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
For any discussion of this kind, we need to establish what goals are on the table — AmadeusD
a category is less than, smaller than, any single individual we might put in that box. — Fire Ologist
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 think in the end you will find that we have different interests. — Fire Ologist
I don't think anyone judges something without understanding it at all. — Leontiskos
it does not further the rational discussion to simply call into question their understanding without providing any argument for why. — Leontiskos
But isn't it coercive to tell me what my goal is? — Leontiskos
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
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
[Valuing one person over another] is a lot worse, and less capable of a rational basis in my view. — AmadeusD
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
How would you want to start this reassessment [of vaccination]? — frank
It seems that a fundamental disagreement here is over the question of whether humans are capable of bad ideas. — Leontiskos
To say that someone is skipping something is to imply that they should do it. — Leontiskos
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
when you think of someone who is "woke" you are thinking of someone who is rational but misunderstood. — Leontiskos
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
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
everyone who judges something understands it (to one extent or another). — Leontiskos
Why do you assume that those who judge the woke do not understand them? — Leontiskos
So I must pose the question: …you think that your own understanding is sufficient for that judgment. — Leontiskos
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
How will we know when our understanding is sufficient for judgment? — Leontiskos
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
That sounds right, but would also require good-faith. — Fire Ologist
We have to assume good-will in a person even like Trump — Fire Ologist
isn't it simply an equivocation to say that ignoring X and being asleep to X are the same thing? — Leontiskos
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 think that if you try to develop these ideas you will find that they break down rather quickly. — Leontiskos
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
Woke doesn’t clarify what their virtues are... End of discussion. Before any discussion starts. — Fire Ologist
That is the problem with wokeism to me - its inability and unwillingness to debate and address reasonable challenge. ( — Fire Ologist
The question is not whether we can but whether we should — Leontiskos
Sure, but do you generally repudiate people who are sleeping or who are unaware? — Leontiskos
I think the problem is that the interests and needs of young trans people was created by woke culture. — frank
Do you think of support for trans youths as something that was previously overlooked? — frank
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
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
The repudiatory nature of wokeness is inconsistent with the metaphor of waking from slumber. — Leontiskos
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
But then there is also the disparagement of custom that is so obvious in thinkers like J.S. Mill, which has become almost a heroic virtue in contemporary society. It's a sort of trope of modern hero narratives that the heroic protagonist has no time for custom and "paves their own way." — Count Timothy von Icarus
I want to say that the precursor is the undervaluation of the conservative instinct, or the status quo, or tradition (or whatever else one wants to call it). — Leontiskos
I do not (almost ever) see rejections of calls for parity, equity, inclusion etc.. on emotional grounds. I see the reverse constantly, in the face of rational argumentation. — AmadeusD
There is no way to value an opinion over another outside of actual expertise, as you then go on to outline. A "legal opinion" is not a personal opinion. — AmadeusD
It is almost entirely impossible to give a reasonable, helpful account of something one lived through — AmadeusD
which are routinely not taken seriously on expressly moral grounds. Again, i'm not saying anything moral about the two possible outcomes, but I'm trying to show that most 'moral' positions cannot be made to be sensible to others who don't intuitively get the point of the moral claim being made. — AmadeusD
The former concept (i.e policy considerations, or instantiating social norms) doesn't seem to accept this type of assessment without falling into totally irrational nonsense in fairly short-order. — AmadeusD
The legitimate concerns underlying the urges of woke political correctness will need to be addressed if any real cultural progress is to become of these urges, but the manner by which the proponents of wokeness have been trying to cause progress has allowed their passions and emotions to over-power rational assessments and discussions. — Fire Ologist
The point is that I am not sure if philosophy matters a great deal in this struggle. It is political more than philosophical, and a matter of mobilization and counter-mobilization of resources of power. — Tobias
[Irrationality is] the inability to legitimize one's moral positions to others. — AmadeusD
We do not accept that 'lived experience' is a good metric for an accurate appraisal of anything — AmadeusD
"valuing" opinions is insane, on a policy level, unless we're talking expertise. Life Experience is not expertise, in any sense, to my mind. Maybe there's a disconnect there. — AmadeusD
Morality can be rational, but there is absolutely no non-telelogical way to make it 'legitimate' — AmadeusD
If you then say "lived experience is the only true source of information one can rely on" — AmadeusD
