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?

Philosophy deals not with an object, but with its concept. — Astorre

We’ve been reading the Blue Book here, and one of Wittgenstein’s main themes, and first, is that thinking of something else (like feelings) as an object, treating them as an object, copying the framework analogously, is a major source of problems in philosophy.

Being does not demand confirmation; it simply is present. — Astorre

Then I’m taking “is” as a claim, to be verified or justified, different than something… self-evident? or something that doesn’t work like a claim? Maybe accepted until mistaken, and then just corrected.

Maybe the Russian says that person (is a) doctor, not to make a claim that they are a doctor (to be proven with a license), but to identify them, like pointing to that particular individual (singling them out, Cavell says), that one:doctor, as if doctor is not another noun (that they are equated with), but a modifying adjective.

"Mountain exists." "Бар" (bar) is not "is" in the sense of being; "бар" is "that which exists"—a fact proven by presence. "Тау бар" means "The mountain is present." — Astorre

In Russian, being is present without fixation; in Kazakh, it becomes through a process ("болу"); and in Chinese, it manifests as a temporary presence (有) or the potential of emptiness (无), integrated into the flow of Dao — Astorre

Thought of just as: the mountain is present (to us) compared to existing (apart from us), casts it in a Cartesian light you are obviously not suggesting. But there is the sense were we are present to the mountain, as in, we are aware of it, now focused on it, perhaps even, in its “mountain-ness” (channeling later Heidegger).

If Western languages prompt us to ask what a table is, Chinese emphasizes its use (用, yòng)—its role in a specific situation. — Astorre

The Western tradition, relying on the copula "is," built an ontology of presence, in which the question of being became a question of its essence. — Astorre

Wittgenstein will ask what is essential (to us) about a table, in looking at how we measure, say, that this, here, has fulfilled the role of a table.

Again, very interesting, congratulations. Of course this is to just tease the meat of the findings, but I find the research/evidence does allow for an astounding perspective, particularly how the classic philosophical framework is seemingly baked into the language.

). 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.

Well done; very interested to mull over. It reminds of the later Heidegger text "What is Called Thinking?" in which the Greek translation of that question is eventually taken in English to be: "Useful is the letting-lie-before-us, so (the) taking-to-heart, too", so the evidence can be fruitful.

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?).

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

Boom! Nice.

if you want us to talk about a board, then you have to tell us why. — Leontiskos

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…

If you were my Zen master then you could just tell me to do something and I would do it, no questions asked. — Leontiskos

Again, I did try to explain the reasons/benefit (which you did go through?) of the method (tied up with what that even is); but the idea was to, for now, put a pin in the philosophical discussion, in the hope that trying an example would help see why do it, to understand the philosophical reasons to do it. As a courtesy I will say in summary (though I will not argue it here, as I have spelled it out in length above), 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. Now, as I said, I think aaaallll the objections have not resolved whether that is a good idea (as I did not anticipate all of them in my explanations, nor explain well it appears), much less even an agreement on understanding it (though there were some times that parts of it were close), so, yes, barring your review of the above (and perhaps even after that), I am simply asking for a good faith effort to try. But I can understand your skepticism and reticence in the effort. (Is guilting someone coercion?)

where we must all make decisions about the thing at stake. — Leontiskos

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).

BTW - I do appreciate the effort, and I am working on a response. I think you gave us a lot to think about. I thought I might give @Leontiskos and @Fire Ologist, or others, a chance to give some more input on the criteria we are discussing.

I guess I’m saying it needs more structure (in my eyes) to ensure it is even related to wokeness — Fire Ologist

Does it help to say the board is considering adding lived experience as a criteria for appointment to the board?

As far as limiting the scenario ahead of time, the idea is to allow the investigation of criteria to drive the boat. Now we could of course say, in this scenario, a certain company, etc., leads a board to other criteria than we have drawn out, or more to the point, criteria x is qualified by certain aspects of the world.

I did suggest a pin in the philosophy. What I would say is we might not see the benefit, not having really gotten anywhere yet, to get to a point where we can judge it or compare it, but you certainly can investigate the relationship between goals the board might have to the criteria suggested, or others we have overlooked, such as…

Do they make someone young… a board member? — Fire Ologist

And is this the same as, or how different, than lived experience, or just for a skill (social media), or like a celebrity…

Am I getting us anywhere? — Fire Ologist

It’s a start, so thank you.

