such a career. This pushes people aligned to activism as a "way of life" or "source of purpose" into all sorts of other areas of the workforce, from boring local government jobs, to medical research, to K-12 education, and particularly Big Tech. And then these become a site for conflict, because they are actually often set up precisely to avoid such issues, while social media reduces the cost to begin and organize activism (while also creating echo chambers).

That's at least how I heard a Silicon Valley CEO describe his and his peers' journey to Trump. A lot of these were younger CEOs, big Obama supporters, and tended to initially be quite open to the post-2008 "Great Awokening." But as it picked up steam (and because they tend to hire from its epicenter in elite universities) they began to face an actively hostile workforce who saw their employers as "the enemy" who needed to be wholly reformed from the inside. Or at least, this is how the experience felt to him, and he described a lot of hostile meetings, internal protests, etc. that ultimately soured him on the left. — Count Timothy von Icarus

These are astute observations. They remind me of "The meaning crisis" of Vervaeke and others. All of this makes good sense.

And this is perhaps where mainstream responses to Woke are most deficient. Because of the anthropology that dominates modern thought, there isn't much acknowledgement of the rational appetites. Yet I'd argue that people's desire to "be good" or "do what is truly right," is, when properly mobilized, the strongest motivator of behavior, trumping safety, pleasure, or even thymos. When this desire becomes aimless or frustrated, trouble will arise (which reminded me of another article on the parallels between Woke and Evangelical Christianity). — Count Timothy von Icarus

Right. I am still planning to follow up on your leads about thymos, as that does seem promising. I think that desire to "be good" or "do what is truly right" is behind a lot of Jordan Peterson's success, but I don't follow the various cultural currents as well as you do.

I admit that I am worried about our current state. I certainly don't see the way forward. I'd say the next decade or two will be interesting to say the least. So many of the duties that we have deferred as a culture are now beginning to catch up with us, and we seem ill-prepared to meet them. The whole national debt debacle with Musk and Trump is a picturesque symbol of deferred duties and a populace that is bewildered (or else numb or incredulous) at the prospect that the Debt Collector will come 'a knocking. So the erratic nature of the woke movement is certainly intelligible.

Interestingly, in my opinion wokism is also a Christian heresy, especially in its more moralistic and compassion-driven aspects. For that reason I think Christians need to get serious about confronting a heresy that is so intertwined with 19th and 20th century Western Christianity. The whole notion of bankrupting oneself out of ungrounded compassion is perhaps the paramount sign of this heresy, and I have seen it instantiate within Christian churches, hospitals, individuals, not to mention the society at large. But a large and simple part of this seems to be the loss of intermediate institutions, localness, and the sense of autonomy and confidence that comes from being integrated into a natural community or even a family. People read the national and international news as the local newspapers go out of business; they are hyperfocused on events that they have little to no control over, such as the presidential election; they go on Facebook or Twitter to protest international atrocities and are completely uninvolved in their own local communities; and out of all this comes a sense of impotence and hopelessness. At least on these fronts there really are remedies ready to hand.

Edit: I just started reading that article from Harper's and I see that it is very much related to what I've said here! Five years ago a feminist friend sent me a somewhat similar piece: "The Cult Dynamics of Wokeness."

A totally fair position, imo.
For me, its hte underlying assumptions in even the use of the word "trans" in these contexts that has me thinking a bit further about these things. I do my utmost to jettison my personal negative experiences, but thats somewhat impossible to do entirely. particularly as they are in concert with overall reports.

As almost a joke, I note that the Manhattan shooter was initially reported to be "possibly white" with absolutely no reason whatso-fucking-ever other than to demonize young white men. That's woke as heck, in the terms I've discussed here.

Instead we see more instances of black and white — Janus

I don't think there is any thinking nearly as black and white as wokism. That's the lion's share of the problem with wokism. This is why there is so much irony in these objections which essentially say, "You have to treat the woke with dignity, respect, and tolerance (even though they are the most undignified, disrespectful, and intolerant people around)." What I said here highlights a mild echo of the irony that applies to this objection (i.e. activism as opposed to wokism):

The question arises: Should we attempt to understand and sympathize with activists? And, supposing we want to play their game, should we attempt to understand and sympathize before we choose to either support or oppose them? I think some will say, "Yes, because we should always try to be compassionate and understanding, and therefore we should try to be compassionate and understanding towards the activist."

This gets complicated, but with NOS4A2 I would say that the act of activism precludes this response to one extent or another. The activist is treating everyone, friend and foe, as a means to an end. Even if we grant for the sake of argument that we should prefer compassion and understanding, the advice that we should treat everyone with an equal amount of compassion and understanding turns out to be false. It is false because it is fitting to treat those who are attempting to use us as a means to their end with less understanding and compassion—and more suspicion!—than those who are treating us respectfully, as autonomous persons. It is no coincidence that everyone tends to treat activists with less compassion and understanding than those who engage them as equals, utilizing forms of persuasion rather than forms of coercion.

