Why not surfing? That is precisely the sort of question you need to answer. If you can propose boards for no reason at all, then why can't I propose surfing for no reason at all? If we've done away with reasons then what's the difference? — Leontiskos

A similarity in the two is that both a surfer and a board can decide to hang 10.

A similarity in the two is that both a surfer and a board can decide to hang 10. — praxis

Next top surfer title has to be - “The Chairman”

Or do we allow men and women to compete together and name the victor “The Chairperson”.

The trophy can be someone standing on a conference room table, hanging 10.

A similarity in the two is that both a surfer and a board can decide to hang 10. — praxis

Boom! Nice.

Or do we allow men and women to compete together and name the victor “The Chairperson”. — Fire Ologist

I’m pretty sure the criteria is… coolness (surfer coolness)?, but I’m not sure “Chair of the Board” or “Board Chair” meets it (confusing objects?), nor “President of the Board” or “Board President” (who likes presidents? What are they deciding for the surfboards?).

I assumed that considering using lived experience as a criteria for appointment to a board would be something that would at issue here. As I said, feel free to chose a different example that involves indecision on how to move forward. Having a situation only matters in that we would have existing criteria for doing something, but that there is either something happening that we haven’t considered or new criteria being suggested, etc. that make us uncertain as to how to continue, but, from where we are (lost). I am suggesting that, instead of assuming we understand the criteria and the interests they reflect, we actually investigate a situation with this uncertainty to use the criteria as a way in… — Antony Nickles

Okay, so it looks like you are doing something like this:

1. In the case of wokeness we are uncertain of how to proceed
2. In the case of the board hire they are uncertain of how to proceed
3. Therefore, there is a similarity or analogy between the two cases, where one will help shed light on another

That is helpful, because it gives a kind of rationale for the board example. Yet the difficulty is that I do not understand why you hold to (1). What is uncertain about the topic of this thread, wokeness? Curiously enough, this thread has some of the strongest consensus I have ever seen on TPF. There is very little uncertainty of how to proceed. People from all different philosophical and political backgrounds are agreeing that there are problems with wokeness, and they are in large agreement on what those problems are. So your notion that there is uncertainty about how to proceed does not seem to be in evidence. Could you explain where it is coming from?

wanting to first decide what we are going to do, or imposing criteria for how to decide that, is to skip over examining, in a sense, how the world works. — Antony Nickles

I don't think that's right at all. If we don't know what we want to do, then we don't know what we are doing. But it seems that most all of us in the thread know what we are doing, including the OP. We know the basic genre of activity we are engaged in. To question the idea that we have even this faintest idea of what we are doing seems like a very implausible form of skepticism.

In your board example the board already knows what it is going to do. It is going to hire someone. It just doesn't know who. At least one goal is always in place before we deliberate.

I am simply asking for a good faith effort to try — Antony Nickles

As I have said, if you give us a reason to look for examples of cases where one is uncertain how to proceed, then we will be more likely to engage in efforts to look for examples of cases where one is uncertain how to proceed.

(Is guilting someone coercion?) — Antony Nickles

No, because guilt is self-imposed. Such is an appeal to a principle the person themselves recognizes, not an imposition of a principle.

And my suggestion is to look at the criteria for judging in a particular case (not justifications for x) to find out what is at stake (what is essential about it), as if we don’t yet know, and so would be trying to decide what to do blind (even about a goal). — Antony Nickles

But I think your idea that we will be able to decide what to do without a goal is simply incoherent, and I think any attempt to try to decide what to do without a goal will be wasted time. So I don't want to adopt your premise that one can decide what to do without a goal. I want you to argue for your unintuitive premise, or at least give me a counterexample where someone is trying to decide what to do without a goal.

There was a big controversy about a transwoman being allowed to compete a couple years ago. Last year the world surfing league tightened up the requirements though, to appease the anti-woke. All that over 1 surfer, and a longboarder at that.

). What is uncertain about the topic of this thread, wokeness? — Leontiskos

Let’s assume that I am uncertain about what woke is (it seems not far from the truth); think about the criteria you would explain to me so I would be able to tell it from something else I would know that is close to it and/or opposite to it (as we were doing with work experience vs lived experience).

There is very little uncertainty of how to proceed — Leontiskos

I am not questioning that you do not know how to proceed, as if, in this Discussion; what I am suggesting would be a situation in the world where the people involved do not know how to decide how to proceed.

Thus the importance to imagine a context in which people are trying to decide what to do where the value of those criteria (above) for deciding what to do, in that situation, is up for grabs. I thought lived experience was a woke thing, but I am more than willing to admit I don’t know what I am talking about, or I picked the wrong context. Without this, or an attempt at getting clear about the criteria in the example I set out, I’ll just respond to @AmadeusD and you can follow along, or not.

@Leontiskos@Joshs

I am not questioning that you do not know how to proceed, as if, in this Discussion; what I am suggesting would be a situation in the world where the people involved do not know how to decide how to proceed. — Antony Nickles

There isn’t just one such situation in life; on the contrary, we often live in a way that requires making decisions instantly, without deliberate reflection. Let me bring here your reflection on one of my posts:

As I take this quote of Number2018 to reiterate: “ “Events of decision that we experience as rational choices, seemingly without the motive force of affect to move them, envelop the complex of the pre-cognitive and micropolitical processes of the event-based situation. The ‘rational’ aspects of the event— judgment, hypothesis, comparative evaluation of alternatives, decision— were mutually included in the event along with all the other co- operating factors.” (Massumi, ‘The Power at the end of the Economy’, pg. 47) (my emphasis). The “‘rational’ aspects of the event”, the particular criteria in a situation, he says “envelop” and “include”—I would say reflect (as OLP claims)—“all the co-operating factors”, which are the interests in those (“mutual”, or shared societal) criteria for judgment, in that particular event.