Nope

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

you need to cash this out. — Fire Ologist

Literally the first thing you say? No attempt to humor me? I mean, at least @AmadeusD gave it a go, and there is nothing there worth discussing/exploring? All right, maybe just not your cup of tea.

I can’t even begin to balance Board criteria without just discussing the particulars. — Fire Ologist

Adding details in order to clarify how certain criteria work can be helpful. It shows how our words are connected to the world in a way. I suggested lived experience might be important in a certain way if the board was doing work that affected that lived place. So sure, feel free to suggest how certain criteria would require certain situations, or vice-versa., etc.

Now in this post here, the method now becomes doing three things… — Fire Ologist

I love the energy, but why the hurry? is there nothing of interest so far?

So we have some criteria and underlying bits. Now let’s talk… — Fire Ologist

So the discussion of criteria seems done and clear to you?

Is there a way to promote inclusion… — Fire Ologist

Is there a way to promote equity… — Fire Ologist

Is there a way to promote diversity… — Fire Ologist

I don’t even think we’ve gotten what we have mapped out, and you want to add three more new criteria? Again, I applaud the ambition. If everyone wants, we can shift to one of these other criteria (just one please), but I hate to throw out our efforts so far. But, if another is more interesting, or would be easier to draw out in a more appropriate situation, I’ll concede.

Let’s just pick something important, say what and how that is the case, and see what criteria emerge in the process, — Fire Ologist

We can also abandon the experiment, if that’s what this means; or just try it out. Your call.

A board hires someone who will best contribute to their goals — Leontiskos

Okay, but how they decide (what is important in deciding) is based on criteria. Contributing to their goals is one criteria (do we have a goal that each other criteria satisfy? “Our goal is to have someone with work experience” How is that saying something different?). There are no more? I have suggested some; I would think a discussion would involve more than just ignoring those; more to my hope, adding to the process—maybe pointing out how my explanation doesn't take into account something about the criteria, etc. I mean, I thought @AmadeusD did well.

This is a thread about wokeness. Why do you want me to pretend I am surfing? — Leontiskos

Appointing someone to a board based on "lived experience" is not relevant? As I said, any other examples are fine by me. (except surfing, though I know there's a joke in there somewhere)

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

After the following flat dismissals:

But the rest seem illegitimate — AmadeusD

The rest is window dressing — AmadeusD

[what the different criteria are for work experience vs lived experience] seems... perhaps... not a reasonable question to ask. — AmadeusD

I can't see it being useful otherwise. — AmadeusD

@AmadeusD decides:

The scenario doesn't really move us toward anything helpful, — AmadeusD

Reeeally…

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

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

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

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

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

[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

. [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

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

This is a laundry list of proposed criteria (even some about lived experience!) that we had not yet made explicit or examined. And I would offer there is “meat” here to develop, clarify, compare, etc. that would be valuable to get clear about before judging how the board would go forward and what that looks like here.

Surely it would make more sense to find an issue and discuss why lived experience might be helpful there — AmadeusD

(emphasis added)

You're certainly more likely to find an example that could be agreed on. — AmadeusD

I took it that people take issue with appointing people to boards based on lived experience. I would concede to suggestions from the group for agreement on a different example as long as it is a situation (not an “issue” abstracted from any sense of a possible context) about how to decide what to do in a particular case, i.e, with competing, say old vs new, criteria.

Can you point me to the post where you provide reasons for why we ought to take a step back? — Leontiskos

My first post was to get at why “rational/irrational” gets in the way, and to suggest a way around that, but I think I did such a poor job of it, not expecting confusion in the right places, that I think it better to just see what I am doing in, participate in the method of, the example and maybe hold off of on the larger philosophical issues; or we could just read every discussion you and I have ever brought up. ;)

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

Yes. Instead of talking about something, we end up talking about how to talk. — Fire Ologist

So maybe it’s just better to pin this and take a look at my post above as an example of the method.

We never conclude something together. — Fire Ologist

Always a risk/possibility, and this creates the desire to agree beforehand on/use, terms that will ensure we agree (or be judged irrational, etc.), say, “logic” or whatever. Also, I did say, even if we end up disagreeing, we can at least have a better, more explicit understanding of the terrain (learn something about our society).

It’s all back-office paperwork. — Fire Ologist

Ouch, philosophy is doomed.