So I see ↪NOS4A2's response as appropriate. We can of course treat the activist as if they are not an activist, or ignore the activism that they are currently engaged in, but it is eminently reasonable to treat the activist as an activist... — Leontiskos

-

It is time for some meat on the bone, right? — Fire Ologist

Yes, please!

I can't quite understand how we can use [rationality] in other ways without, as you, i presume, are getting at, falling into total subjectivity…. This is a cop-out and a dismissal of that which rationality points towards: Decisions made in accordance with reason and logic. — AmadeusD

Classical philosophy was always setting a bar—ahead of time, abstracted from context or any effort on our part—for what should be considered “rational”, as you are with concerns about goals. Wittgenstein tries to point out, however, that setting the criteria for the assessment of everything is to miss that each thing has its own standards for us to judge by, e.g., scientific claims, moral claims, aesthetic claims, what makes up an apology, following a rule, pointing, understanding. Each has their own standards for inclusion as that thing, what matters to us for it, how we judge in that case. This isn’t “subjective” but specific, thus the importance of understanding all the criteria and current judgments in a moral situation.

[Valuing one person over another] is a lot worse, and less capable of a rational basis in my view. — AmadeusD

When you’re trying to decide where to eat on vacation, it helps to pick a local to ask. It is not about their claim, or “our perception of them”… (their value?). They are not going to argue with you about where to eat (it’s not about the decision), but they know their way around.

I think it's more accurate to say [trans] "needs" weren't actually an issue… the ideas… seem empirically dead wrong…. These [ideas] are all of them banal….. — AmadeusD

The needs and interests and judgments, etc., of our standing culture may be settled, but they still need to be drawn out, made explicit and intelligible (maybe even more so in being settled). Those things are not evident until we look at them. Now I am suggesting that, before we judge a moral claim, that we need to understand it from the inside; not someone’s argument, but the interests at stake, the criteria used to judge, etc. When you say “the ideas are empirically dead”, you are not only just judging the argument, but limiting the criteria to the empirical (I’m not trying to justify the unfactual, but to take into consideration more evidence of another’s interest than that of which we are certain). And we”ve given up getting at their interests entirely with “banal”.

I don't think anyone judges something without understanding it at all. — Leontiskos

Yep, put too much english on that.

it does not further the rational discussion to simply call into question their understanding without providing any argument for why. — Leontiskos

I’m just trying to clear a space before the argument; I’m saying that “understanding” is not just to be clear about what they are saying (that we can understand it), but that we understand, as it were, “them”, the claim in its difference in interests, judgments, criteria. I am not “calling into question” anything (this is not a tactic), except our habit of jumping to the fight.

quote="Leontiskos;1003876"]...by "understand the woke" I meant, "understand their argument/interests/criteria/stakes/etc."…I mean, if you really don't think you are implicitly claiming that my understanding of wokeness is insufficient (and that this is why I need to improve my understanding of interests/criteria/stakes/etc.), then what's the problem?[/quote]

I’m thinking maybe there isn’t one? I started trying to discuss philosophical assumptions that lead us to misunderstand/pre-judge—miss the actual import—of a moral claim. Maybe this is just a matter of you thinking I’m defending/arguing for something I’m not, and me thinking you don’t get what I am saying. Assumptions?

But isn't it coercive to tell me what my goal is? — Leontiskos

It would be yes, that was worded poorly. Of course we have to get to a judgment about moral claims; we have to move forward, decide what to do, and on what basis.

If we thought that our interests were more alike than apart and that we were able to move forward together, then we wouldn't have judged wokeism wanting in the ways that we have. — Leontiskos

It is presumptive to assume that has not taken place, and, again, not my intention. I was only suggesting that, generally, people (and philosophers in particular) do not consider “the ways” in which they judge. Thank you for the serious consideration.

@Leontiskos @Joshs @Number2018 @frank @AmadeusD @Janus

what don’t I understand about… a key woke position - be it a whole position or just a key underlying interest, criteria, etc.? — Fire Ologist

I don’t know what you don’t understand :smile: what do you understand? (is it high noon?) And here I am not talking about a “position”, either in whole or in part, as in, the argument for, but the underlying interests, the difference in criteria, i.e., what matters and how are we to judge? (And maybe other things.)

“I think in the end you will find that we have different interests. — Fire Ologist

Different interests is fine as long as we’ve done our best to draw them out well enough. I would suggest maybe we don’t think of it as our interests, as if they were personal, because we are of course examining the judgments and criteria of our standing culture, and what interests those reflect, and then the claim that those need to change, and why that matters. I have no skin in the game, nor knowledge of either really, but I can try to imagine them. I think we need a case before we can start describing interests though, right? I started to draw out the possible interest in lived experience w @AmadeusD that I could repost unless there is a better example.

in my opinion wokism is also a Christian heresy, — Leontiskos

That is interesting. It is like a new religion, and has been embraced by Christian and Jewish leaders and congregations.

what do you understand? (is it high noon?) And here I am not talking about a “position”, either in whole or in part, as in, the argument for, but the underlying interests, the difference in criteria, i.e., what matters and how are we to judge? — Antony Nickles

Ok, I’ll go first.