intersubjective norms of rational discourse yield to the immediacy of subjective experience — Number2018
it is likely that her testimony derived its power from the emotional credibility and perceived sincerity with which it was delivered. Despite the absence of physical evidence or eyewitness corroboration, her visible fear, trembling voice, and hesitant speech were interpreted by many as signs of epistemic and moral authority — Number2018
To be clear, I do not question the sincerity of Dr. Ford’s account or the possible significance of her experience. — Number2018
Consequently, efforts to critically assess or scrutinize Ford’s claims were often interpreted as acts of misogyny or trauma denial. — Number2018
I do not attempt to re-inscribe a metaphysical binary between reason and emotion — Number2018
emotional experience and perceived marginality are not retained within rigorous ontological framing. — Number2018
What we are witnessing today is not the philosophical deconstruction of rationalism, but a normative inversion in the public sphere. — Number2018
escape the dominant power formations. — Number2018
this doctrine of knowledge that literally pushed [Foucault] towards the discovery of a new domain, which would become that of power. — Number2018
legitimacy, moral authority, and social control now flow through different channels. — Number2018
practice is subordinated to representation — Number2018
reconfiguration of power through identity — Number2018
expressions of marginalization have begun to function as sufficient sources of epistemic and moral authority. — Number2018
they assert themselves as affective self-reference of truth and moral authority, becoming resistant to questioning, nuance, or deliberate reflection. — Number2018
establishing a cultural norm where a testimony of harm received moral and epistemic authority… the status of the primary epistemic standard. — Number2018
moral claims based solely on feeling hurt or offended. — Number2018
this phenomenon likely calls for a deeper philosophical framework to better understand the contemporary affective landscape. — Number2018
There is an epistemic shift in the grounds of justification, so that the conventional norms of rational discourse yield to the immediacy of subjective experience. — Number2018
irreversible transformation of the autonomous, rational subject of liberalism into a digitized, emotive, and aestheticized form of subjectivity. — Number2018
So, emotional authenticity has been elevated to the status of epistemic foundation of identity politics and online discourse. — Number2018
struggle between oppressing and oppressed groups — Number2018
prioritizing a collective identity over personal freedom. — Number2018
In the case of wokeness, the issue is not one of disagreement or misunderstanding. Rather, it lies in the complete blurring of boundaries between the authenticity of identity performance and the sincerity of moral expression — Number2018
contemporary moral discourse has undergone a dramatic transformation. — Number2018
The imperative to understand others ‘from the inside’ and to take their experience seriously on their own terms often becomes an impossible undertaking. — Number2018
How can one distinguish between authentic expressions of suffering and their strategic imitation? We are often caught between the necessity of listening and the danger of being manipulated. — Number2018
In the context of this thread, wokeness often transforms vulnerability into a source of ultimate moral authority. — Number2018
an emotional expression and personal experience increasingly substitute for rational deliberation and shared ethical frameworks. — Number2018
if people were given the chance to do things society and general are considered "bad" or "evil" with no one ever finding out, and with zero chance of anyone suspecting them, most would likely take it(correct me if i am wrong) — QuirkyZen
Does that make them a bad person? — QuirkyZen
If we agree to set aside the idea of a legitimate Absolute Conception, how are we going to characterize what an alleged Absolute Conception is saying? Isn't the AC itself now revealed as an error? Is there a way to describe it, more mildly, as merely another "incomplete" view? — J
[Local predispositions] are incomplete, and perhaps dependent on a framework that can't be made part of an absolute conception. But this isn't the sort of "error" that Williams believes an Absolute Conception needs a theory to explain. That error would be the one that claims to be "a rival view" to the Absolute Conception itself. — J
I'm not sure whether an Absolute Conception that unifies and explains all knowledge would also need to demonstrate itself to be certain. And that's part of Williams' question -- does such a conception have to know that it is correct? He calls that "going too far." — J
within any practice that is deeper and more complicated than, for instance, "what constitutes a correct and sufficient apology or excuse," there is likely going to be debate about framework and criteria that is difficult to resolve — J
His point is that you don't even get to practices without certain understandings about basic background stuff. — J
For Williams' purposes -- and, he suggests, for Descartes' -- an absolute conception would allow us to make sense of, to explain in a unified way, "local" things like secondary qualities, social practices, and disagreements within philosophy. — J
[The absolute conception] should be able to overcome relativism in our view of reality through having a view of the world (or at least the coherent conception of such a view) which contains a theory of error: — Williams, 301
What is the difference in kind that you see? — J
the assumption is that philosophy's criteria for how to [talk about (say, scientific) criteria] are not on the table. But when the inquiry turns inward, we don't have the luxury of bumping any questions of judgment or method to some off-the-table level. — J