This might be overly coarse, but I take the other option to be claiming/attributing/assuming a certain goal first and then perhaps treating “interests” as justifications for the goal, or motivations for the goal. Whatever that may be, I take it as the classic philosophical discussion to first determine what is right or what ought to be done, which can lead to setting the requirement (criteria, basis) ahead of looking at the criteria of a particular case, and abstractly arguing for what is to be considered “rational”, and thus “irrational”, (which can leads to/come from, a desire for things like universality, completeness, certainty, etc., as discussed above, because all criteria include our desires/interests, even “rationality”). Again, I take this difference as a matter of analytical philosophy, and not as some kind of proxy for woke/not woke (although there is, as we have discussed, the theme in philosophy of: not reflected upon yet, fully thought through, etc. which I can see now as possibly analogous, though I wouldn’t take as equating the discussions). — Antony Nickles

Massumi’s theory of the event posits that our behavior co-emerges with affect and the environment. In this view, rationality is not separate or universal but is embedded within specific configurations of embodied and affective dynamics. This offers a more effective framework for understanding the phenomenon of wokeness. It is not as a set of moral claims to be considered for logical consistency or truth-value. Instead, it emerges in an eventual field in which rationality is mobilized and becomes a component of the event itself. In this context, Eichmann's case can become a paradigmatic example. My knowledge of the case is based primarily on Hannah Arendt’s account. “He merely, to put the matter colloquially, never realized what he was doing… It was sheer thoughtlessness—something by no means identical with stupidity—that predisposed [Eichmann] to become one of the greatest criminals of that period. … That such remoteness from reality and such thoughtlessness can wreak more havoc than all the evil instincts taken together.” (Arendt, ‘Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil’, pg 36) Arendt does not claim that Eichmann lacked intelligence or suffered from mental illness. In fact, psychologists who examined him before the trial found no signs of pathology or disorder. Nor does she attribute his actions to extremist ideology or any inherent evil. Rather, when she writes that Eichmann “never realized what he was doing,” she asserts that he stopped thinking in a sense that his capacity for judgment was impaired. But this view abstracts Eichmann's rational faculty from the eventual field in which he operated.

Let’s assume that I am uncertain about what woke is — Antony Nickles

@AmadeusD

I finally get it (I think). You are looking for woke criteria. You are saying to the Board “we need to appoint a new member and want to make sure we are being woke, enlightened, in our selection, so, how do we make a woke selection?

Correct?

What is uncertain about the topic of this thread, wokeness? Curiously enough, this thread has some of the strongest consensus I have ever seen on TPF. There is very little uncertainty of how to proceed. People from all different philosophical and political backgrounds are agreeing that there are problems with wokeness, and they are in large agreement on what those problems are. — Leontiskos

That’s why I’ve been saying let’s dive in deeper.

What’s been said about wokeness.

1. It’s goals are chosen and driven more by affect/emotion than by rational analysis. (So a gut feeling on a board member is just as or more valid than some rational argumentation and comparison between two members. Who’s got the stronger gut feeling despite counter factual reasons and arguments.). Gut feelings are important factors, so I’m not against recognition of emotion and passion. But, to me, it only wins the day when all else seems equal, and shouldn’t come first. But it’s number 1 for wokeness.

2. Diversity is an end in itself. In groups of people, regardless of any other factors, diversity as an end in itself is good. So any group of 10 white men is worse than any group of 10 diverse races.
And further, diversity is defined based on surface features - the diversity between a poor southern white redneck, and rich white east coast northern city-born CEO, is not as diverse as between a black boy and a white boy born and raised across the street from each other at the same schools. Giant universal categories like race, ethnicity, religion, sex, forge stereotypes that can be assumed about all members who on the surface appear to belong to said group.
(So for the board - how many white people are already on it? How many women? How many different universalizable groups of people do we want or need to show by a quick glance at a web page our board APPEARS to represent, because the appearance of representation can be just as, if not more, important than whatever that person might actually represent.)

3. Righteous indignation. The woke are honestly compassionate for victims. But they are terrible judges at who victims are and why victims are being victimized. This goes to number 1. above. They let emotions guide their sense of how to respond to something. So they see immigrants being deported, and hear of families being separated, and hear of a person being deported with no due process, and often, the outrage leads them to think of protesting and venting that rage and making a statement so that OTHER people might change their behavior and OTHER people might keep families together and OTHER people might use due process, and seek to make new legal policy and rage some more and blame OTHERS for failures. They could go find out why families have to be separated, or find out how to enforce laws and keep families together, or find a family of immigrants and help them and put all energy into that one family, or find out what due process is and find out how it looks when it is being followed and find out how it can be improved if indeed it needs improvement, and find out how best to police the police and make sure they are following the law as well (or just throw rocks at them).
(As far as the board, how does one express righteous indignation right now when selecting a board member - this might be a sort of sabotage move where you hire a board member you know will annoy the current white chairman of the board - so you think the current chairman is really a racist, so you demand the board confront its racism and hire an immigrant black/hispanic woman. Or maybe the board are all already fully woke so the best way these days to make a big statement of righteous indignation is to parade a trans woman around - nothing says “I am righteous” today better than a drag queen who means business.)

4. This all goes to the fairly recent notion of “virtue signaling”. Wokeness gave birth to this concept. We have to look woke, while we are being woke, and in order to make sure people know we are woke we have to send signals. We wear a mask or get a covid vaccine regardless of the science, but mostly because we want to signal which group we belong to and which group are people who we don’t like. And we can scold those we don’t like because of our emotion and righteous indignation.