1. All people are different, unique individuals. (Putting people in groups, is secondary, and often just for ease of argumentation and generalization purposes). All people are unique, with particularities that deserve respect, charity, and that come from a whole person deserving love.

That is what matters about people. When there is injustice, it is a particular injustice. When there is something good, it is from one person that such good comes.

We can talk about groups and make generalizations for the sake of argumentation, but when discussing people, it is vital, essential, paramount, to remember always, the generalization and category is less than, smaller than, any single individual we might put in that box.

I don’t care about the difference between “white” and “trans” as much as I care about the positive features of a person who calls them self “white man” or “trans woman”. I just think most of the time we argue in generalities about people in order to talk about how white men are different from black men - we are mostly full of crap, because we are ignoring the important differences between this black man and that black man, or this white man and that white man. I just think honest white and black men cringe about most woke generalizations.

For instance, racism used to mean judging another by the color of their skin. (Racism was always wrong because much like I think, you can’t form a truly meaningful judge of character of an individual by judging him from the racial box he is in.). Now, due to CT and woke, only those in power can be racist. So racism doesn’t mean judging another by the color of his skin, it means when a white guy judges another by the color of his non-white skin; it means a black person in America isn’t equal to a white person and a black person can’t be racist even if he wanted to be.

That’s the kind of incoherent, self-contradictory reasoning, that harms people, and makes problems worse, and that underpins many woke positions.

I’m going to stop there.

I’d rather someone who likes wokeism tell me something essential to it that I need to understand. But I’ve talked about one of my principles that resists incorporation into woke ways of thinking and speaking, so have at it.

The subject receives those intensities and translate them into ultimate truth. Feeling of ultimate moral certainty resembles the ‘return of all names and intensities of history.’ It is the result of hyper-intensified machinic affect. — Number2018

But wouldn’t AO argue that it is only on the dimension of the molar (rather than within molecular intensities, the body without organs) where a ‘feeling of moral certainty’ can be manifest? Isnt it the molar regime of social formations which crushes , binds, plugs, arrests, cuts off the circulation of flows, constricts, regularizes and breaks singular points, and imposes on desire another type of "plan”? This crushing and plugging activity of stratification and molarization would seem to be the opposite of ‘hyper-intensified machinic affect’. Moral certainty, a clearly codified, representational affect, is a molar formation, not an effect of free-flowing molecular intensities or the body without organs (BwO).

Doesn’t one have to de-stratify from social formations and make oneself a body without organs in order to free up continuous intensities?

“This is how it should be done: Lodge yourself on a stratum, experiment with the opportunities it offers, find an advantageous place on it, find potential movements of deterritorialization, possible lines of flight, experience them, produce flow conjunctions [intensities] here and there, try out continuums of intensities [plane of consistency] segment by segment, have a small plot of new land at all times. It is through a meticulous relation with the strata that one succeeds in freeing lines of flight, causing conjugated flows to pass and escape and bringing forth continuous intensities for a BwO. Connect, conjugate, continue: a whole "diagram," as opposed to still signifying and subjective programs.

We are in a social formation; first see how it is stratified for us and in us and at the place where we are; then descend from the strata to the deeper assemblage within which we are held; gently tip the assemblage, making it pass over to the side of the plane of consistency. It is only there that the BwO reveals itself for what it is: connection of desires, conjunction of flows [intensities], continuum of intensities [plane of consistency]. You have constructed your own little machine, ready when needed to be plugged into other collective machines.

This gets complicated, but with NOS4A2 I would say that the act of activism precludes this response to one extent or another. The activist is treating everyone, friend and foe, as a means to an end. Even if we grant for the sake of argument that we should prefer compassion and understanding, the advice that we should treat everyone with an equal amount of compassion and understanding turns out to be false. It is false because it is fitting to treat those who are attempting to use us as a means to their end with less understanding and compassion — Leontiskos

Doesn’t this raise the issue of the difference between theory and practice? Dont we all walk around with interpretive frameworks in our heads allowing us to make sense of our world? Don’t our ethical principles and political instincts come from such ‘theoretical’ structures, and don’t we put such instincts and principles into practice every day in our interactions with others? Is the head of a family not an activist in putting into practice their understanding of moral standards in their child raising decisions? Are their parenting decisions not means to an end, that being the raising of good people? Aren’t all ‘activists’ simply actively putting into practice what they believe to be in the best interest of society as they understand it? How are the critical comments about wokism in this thread not a form of activism? What are the ends the criticisms are a means to?

What are the ends the criticisms are a means to? — Joshs

Criticisms from Dark Enlightenment people aren't supposed to accomplish anything. The downside to wokism is viewed as self-correcting, so if anything, the admonition would be to accelerate wokism. Go faster. Accelerate capitalism. Stop dragging this out.

Criticisms from Dark Enlightenment people aren't supposed to accomplish anything. The downside to wokism is viewed as self-correcting, so if anything, the admonition would be to accelerate wokism. Go faster. Accelerate capitalism. Stop dragging this out. — frank

Is that what Nick Land’s accelerationism is about?

Forgot something