I think it’s unconscious. — Fire Ologist

Not unconscious, unexamined, yet to be reflected on, taken from implicit never-think-about, to made explicit, drawn out in assumptions, implications, distinctions, etc. Who actually thinks about what makes an accident different than a mistake? (@Banno)

In this thread Antony Nickles has been saying something like, "Before we argue, let's talk about our interests": — Leontiskos

3. The interests are our skin in the game of achieving the goal, not in carrying out the criteria. Criteria do not care how you feel, they care about what you want to achieve. — AmadeusD

I would suggest perhaps we look at, engage in, the process I am suggesting, using the example, because I’m not sure I can (possibly) clear this up abstractly. I am not suggesting an argument about interests (first), but an investigation to uncover them, in our society, in a particular practice, so this is also not our interests (the ones arguing) but a look at, investigate, make explicit, our shared (current) criteria which encapsulate/reflect, not justify, our society’s interests in those criteria—not that they are the (rational/irrational) arguments for the criteria or for making a particular decision based on them.

The problem with this idea is that human action is always goal-directed. — Leontiskos

This is a whole ‘nother can of worms, but, in what I would call a moral moment, call it a crisis of criteria, we don’t know what to do, so this is perhaps jumping to a conclusion and then arguing to justify it, or, worse, arguing about how we justify it. I am merely suggesting a philosophical practice.

Presumably he wants to take a step back because he thinks it is a good idea to do so, and therefore his argument must communicate to others why it is a good idea to do so — Leontiskos

I have tried to explain this, make an argument for it; maybe the desire for a specific kind of answer is getting in the way? In any event, I don’t have a compelling reason to make you do it, as it is voluntary, as is continuing despite an inclination to stop (move to decide we cannot agree), as is the acceptance of the description of the criteria. Perhaps if we try, this might be easier to understand.

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

This is to start a separate thread than the boardroom example above (of method) to address any philosophical clarifications separately.

The means to see what the possibly unexamined interests are is to articulate the goals while we lay out the criteria these goals are articulated in/with.. — Fire Ologist

I would hope this is clearer given the example, but I am suggesting looking at the existing and proposed criteria used in a particular situation (not, criteria for an abstract goal), which will take some work to flesh out (not being clear as in, even uncovered yet, much less drawn out in terms of how they work, i.e., considerations, implications, distinctions, etc.), and then we can try to imagine what the various interests might be, in seeing how those current and proposed criteria reflect what matters to each.

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).

Including one more thing

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

We need a situation obviously. I’ll just throw out there what @AmadeusD and I started on, which was basically, say, adding people to a board. If criteria are different based on more details, we can add those to see necessary distinctions.

Now I’m going to brainstorm here, provisionally, so we can all help: what would be the prevailing criteria? history of leadership, subject-matter or practical experience, the ability to contribute to the board's goals (say, fundraising, lobbying), connections (political, celebrity). We may need to elaborate how judgments are made on those criteria with examples, etc., but I would think we could say (agree) the interests in those criteria are something like: having a board with decision and debate skills, knowledge, but also prominence in the community (“powerful”, influential); though, as @Fire Ologist says, take a cut at it.

Now if we are adding “lived experience” to that list (or diversity or equity, which we can shift to (not all at once), but I would be even more useless at fleshing those out easily), we might first have to ask what this is? I would think, broadly and most simply, the criteria to judge if someone has it (again, any help here): would seem to be a person having lived through something. But, in that we have all lived through something, it begs the question: lived what? “Experience” as a criteria is already being considered, so, what’s the difference? Time spent working yes, but also maybe advocating for the same issues as the board, and, perhaps, just, other things we “do” or have accomplished (and practical skills). But, if we consider it as just having passively lived through something, it might look like: having navigated a process the board is working on, or having been part of the population the board is trying to help, say, as a better AA sponser is one who is an alcoholic that is sober (is that a skill?). Other examples? (And here I am not asking to be given examples of woke arguments.)

As I said in a post above, it may have something to do with only certain types of situations (maybe it doesn’t always help), such as a board involved with constructing policies that would change things that affect how people live, and so, valuing having people that are connected with the lives they are trying to change. Maybe, apart from any particular board, prioritizing one person over another just because of what they have been through, or are part of (a community), may be similar (in some way) to the existing criteria of “having connections” (here I imagine the cynical inclusion of someone just because they are a “celebrity” in the sense of a token). But it might be like carpentry, which you can’t just tell someone how to do (sorry DIYers), so it is learned through apprenticeship. Or like an expert as a valued source of evidence; say, an attorney who gives advice, factors to consider, like risk (but not based on something as concrete as the law). I had also mentioned earlier that if you are on vacation looking for something to eat, you ask a local (they “know” their way about). Maybe we could say we would not be valuing, say, their knowledge or skill in making any decision, but perhaps something like their perspective (though I cringe, as the word seems lazy; I mean I might as well say wisdom for all the good that does), but, then, what is it about their perspective? or their ability to have perspective?