5. Self-contradiction. It seems to be a feature of wokeness.
You have to be racist in order to notice or care that some group is diverse or not diverse.
Inclusion and tolerance are huge righteous virtues - yet the woke are the most intolerant people and create the most exclusive clubs around.
For wokeism, there is this sense: “if loving my woke ideals is wrong, I don’t want to be right.”
This means they are allowed to argue and defend their positions with logic, but they don’t have to. When logic fails, only facists would care, because the woke are already righteous in their feelings.
(Let’s say the Board currently has all black and Hispanic people on it, some women, one of whom is white, but she is mixed Asian…it is still not woke to say “we need a white man”. A white is never needed for sake of diversity. That’s wokism being self-contradictory.)
Another self-contradiction is how progressives find dog-whistles everywhere (recent American Eagle jeans ad) - they are paranoid about conspiracies around every corner. Yet they think anti-woke people are the stupid ones who fall for all the conspiracies and mock “birthers” and “anti-vax”.
Another is about science. The woke say the anti-woke are anti-science, but both sides pick and choose only the science that supports them, and if I’d have to pick a side that was more reasonable and moved by proven facts, it would be the non-woke.

6. Everything is political. We can’t interact in the community without simultaneously making a political statement about our values. If a white man is mad at a black man, it must be because of systemic privilege in which the white man has been constructed. It can’t just be because the particular black man was an idiot, or the particular white man is the idiot, or both. This robs the black man of his ability to just be a man who can legitimately piss off another man, but that’s ok, because whether the black man knows it or not, he is a victim of systemic racism. We all are pawns in a system of politics.
When a woman isn’t paid as much as a man, it is by default, injustice, because of the structure of society.
Fathers leading families is nothing more than oppressive custom.
Everything must be turned over for sake of new policy and new system (with no sense or vision even needed for what that new system would look like).
If a girl likes being beautiful and attracting boys and wants to be a mother most of all - blasphemy! She knows not the new politics!
(For the Board - we must ensure our new Board member gets across the right signal politically, shows the world this board is on “the right side of history” and captures the politics of the current moment - basically, to be woke - the board needs a trans person, whether woman or man depends on who is already on the board, and race may not matter depending on who is already on the board. After that, we can look at leadership qualities, experience and, you know, if they will be able to function day to day on the actual business…)

I finally get it (I think). You are looking for woke criteria. You are saying to the Board “we need to appoint a new member and want to make sure we are being woke, enlightened, in our selection, so, how do we make a woke selection? — Fire Ologist

I thought I was speaking Klingon. Yes. How do we tell? What matters to (in judging) it being “woke”? I just didn’t want it to be aaaallllll the criteria (in aaalll the situations), so I picked, what I thought was, one. Was it not one?

What’s been said about wokeness.

1. It’s goals are chosen and driven more by affect/emotion than by rational analysis. — Fire Ologist

Diversity is an end in itself. — Fire Ologist

The woke are honestly compassionate for victims. — Fire Ologist

This all goes to the fairly recent notion of “virtue signaling”. — Fire Ologist

Self-contradiction. It seems to be a feature of wokeness. — Fire Ologist

I agree with all your points, they are excellent. However, they remain at a primarily descriptive level and lack a sufficient explanatory power. This is why some posters in this thread can still introduce frameworks that support alternative interpretations of wokeness. In addition to presenting accurate facts and observations, I have attempted to apply a theory of affect to approach wokeness as an affective phenomenon. Its rituals of calling out and moral absolutism reflect a particular mode of being, a form of emergent subjectivity.

@Antony Nickles

You want to take a step back to a meta-level, such as <Nathan Jacobs> describes. The problem is that I disagree with the step back you want to take. You think that if we take the time to look at an example we will understand wokeness differently, or else that we will have a more sufficient understanding unto judgment.

I could offer a different step back which responds to your own reasons for wanting to take a step back. The problem is that I think we are <derailing the thread>. Note too that as someone who thinks wokeness is being approached inappropriately in this thread, you wish for the inappropriate approach to cease or to be replaced by a better approach. By constantly attempting to change the subject and introduce new topics or examples, you have effectively ceased the discussion of wokeness that the thread is about. Whether intentional or not, you have effectively derailed the thread from the topic of the OP. Perhaps the tangent would arrive back at the topic of the thread, and perhaps it wouldn’t. Either way, the discussion of the topic of the OP has ceased for very many pages now.

But if we don’t want to create a new thread—and I don’t necessarily have the time to field it—then I can outline the “step back” that I would offer in response to your own jockeying for a “step back.” The key error I see in your approach is your premise which says, “People often make premature judgments, but no one is doing that here.” If people often make premature judgments, then we are not immune; and if you think we need to reconsider the whole issue from a different vantage point, then you probably think we are making premature judgments. Although politeness and tact have their place, we simply cannot traverse this terrain without forthrightly acknowledging that a premature judgment is at stake, and may be being made. If you were to simply bite the bullet and raise this issue of premature judgment, all of the problems with coercion and double standards I have been pointing out would evaporate. This is because we both agree that premature judgments are inappropriate, and therefore in that case we have the same end rather than a coercive or imposed end (similar to my point to Banno <here>).

Besides that, the deeper deeper problem is one of error: what it is, how to address it, how to accuse others of error and then bring them around to a proper understanding, etc. When error is correctable it involves an inconsistency, and the error is removed when the inconsistency is resolved in the right direction. So if you think premature judgments are being made with respect to wokeness, and your interlocutor agrees that premature judgments are impermissible, then if you are able to show your interlocutor that he is making a premature judgment with respect to wokeness he will be have corrected his error. Or if my interlocutor agrees that coercion is impermissible in the sphere of philosophy, and I am able to show him that he is involved in coercion, then he will amend his approach. Yet—not unlike wokeness—there is an affective impediment within our culture to the idea that error concretely exists either in ourselves or in our interlocutors.* This is related to a pluralism which does not want to deem anyone to be wrong.

