On the Possibilities and Limits of Affective Reason: Thinking and Thoughtlessness in the Work of Hannah Arendt
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A number of recent critical accounts of liberal democratic theory have bemoaned its privileging of rationality and its accompanying inattention to the place of emotion and passion, of affect and sensibility, in political life. These critics join in a call for democratic theory to bring affect and sensibility in to an arena from which, they argue, they have been problematically absent. While these calls to recognize the affective dimensions of political life are urgent and welcome, they are also complicit in maintaining the ontological and practical separation of reason from passion that was a hallmark of modern thought. To insist on reconnecting passion with reason is to affirm their fundamental separateness. This insistence distorts our experiences of politics, in which affect and reason are frequently intertwined to the point of being practically indistinguishable. In this paper I illustrate one such intertwinement of affect and reason through a critical engagement with Hannah Arendt’s conceptions of thoughtlessness and thinking. While we commonly associate thinking with reason, for Arendt, thoughtlessness and thinking are intimately connected with reason and affect. For her, thinking is inseparable from affect. Indeed, we might call Arendtian thinking a kind of affective reason. I illuminate these conceptions through the lens of human suffering, a problem which should have special resonance for democratic theory. Democracy entails the rule of and by “the people.” While the ontological status of “the people” has been hotly debated, that debate has generally neglected the question of what kinds of shared experiences might form the basis of democratic citizens’ individual and collective sense of themselves as belonging to “a people.” Our acknowledgment of implication in human suffering - an acknowledgment that is attainable through Arendtian thinking - might constitute one set of such experiences. Such implication frequently does not stop at national borders. Accordingly, Arendtian thinking might provide a compelling basis for not just national, but global, experiences of democracy. Moreover, as we will see, for Arendt thinking is intimately associated with storytelling - an aesthetic practice that is also deeply connected to our affective experiences.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.123 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".