I’ll leave it there for now, but I hope I’ve demonstrated the process I’m suggesting. I don’t know anything about boards or “lived experience”, so go easy. What I would hope for next is for us to add to the criteria, fill in examples, draw out distinctions, etc., and then we can see if we’ve gotten anywhere, rather than jumping straight to fighting (or just carping) about what I’ve put out there, which is, basically, conjecture. If things need clarifying, counterexamples, go ahead; if it’s broke, fix it—I suggest first trying to get at a good overall sight of all the grounds (get it).

Mulligan

Obviously I am failing utterly to make myself understood so I would suggest that yes, we should discuss the philosophy as a side note. I would reply to all of the above but I think we just move to the meat as you say. I’ll just say I am talking about fleshing out an example, not about an examination of what is at stake for you and me, or our criteria for judging an (this) argument, or an argument about posited interests, or how to assert them. Whew. Gimme a minute.

@Fire Ologist

I was working on sketching out a situation: criteria for appointment to a board, but I will concede if there is a more interesting example. I am not an expert in these things.

@Leontiskos @Fire Ologist

This seems to rely on your underlying supposition that we(anyone making the noises we're making) don't understand enough to pass judgement. — AmadeusD

I worded this wrong obviously, as I conceded to Leontiskos; of course we can pass judgment at any point, and we must at some point. Also, I am not trying to undermine any assertions or judgments in particular (I am not arguing). I am merely suggesting that it might be helpful to look at what is at stake, how that is to be judged compared to now, etc. Not to judge the criteria (first) but as a means to see what the possibly unexamined interests are. Yes! that may have already been done! Although my (one) argument would be our society (not of course anyone here) jumps to judgment most of the time, and I only started because I thought I saw the argument framed as rational—emotional (a version of “objective”—“subjective”) which is one thing that gets in the way, philosophically, of getting at the criteria for the case at hand, thus the interests in it.

For any discussion of this kind, we need to establish what goals are on the table — AmadeusD

This would be traditional philosophy’s framing of a moral discussion as an argument over what “ought” to be done, or the justification for that, or principals, etc. I am suggesting a different discussion where we are talking about how to move forward in a situation where no one has more authority to what is right. I am suggesting that we may not see beforehand what the criteria are that we use in that scenario, and what new or different criteria would look like, as a method, a way in, to see what our interests are (as they are captured in our criteria for each thing).

I appreciate your time in responding; this got a little, philosophically, muddled. If you want, I clarified things more (I hope) in response to Fire and Leontiskos directly above. We worked a bit above on a situation that relies on “lived experience”, but I think I will give something else a chance (in response to Fire) since we didn’t seem to be getting anywhere. Thank you for your efforts and consideration.

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

a category is less than, smaller than, any single individual we might put in that box. — Fire Ologist

That was a lot of argument based on principals (like the above), which I get, but is not what I was thinking of (nor trading reasons why/or why not “only those in power can be racist.”). We need a situation where the claim is, in a sense: what are we going to value and how do we do it? And then I am suggesting, before argument, we try to figure out what interest there could be in changing and in how (to judge differently). I’m not sure what the situation is where the above comes up (I think an example always helps, even if manufactured at first), and I also don’t understand the current criteria that are used to judge a person as a unique individual, and what the judgment would be for (Sometimes I don’t want someone unique, I just want a soldier.)

Forgot something

@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.

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.

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”.

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…

@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.

@Number2018 @Leontiskos @Joshs @Count Timothy von Icarus

Sounds like you are saying fruitful discussion needs to first level set the playing field. Bring all the assumptions to the surface. Or that there is a pre-discussion about “unknown interests and different criteria” and “the terms on which to take it.”… Is that something like what you mean? — Fire Ologist

Yes, thank you. Wittgenstein will talk about investigating our criteria for judgment to get at our “real need” (PI #108), our underlying interests. This can look like destruction, as Nietzsche’s work is taken, of “all that is great and important… As it were all the buildings, leaving behind only bits of stone and rubble.… we are clearing up the ground of language on which they stand. (PI #108 my emphasis)—Note: here he is looking at language, as it encapsulates our criteria, as a method (OLP) of seeing those interests—I take this as “level set[ting] the playing field”, to get at the actual stones and rubble of the situation before deciding what to do.