(Note that this is very similar to what I have run up against in @J's approach to philosophy).

* The great thing about your disposition is that you never double down on the double standard of coercion. You are the first one on TPF who did not do this, and it took me by surprise. When I point out to others their double standard of coercion, they conveniently ignore the point for hundreds of pages, in fact never owning up to it at all.

Let’s assume that I am uncertain about what woke is (it seems not far from the truth); think about the criteria you would explain to me so I would be able to tell it from something else I would know that is close to it and/or opposite to it (as we were doing with work experience vs lived experience). — Antony Nickles

I thought lived experience was a woke thing, but I am more than willing to admit I don’t know what I am talking about, or I picked the wrong context. — Antony Nickles

I thought I was speaking Klingon. Yes. How do we tell? What matters to (in judging) it being “woke”? — Antony Nickles

I would say woke has to do with systemic discrimination or systemic inequality, as seen in things like DEI. The woke person thinks there are societal problems that most people are blind or asleep to, and this usually cashes out as what is "systemic," such as "systemic racism."

The whole issue revolves around the question, "How much of a good thing is too much?" Everyone agrees that it is good to oppose certain forms of discrimination or inequality, to a certain extent. The critique of the woke is that they go too far, failing to make proper distinctions and failing to take into account an organic system of competing values. They become affectively set on one value or goal to the detriment of all others.

“He merely, to put the matter colloquially, never realized what he was doing… It was sheer thoughtlessness” - Arendt

I have read Arendt; I take her to be making a point about all of us: that, most of the time, we do not give thought to what we are doing, to the implications and consequences of our actions. We do this thing like everyone else does, and we never turn our attention to ask what effect it has, etc., in a sense: to ask, why we do it.

rationality is not separate or universal but is embedded within specific configurations of embodied and affective dynamics — Number2018

So, if we can examine the “configurations” of each “specific” practice (what we do), embedded within it are the rationality for each, as the way in which we would be said (our criteria) to embody them (to meet having done it) and our (as a society) interests (feelings about something) in doing them.

The problem is that I think we are <derailing the thread>. Note too that as someone who thinks wokeness is being approached inappropriately in this thread, you wish for the inappropriate approach to cease or to be replaced by a better approach. By constantly attempting to change the subject and introduce new topics or examples, you have effectively ceased the discussion of wokeness that the thread is about — Leontiskos

You're right—and that's likely why I introduced a new example myself: the case of Eichmann. But in truth, we don't need more examples; we're already overwhelmed by an abundance of facts and cases.

they remain at a primarily descriptive level and lack sufficient explanatory power. — Number2018

I agree - I am more analyzing the effects caused by wokeness, than I am getting to heart of what it is, what drives the emergence of these effects.

apply a theory of affect to approach wokeness as an affective phenomenon. Its rituals of calling out and moral absolutism reflect a particular mode of being, a form of emergent subjectivity. — Number2018

I like it. It’s why my instinct was to place emotion as the first point.

I think affection is at the heart wokeness.

So we leave that fixed as the number one component of something having some explanatory power.

I think an impulse to resist, which may be emotional, needs to be analyzed. Like an adolescent psychology - the first impulse of the woke when perceiving anything as coming from the powerful is to say “No - I disagree, I will resist.”

They have a built in power-detecting filter.

This forces reason, and discussion, as secondary to the emotion. So this further elaborates on how the affective phenomenon plays out.

But I think reason and discussion and argument are at the very heart of being human, so if we do not understand better how the affective creature that is a woke person reasons, we won’t fully explain the phenomenon.

We can’t just say they are guided by emotion, because they use reason and argument all of the time. We need to think through the fact that the woke are as fully human as anyone - I love them too, but they are just wrong - how?

I think the key is wisdom and judgment - the woke, like adolescent, simply lack an interest in learning and cultivating wisdom. They think as the the adolescent thinks that, because some bit of enlightenment is new to them, they are the first person in history to come up with wisdom and so they don’t need to listen to others. And besides, wisdom always seems to come from the powerful, and because they impulsively resist the powerful, they just don’t hear the wisdom from them. Wisdom and “my truth” are mine first, and maybe from those people I like (peers).

So they can be intelligent people, even skilled at logical argumentation, but the objects they argue about or judge to be important are just not always apt.

They view a lack of clarity as an openness to diversity, when it may just be a lack of self-awareness about the fact that they don’t know what they are talking about. That’s poor judgment. And instead of finding wise leaders, they dig in on some hill.

The woke see two things, and look for which has power over the other. It’s sort of a baked in reality that is most important to them - victims and oppressors are absolute and everywhere where two things sit next to each other. They hate this, and so fight for egalitarian leveling. But they don’t take time time to discern what can be equal and what cannot. They don’t ask which one between the powerful and the powerless might be good and which might not matter. The oppressed always matter more, and the powerful always only abuse and oppress. This is poor judgment.

This is why woke feminists can’t integrate with woke trans, and why racial motivations made Obama outshine Hillary in the 2008 election. Racism is a deeper hatred and more impactful fight than feminism (at the time). And now trans is more stark and better battle than what “woman” means (trans is at war with race as well). Since women now have power over transwomen, women may need to be resisted and take men down now.

Wokeism doesn’t really have the criteria built into itself to ensure justice between the feminist and transactivist. They just hope they can feel their way to the right villain and take them down.