That sounds right, but would also require good-faith. — Fire Ologist

Yes, tough ask. All I can say is I am claiming that is our job, as philosophers, as citizens, is to bring about Plato’s city of words, to work to make the concerns of others and those of our existing culture intelligible, explicit. The gist of all this for me may be: we do not decide what rational discourse is, we create it, make it happen.

We have to assume good-will in a person even like Trump — Fire Ologist

Just to say again, I am not saying we are judging people, nor “judging” their expressions. I am suggesting we do not yet (have not done the work to) understand the grounds on which to have a discussion. That is to say, we have to give the claims of the other the good-will of a person whose expressions reflect what matters to them (and in this sense, rational, for reasons). Our first impression is to skip to judging what we assume those are without, as I have said, making the strongest case for what those interests could be. And, as you say, a politician is representative of our society, our culture, and so it is even more important to look past (judging) the individual, and also a different opportunity to draw out our culture’s terms of judgment and interests.

isn't it simply an equivocation to say that ignoring X and being asleep to X are the same thing? — Leontiskos

Yes it would be (a little sloppy of me). I think the distinction is that our culture may not be taking into consideration other interests (asleep to them), but “ignoring” them is part of how we address them, treating them as irrational, emotional, etc. without drawing them out, getting a clear picture of the grounds before judging them.

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

I get you, but I take it as the gig, as a philosopher. There is other work to do: political discussion, discussion of facts, policy decisions, etc. And, again, I would shift it to taking the claim as if it were made by a human whose serious interests we might not yet understand.

I think that if you try to develop these ideas you will find that they break down rather quickly. — Leontiskos

Well, I’m not the best person to create examples (which I would take corrections to, or others), but I stand by the validity of the philosophy.

Specifically, you think that to judge someone to be a racist is to misunderstand, failing recognizing that one is complicit in the systemic structures that caused their racism. — Leontiskos

I’m suggesting setting aside judging whether a person is racist (on any terms) in lieu of unearthing the interests and terms of our language and culture and our relationship to them and our responsibility for them.

Woke doesn’t clarify what their virtues are... End of discussion. Before any discussion starts. — Fire Ologist

And I am admonishing that clarifying the underlying interests is a process that is being skipped and is possible.

That is the problem with wokeism to me - its inability and unwillingness to debate and address reasonable challenge. ( — Fire Ologist

I am pointing out we start arguing what to do before we understand what is at stake.

The question is not whether we can but whether we should — Leontiskos

And that is a legitimate question. If I can take it down a notch, what I am trying to address is the judgment I’ve seen that these moral claims are irrational, emotional, personal, etc. to point out that it is possible to get at the so far unexamined interests and different criteria, apart from judging the means or even judging what we are told on its face (on our terms, or, abstractly), as we do not yet understand the terms on which to take it.

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

Sure, but do you generally repudiate people who are sleeping or who are unaware? — Leontiskos

First, denial and refusal are obviously not the first steps I am advocating for. But, as I say above (hopefully better) there is a part of a moral claim that is structurally about acceptance or denial; if we have a person in pain, we don’t reach a point we “know” their pain, but we look past judging their pain to see them as having serious needs and concerns (or reject them). Wittgenstein calls this seeing an aspect, accepting them as a person in pain (or we ignore it—are asleep to those deeper concerns).

This is going to sound strange, as I’ve just said we need to see someone “as a person” in developing their terms of importance, but I also don’t think this is about judging individuals, just accepting or rejecting them. What I am talking about is humanizing (as in respecting)the claim as if it is made by a serious person. So that is confusing, but really what we are talking about are the integrated terms and judgments of our culture, as the criteria we have for our practices codify our society’s interests. This is why judging someone as a racist is to philosophically misunderstand that we share a language and culture; are complicit in its interests and judgments (comprised of it and so compromised by it), and, yes, in that way, responsible for it, but this is structural, not personal, perhaps the point of seeing it as “institutionalized”.

I think the problem is that the interests and needs of young trans people was created by woke culture. — frank

And then what are the interests of trans youth? What are our parental interests in them? Support appears to be a need; what that is to look like may be, as you say, a matter of knowledge (which is a different debate than an investigation of the judgments society historically made and what interests they overlooked).