It’s poor judgment finding poorly designed categories for sake of barely identified goals, summed up as fight the power.

So, there is not only an affective explanation, but a judgmental resistance to the logical if that logic comes from a station with power.

You're right—and that's likely why I introduced a new example myself: the case of Eichmann. — Number2018

In this context, Eichmann's case can become a paradigmatic example. My knowledge of the case is based primarily on Hannah Arendt’s account. “He merely, to put the matter colloquially, never realized what he was doing… It was sheer thoughtlessness—something by no means identical with stupidity—that predisposed [Eichmann] to become one of the greatest criminals of that period. … That such remoteness from reality and such thoughtlessness can wreak more havoc than all the evil instincts taken together.” (Arendt, ‘Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil’, pg 36) — Number2018

I think this could be helpful. I would actually follow Aquinas to a conclusion slightly different from Arendt's. For Aquinas the evil of error is primarily a matter of neglect. For example, when you are excited to visit your beloved you might speed and "forget" the speed limit. You haven't really forgotten it since it's still there in the back of your mind, but you're neglecting it. More generally, there is a sense in which you are capable of following the speed limit and yet choose not to.

One could cash that out in terms of "thoughtlessness," but I think what is happening is more subtle. A kind of short-circuit occurs in the judgment such that one goal is prioritized to such an extent that other goals are ignored (which in this case is a restriction-goal: not-speeding). I agree that this is all deeply bound up with affectivity and the passions, but the moral point I would emphasize is that neglect is volitional, albeit indirectly volitional. The short-circuit is favored. The lover neglects to obey or even consider the rationale for not-speeding, or else he neglects to obey or even consider the cause(s) that would either allow him to consider that rationale, or which obstruct him from being able to consider that rationale.

The affectivity of this case is a kind of obstruction to the judgment, and one which in fact pleases the lover. Without that obstruction he would need to slow down and he would thus delay his union with his beloved. So there is a complex intertwining and mixing of the rationality and the affectivity, and yet the lover who speeds has prioritized his affectivity whereas the lover who does not speed has prioritized his rationality (or has prioritized the broader context of goals by not allowing one to dominate the others). This prioritization often happens over years or decades, fusing with habit and ways of living, and this is why it is so hard to remove ingrained habits or addictions.

-

I answer that, A sin is an inordinate act. Accordingly, so far as it is an act, it can have a direct cause, even as any other act; but, so far as it is inordinate, it has a cause, in the same way as a negation or privation can have a cause. Now two causes may be assigned to a negation: in the first place, absence of the cause of affirmation; i.e. the negation of the cause itself, is the cause of the negation in itself; since the result of the removing the cause is the removal of the effect: thus the absence of the sun is the cause of darkness. In the second place, the cause of an affirmation, of which a negation is a sequel, is the accidental cause of the resulting negation: thus fire by causing heat in virtue of its principal tendency, consequently causes a privation of cold. The first of these suffices to cause a simple negation. But, since the inordinateness of sin and of every evil is not a simple negation, but the privation of that which something ought naturally to have, such an inordinateness must needs have an accidental efficient cause. For that which naturally is and ought to be in a thing, is never lacking except on account of some impeding cause. And accordingly we are wont to say that evil, which consists in a certain privation, has a deficient cause, or an accidental efficient cause. Now every accidental cause is reducible to the direct cause. Since then sin, on the part of its inordinateness, has an accidental efficient cause, and on the part of the act, a direct efficient cause, it follows that the inordinateness of sin is a result of the cause of the act. Accordingly then, the will lacking the direction of the rule of reason and of the Divine law, and intent on some mutable good, causes the act of sin directly, and the inordinateness of the act, indirectly, and beside the intention: for the lack of order in the act results from the lack of direction in the will. — Aquinas, ST I-II.75.1 - Whether sin has a cause?

...That gets a bit complicated, but the point is that sin has to do with inordinateness, and that therefore the goal ("good") causes the inordinateness of the act indirectly, beside the intention. What is at stake is a lack of order, not simple thoughtlessness. The lover has failed to order his activity according to the speed limit law; that he has done so is beside his intention; and nevertheless he is still morally culpable for this neglect.

A kind of short-circuit occurs in the judgment such that one goal is prioritized to such an extent that other goals are ignored — Leontiskos

That’s what I’m getting at with the comment about the lack of wisdom. The emotional response to systemic power differences usurps good judgement.

ADDED:

that neglect is volitional, albeit indirectly volitional. The short-circuit is favored. — Leontiskos

Yes, like we all do in adolescence. This is how to avoid reasonable discussion. Willing disregard for the reasonable, and anger at the annoyance.

you have effectively derailed the thread from the topic of the OP. — Leontiskos

You may be right about this; I had thought we were getting somewhere, but getting to what counts for woke, much less to judge if it has ended, has been harder than I considered.

“People often make premature judgments, but no one is doing that here.” — Leontiskos

I must apologize for this; it was a joke, in bad taste, which I thought was clear, as you seemed hell-bent on assuming that, in not attacking your argument, I was attacking you, your character, or your ability to judge at all. Poorly done on my part.

Of course I was saying judgment was being made prematurely, but not any particular judgments, other than the assumption of the rational-irrational/emotional dichotomy, which, as I said, is how I got started, and then of course suggesting that we look at the criteria (rationality) as a means for understanding those interests (feelings), which I did hope held some promise (to see their life and/or death).

But in truth, we don't need more examples; we're already overwhelmed by an abundance of facts and cases. — Number2018

I was going to develop the example I brought up and that @AmadeusD and @Fire Ologist responded to, but I will defer to your lead, as @Leontiskos has rightly pointed out I should.