I don’t have answers to your questions, but I would agree that cultural reassessment comes with costs, as does the time before it.

Do you think of support for trans youths as something that was previously overlooked? — frank

I’m not sure anyone imagined trans as anything but a funny preference adult men had (Bossom Buddies?), and that it had something to do with wearing women’s clothes and padding a bra, so I’d say no, the interests and needs of young trans wasn’t in the cultural awareness

How is all of that unaware and asleep, at least how is that any more unaware than thewoke” person who thinks America will always be here for the immigrants of the world seeking to better their lives. — Fire Ologist

But this is different in that we have a known issue, a clear view of the interests, and are just debating what to do. And yes, we do need to also conduct such a discussion ethically as I have suggested, but I don’t take the description to be about your reasoning, as if you are unaware as in uninformed. I think it is just a different kind of moral issue when our culture is overlooking something, like we wouldn’t recognize it (not even have the opportunity to be interested in it) analogous to when we don’t have the words (nobody in California cares whether rain is spitting, misting, pouring, sheeting, dumping, etc.—just: it’s raining! as in, not a drought).

@Number2018 @NOS4A2

So if the wokist is an activist, then their activity is not aimed at rational persuasion. What follows is that to try to agree or disagree with an activist is a category error. — Leontiskos

I knew this was going to get sticky. I am not arguing for activism as a means of persuasion, nor am I even arguing that activists deserve a discussion; only that, despite all that, we can make their interests intelligible (before agreeing/disagreeing to them), even if only by imagining them (as, analogously, we can read people)—as we might with someone blowing up beer cans. To claim we cannot—to judge the other as “irrational” or otherwise dismiss intelligibility—is, categorically, a decision we make, rather than an impossibility (as with lions, which I get into here).

The repudiatory nature of wokeness is inconsistent with the metaphor of waking from slumber. — Leontiskos

Again, without having any actual knowledge of what “woke” is, couldn’t our current culture—our interests in the judgments we share, what matters, even what is rational—be asleep, as in unaware, of the world as it is, the overlooked importance of others’ interests, say, other’s pain, as with Wittgenstein’s recognizing an aspect of something (or not, being blind to it; in one way, because we want them to meet our criteria, to “know” their pain, PI p. 223).

Descartes will ask if we can be aware that we are dreaming in much the same way we recognize others as not automatons (in just seeing hats and coats moving past a window). “We judge that they are [people].” 1st Med. p. 8 (my emphasis). It takes an effort to see someone as a person, as someone different than me, perhaps with competing interests, different measures of importance. In being asleep, perhaps we are not making that effort, perhaps in only looking for, or considering as valid criteria, hats and coats.

Or maybe we are lulled into sleep, staring at Plato’s shadows, trapped in Rousseau’s chains, not seeing Thoreau’s dawn because it is midday. If we are to wake, or judge that we are awake, we would have to become aware of what we had overlooked, say, that black people were being killed by police for reasons claimed to be unexamined, not yet deemed to matter. We may need to reconsider our criteria for judgment, say, of how we value (evaluate) people (though I’m sure someone else could come up with better examples).

Philosophically this first looks like turning back, reflecting on our current criteria that have been unexamined, fallen into presumption; to “remember” them Plato says; draw them out explicitly, their assumptions, implications, etc. I would think it’s not hard to accept that, at times, we have not, and need to, question our culture, our slumbering conformity to it, to give it life and incorporate new situations, overlooked concerns, say, the interests of “strange people” as Wittgenstein says, which I discussed is possible here and here.

@Joshs @Leontiskos @Fire Ologist @Number2018

I would never dismiss anyone’s beliefs and concerns so long as he was talking about them. But activism is not conversation. It is anti-social, ill mannered, and unethical behavior, in my view, no matter the intent, no matter the politics. I would likely dismiss it and ignore it. — NOS4A2

This is going to be tricky so grant me some leeway (if I haven’t asked enough for philosophers not to jump to judgment). I’ll caveat that no one wants discourse to break down into, say, worst case, violence, and this also will not be a justification of what I’ll just call poor manners. However, to take the extreme example, although violence is unintelligible on its face, we can—only in that it is possible to—discover interests that we may not recognize as our culture stands (even if we have to imagine those for others). Just to say that seeing what is important to the other may not be given to us, handed to us on our terms. We may not first understand how to see their interests, but that does not preclude us methodologically, epistemically.