You may be right this; I had thought we were getting somewhere, but getting to what counts for woke, much less to judge if it has ended, has been harder than I considered. — Antony Nickles

Fair enough. :up:

I must apologize for this; it was a joke, in bad taste, which I thought was clear, as you seemed hell-bent on assuming I was somehow, in not attacking your argument, I was attacking you, your character, or your ability to judge at all. Poorly done on my part. — Antony Nickles

No worries. I actually thought you were trying to be polite. I suppose my point is that one can critique someone's judgment or even their character without falling into ad hominem. For example, if my judgment is consistently premature on some given topic then I may well need to consider my ability to judge that sort of topic, or the character that gives rise to such judgments. There is nothing inconsistent in this given that the affective critique of wokeness is similar, and is by definition going to go beyond the merely rational. To critique a movement on affective grounds will certainly look like ad hominem to the untrained eye.

Of course I was saying judgment was being made prematurely, but not any particular judgments, other than the assumption of the rational-irrational dichotomy, which, as I said, is how I got started... — Antony Nickles

Yes, I am going to try to revisit some of your early posts where you talk about that rational-irrational dichotomy. :up:

Yes, like we all do in adolescence. — Fire Ologist

Or when we're tired. :lol:

The emotional response to systemic power differences usurps good judgement. — Fire Ologist

Yes.

I think the objection from @Antony Nickles is somewhat related to ad hoc reasoning. A critique or even assessment of wokeness can feel ad hoc (and therefore unsympathetic) if it is not situated within a broader theory of error or understanding/assessing. So perhaps it will help for me to acknowledge that the general error of the woke is not only found elsewhere, but is actually the basis for almost all bad/evil acts of judgment whatsoever. Almost every time we make a true mistake we are involved in this form of neglect.

(The exception for Aquinas is malice, namely when one sees clearly that their act is wrong and they do it anyway. With negligence that clear sight is not in place, and this is the more common case.)

I would actually follow Aquinas to a conclusion slightly different from Arendt's. For Aquinas the evil of error is primarily a matter of neglect. For example, when you are excited to visit your beloved you might speed and "forget" the speed limit. You haven't really forgotten it since it's still there in the back of your mind, but you're neglecting it. More generally, there is a sense in which you are capable of following the speed limit and yet choose not to.

One could cash that out in terms of "thoughtlessness," but I think what is happening is more subtle. A kind of short-circuit occurs in the judgment such that one goal is prioritized to such an extent that other goals are ignored (which in this case is a restriction-goal: not-speeding). I agree that this is all deeply bound up with affectivity and the passions, but the moral point I would emphasize is that neglect is volitional, albeit indirectly volitional. The short-circuit is favored. The lover neglects to obey or even consider the rationale for not-speeding, or else he neglects to obey or even consider the cause(s) that would either allow him to consider that rationale, or which obstruct him from being able to consider that rationale. — Leontiskos

Great—likely, we’re now much closer to a more nuanced and developed approach to the phenomenon of wokeness. What you describe as “neglect is volitional, albeit indirectly volitional. The short-circuit is favored” corresponds to our response to the pressures of immediate situations. We are constantly required to make decisions about complex matters within very short time spans.
As a result, many of our decisions become automatized, almost unconscious. This condition affects not only those identified as “woke” but all of us. Woke individuals primarely remain anchored in a relatively localized domain, where they can continuously demonstrate their vigorous sense of moral rightness and commitment to justice. In doing so, they vividly illustrate how rationality can become subsumed by the impact of ‘the short-circuit’.
Hannah Arendt offered a remarkable account of Eichmann. However, it is not quite accurate to describe him as irrational—he was, in fact, following the bureaucratic logic of the Nazi regime. Most likely, his most consequential decision was joining the Nazi party. From that point on, he became a thoughtless functionary. But that pivotal decision was made at a more subtle level, shaped by unconscious affective forces rather than deliberate reasoning.

@Leontiskos @AmadeusD @Number2018 @frank @Count Timothy von Icarus @Joshs @Fire Ologist

I’ll leave the below here unfinished—investigating with @AmadeusD the criteria of lived experience—and, then, @Fire Ologist’s suggestion of other existing, related criteria in this scenario. I did also respond in a way where I folded some things into wider concerns we already have, which would avoid an arbitrarily narrow judgment, and other shifts in consideration.

I hope it helps in the way of clarifying what the interests are, and to have clearer field to judge whether these criteria still continue, or have ended, or should.

*[Experience] is a consideration of one's abilities in the present with recourse to statistical evidence supporting that claim of ability). — AmadeusD

Could we (accept it would be to) say: experience is a (present) demonstration of skills and abilities (anything else?) supported by, evidenced by, let’s just say: a history of those. I mean it could be quantified statistically for certain things, sales?! But would it be for all? And then this might help with the criteria for lived experience, as it would also be supported by “a history”, but of some different kind.

*Experience is literally experience of success in a given field. — AmadeusD

Legit. Hard to argue with setting a goal and achieving it, or whatever success looks like in a particular field. In contrast, some lived experience I brought up might look like a life of failing, having come up against maybe institutions or situations and not being able to achieve the goals they set out, not been able to set their own goals.

*Usually, [experience is judged on] extremely specific criteria which are necessary to assess one's potential. — AmadeusD

I could see why we’d want this (prediction, and…), but I’ve been in some interviews were they say things like, “fit” (maybe that’s just with me). And this maybe only applies for a specific job/tasks, but as to potential: as an interest, judged by a demonstration of past performance as an indication of future performance (or is not, as my mutual fund says, qualifying it as not guaranteed). So one question might be, what is someone’s lived experience “performing”? and does specificity play a part?

*[Lived experience] (in practice) categorically ignores any metric. — AmadeusD

And this brings up the question whether specificity (always) plays a part in the experience or other criteria for our board, throwing in “success” maybe. A metric sounds like a certain kind of measure, and it would be dodging this to say “not everything is measurable” (though we don’t always judge with “specific” criteria, say, like what a yard is), but there are other criteria for our board where the metric is not, say, personal, like “fit”, but I want to say, looser, like influence, or connections (which we have yet to get into). Now, if lived experience does avoid any “metric” (a predetermined ruler), are there other kinds of criteria for it than, say, a judgment of my personality, like “fit”.

*[One criteria for] adding "lay people" for the purpose of lived experience [may be to make the public feel] as if there's some "authenticity" in the decision making process, or "representation". — AmadeusD

Absolutely, as I said, for some kind of image, perhaps in the same way they might add a celebrity, but even that has some related value, say, to bring attention, or draw in a certain demographic. Of course to say it is a necessary criteria, or as the only criteria, is, as I said, a bit cynical of what other value we are considering, as @Fire Ologist said, “internally”, say, to the board’s decision-making process.

[lived experience could be valued as] a "lay person's perspective" but they are essentially ancillary to any decision making processes; — AmadeusD

I see what you are getting at, as part of where we stopped was their value for “perspective”, but we might not call this just support in a decision, or maybe just certain types of decisions, but maybe this is, like I said, just like an attorney, who gives advice which does not need to be heeded. Though they might just not be granted certain authority, maybe of a final kind, but saying they “should not” or are unimportant, is perhaps to say they do not or should not have value (in deciding), which flies in the face of considering how they might or do in this case (or what case), if we imagine the board is considering adding lived experience as a criteria for appointment.

[Lived experience may matter] where there is a direct, measurable relationship between this person's membership of some class (demographic?) and their ability to report an aggregate opinion of that class to the committee (or board, whatever). This seems problematic in plenty of ways, but at least has a basis to move from. — AmadeusD

(I didn’t get to this.)

I don't think there is any value [to a local], other than to get directions. You could consult Google. — AmadeusD

(I didn’t get to this either, but I think it is in the same category as the one above.)

It’s goals are chosen and driven more by affect/emotion than by rational analysis. — Fire Ologist

This seems like either a premise or a conclusion rather than a criteria, so I’m not sure what the criteria itself would be for the board; someone emotional could be to say someone passionate, and we imagine someone angry, but we also say that about someone who has accomplished a lot, been doing it for a long time, “demonstrated commitment” maybe.

this might be a sort of sabotage move where you hire a board member you know will annoy the current white chairman of the board — Fire Ologist

That seems like a tactic (not a criteria), but we have been presuming that the board are all of the same mind, so maybe the criteria would be “someone who shakes things up”, as I kind of revolution, an upending.

As I said, I don’t consider these as drawn all the way out, so my comments are only to provisionally get at what is at stake in this, and not (hopefully) arguments for or against- though I’m sure @Leontiskos will point out how they are if that is the case—as the process is meant to be fair and is based on acceptance.

Great—likely, we’re now much closer to a more nuanced and developed approach to the phenomenon of wokeness. What you describe as “neglect is volitional, albeit indirectly volitional. The short-circuit is favored” corresponds to our response to the pressures of immediate situations. We are constantly required to make decisions about complex matters within very short time spans. — Number2018

Right, and it also corresponds to 's essay about the way that modern technologies promote and exacerbate this tendency.

As a result, many of our decisions become automatized, almost unconscious. This condition affects not only those identified as “woke” but all of us. Woke individuals primarely remain anchored in a relatively localized domain, where they can continuously demonstrate their vigorous sense of moral rightness and commitment to justice. In doing so, they vividly illustrate how rationality can become subsumed by the impact of ‘the short-circuit’. — Number2018

I agree.

Hannah Arendt offered a remarkable account of Eichmann. However, it is not quite accurate to describe him as irrational—he was, in fact, following the bureaucratic logic of the Nazi regime. Most likely, his most consequential decision was joining the Nazi party. From that point on, he became a thoughtless functionary. But that pivotal decision was made at a more subtle level, shaped by unconscious affective forces rather than deliberate reasoning. — Number2018

Good, and we could agree with Hume at least on one point, namely that Eichmann's rationality was placed at the service of Nazism. Eichmann's reason became a slave to his passions, at least if we see Nazism as part of his passions. So Eichmann was involved in a lot of thought and reasoning about how to further his goal of Nazism, but in another sense he was being thoughtless and irrational.

Hannah Arendt offered a remarkable account of Eichmann. However, it is not quite accurate to describe him as irrational—he was, in fact, following the bureaucratic logic of the Nazi regime. Most likely, his most consequential decision was joining the Nazi party. From that point on, he became a thoughtless functionary. But that pivotal decision was made at a more subtle level, shaped by unconscious affective forces rather than deliberate reasoning. — Number2018

I’m going to offer my take on how Deleuze would analyze Eichmann’s situation, then present a Wittgensteinian perspective that I think is consonant with Antony’s. I will then contrast these with how you are relating the role of affectivity and rationality in Eichmann’s behavior. In AO Deleuze distinguishes between investment in pre-conscious interests and unconscious desires. Pre-conscious interests guide and organize what matters and how it matters. With regard to political movements, the former lead to reactionary and reformist actions, and the latter to revolutionary change. If one continues to draw one thinking from such pre-conscious interests, one will remain within a status quo even as one attempts to makes changes within itself. The unconscious however is transformative
change in thinking, opening up lines of flight which alter what is at issue, what matters and how it matters. Only such thinking can be truly revolutionary. No amount of deliberative reasoning can accomplish this, since all deliberative thinking is already enslaved to pre-assigned interests. Deliberative rationality is in service of the reigning norms.

For Deleuze, whether Eichmann was an enthusiastic supporter of Nazi ideology or andisinterested bureaucrat the diagnosis is the same. Eichmann was ensconced within a social collectivity in such a way as to validate the most extensive rational deliberation he might attempt to justify his actions.

A Wittgenstein account has many parallels with Deleuze’s. Eichmann’s work duties amounted to a network of language games authorized by a form of life which made his work life intelligible to him both practically and ethically. These languages games and this form of life are intrinsically affective in the sense that they are only formed and only sustain themselves through continuously inter-affecting between persons. Affect cannot influence rationality from below as some autonomous domain (contra Massumi). Instead it is the elements of the system of meaning (perspective) that is a way of life. We cannot change affect separately from perspective , since they are the same thing. Wittgenstein’s concern with regard to Eichmann would be how he might be persuaded to look at his situation and that of others living alongside him (the jews) differently. Not do a better job of rational deliberation, but find a way to turn those rational schemes on their head through a change in affective orientation

Your reading of affect seems to differ from these accounts by treating affect, as Massumi does, as not just primary but autonomous. It seems to want to sever the dependence of knowledge on affect and value, as though affect can distort or inhibit rhe process of reasoned deliberation, and as though there could be a progress in logical , rational deliberation that was not at every point made intelligible in its very sense and meaning in an affective manner. Your Eichmann and your wokists are victims of this strife between affect and reason.

Leontikos articulates this strife well:

Eichmann's reason became a slave to his passions, at least if we see Nazism as part of his passions. So Eichmann was involved in a lot of thought and reasoning about how to further his goal of Nazism, but in another sense he was being thoughtless and irrational. — Leontiskos

a broader theory of error or understanding/assessing… is not only found elsewhere, but is actually the basis for almost all bad/evil acts of judgment whatsoever — Leontiskos

And so, never ending… great.

In these terms, my point was that the ad hoc assumption of—inherently to prove legitimacy/not legitimate up front—say, the desire for, a framing of irrationality/emotion, is endemic in philosophy and humanity, and gets in the way of a broader practice of assessment. I should have qualified this with the recognition that there are mistakes (to be) made (bad means), and I do think it is important to sort the wheat from the (general) chaff. And here it seems there is some distinction to be made between (general) bad means separate from certain goals or criteria, and those intrinsic in the value(ing) of certain criteria, and, recognizing there are costs to meeting most goals, is the juice worth the squeeze (and what that is, and if avoidable, able to be mitigated, etc)

So they can be intelligent people, even skilled at logical argumentation, but the objects they argue about or judge to be important are just not always apt. — Fire Ologist

I’m curious if you think it would be appropriate for wokeists to ignore something like this:

The divide between woke and not is so large I still am not sure if people are actually upset about this ad or whether this is American Eagle contriving outrage for publicity, with perhaps a few confused people buying in.

Is this truly an upsetting ad for more than a handful of people?

@Leontiskos

If one continues to draw one thinking from such pre-conscious interests, one will remain within a status quo even as one attempts to makes changes within itself. The unconscious however is transformative
change in thinking, opening up lines of flight which alter what is at issue, what matters and how it matters — Joshs

It is an idealized interpretation of Deleuze’s concept of the line of flight. A line of flight is not necessarily liberatinary or revolutionary in a moral or political sense.“Lines of flight are not always lines of emancipation; they can also be lines of death.” ('A thousand plateaus', pg 298)

For Deleuze, whether Eichmann was an enthusiastic supporter of Nazi ideology or andisinterested bureaucrat the diagnosis is the same. Eichmann was ensconced within a social collectivity in such a way as to validate the most extensive rational deliberation he might attempt to justify his actions. — Joshs

This statement assumes a relatively stable, unified subject capable of rational deliberation. From a Deleuzian perspective, subjectivity is not fixed or whole but emergent, and produced. Deleuze would be less concerned with whether Eichmann was a committed ideologue or a passive bureaucrat. Instead, he would likely focus on how Eichmann’s subjectivity was transformed. Also, he could try to answer a question of an authenticity of his denials of committing crimes. And this issue is a reason for my interest in the Eichmann's case, it could help to further elaborate our approach to wokeness. A Deleuzian reading would not treat Eichmann’s memory or denials as simply true or false statements made by a self-transparent subject. Rather, it would see them as effects of an emergent subjectivity. For Luhmann, memory is re-produced by evolving systemic conditions. In a sense, Eichmann followed a line of flight as a means to avoid a feeling of guilt.

Your reading of affect seems to differ from these accounts by treating affect, as Massumi does, as not just primary but autonomous. It seems to want to sever the dependence of knowledge on affect and value, as though affect can distort or inhibit rhe process of reasoned deliberation, and as though there could be a progress in logical , rational deliberation that was not at every point made intelligible in its very sense and meaning in an affective manner. Your Eichmann and your wokists are victims of this strife between affect and reason. — Joshs

It looks like you view affect primarily as a disruptive or distorting force.It interferes with reasoned deliberation. However, for Deleuze and Massumi, as well as according to Foucault's concept of power-knowledge, affect is the necessary condition of reason and deliberation. My position is that true progress in thought requires an acknowledgment of how we, and our thinking are impacted by the same affective forces and assemblages that shaped figures like Eichmann or contemporary "woke" individuals. This is not a moral equivalence but an ontological and epistemological commitment. Affective investments shape all subjectivity, including our own.