I’m not sure what you’re getting at here.

I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. — Brett

This:

Maybe not decline so much as under assault. — Brett

Assult from who? Females?

I just don’t think he’s portraying males in some sort of decline. But if you can give me some evidence I don’t mind considering it.

I just don’t think he’s portraying males in some sort of decline. But if you can give me some evidence I don’t mind considering it. — Brett

I haven't really read much of Peterson, so I digress. But, here's a video that can elucidate the issue:

I watched that to see your evidence of decline. None. Why waste my time.

Allows I watched that to see your evidence of decline. None. Why waste my time. — Brett

He specifically mentions the opposite effect of imposing egalitarian laws or policies towards an equal outcome in the Scandinavian countries, which can be used as an argument towards saying that the status quo is fine. As I said, I'm no expert on Peterson; but, I believe he portrays the psychological issues that men experience, as being exacerbated by denying them gender roles where they would be happy and productive.

It's no secret that Peterson portrays males in some sort of decline with respect to their engendered archetypes of the past not self realizing.[/quote

Okay. So we’ve moved away from this idea, then. — Wallows

I guess it was a poorly made comment. Apologies.

:up:

You might find this interesting:

Yes, you’re right. But the feminist ethics Wallows refers to, “the feminine voice places more emphasis on protecting interpersonal relationships and taking care of other people. This voice focuses on the "care perspective,"[11] which means focusing on the needs of the individual in order to make an ethical decision. — Brett

There does seem to be a leaning towards this as a solution, or correction, to our developing problems. Personally I don’t agree with it. Though it’s not difficult to imagine that the masculine voice, logical and individualistic",[10] meaning that the emphasis in moral decisions is protecting the rights of people and making sure justice is upheld, has dominated in a negative way and resulted in inflexible institutions and laws.[/quote]

I think a lot of this may come down to difficulties in approaching a shared meaning - although I’ll admit that I have only a cursory knowledge of feminist ethics, care or relational ethics, etc. It certainly wasn’t a topic I had explored in developing my own philosophy. So this is only my initial impression of it, at a glance.

The ‘care’ perspective, as I see it, is portrayed in a way that leans towards only one of two general definitions of ‘care’: “the provision of what is necessary for the health, welfare, maintenance, and protection of someone or something”, which would position ‘care’ in opposition to the more traditional ‘justice perspective’ of ethics in many respects. A second general definition of ‘care’ - “serious attention or consideration applied to doing something correctly or to avoid damage or risk” - enables a focus on ‘care’ to be inclusive and even critical of traditional ethics, without positioning the care/justice perspectives at odds. It’s a definition that I would personally lean towards more in relating an ethics of care to mainstream or traditional ethics (being more aligned to my own philosophy), but I will probably need to read more to comment at a deeper level.

So, this is a troublesome issue. As far as I know most virtue ethicists such as Noddings or Gilligan have no imperative for their voice to be heard over that of males. In fact, I suppose that such a thing would be detrimental to their cause. — Wallows

I don’t agree with this interpretation, but I’m far from being knowledgeable on the topic. From the Wikipedia entry: “Feminist ethicists believe there is an obligation for women's differing points of view to be heard and then to fashion an inclusive consensus view from them.” Whether this is what they’re achieving, I can’t be sure at this stage - from your interpretation of Noddings and Gilligan, I would say they’re not.

Whether this is what they’re achieving, I can’t be sure at this stage - from your interpretation of Noddings and Gilligan, I would say they’re not. — Possibility

I'm only familiar with Noddings to a larger extent and her emphasis on education. In her, Education and Happiness, she often takes the presupposition of a liberal education to be inclusive and open to all, a very egalitarian presumption. Lock's tabula rasa is a central theme for feminists, do you think so?

The Future of Philosophy

Where do you see the field of philosophy headed towards? — Wallows

We might consider the distinction between what the future holds for the 'field of philosophy' in academic settings and how the general population might derive benefit from it.
This includes thinking of the function and aims of philosophy; theoretical and practical.

I haven't looked closely at this before but others have. A few sources I quickly scanned through and don't have time to discuss right now:

https://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Cont/ContJung.htm

http://dailynous.com/2015/03/26/the-distant-future-of-philosophy/

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-33717-3_5

I'm only familiar with Noddings to a larger extent and her emphasis on education. In her, Education and Happiness, she often takes the presupposition of a liberal education to be inclusive and open to all, a very egalitarian presumption. Lock's tabula rasa is a central theme for feminists, do you think so? — Wallows

Not sure how you’re correlating Locke’s tabula rasa with a liberal education, or with feminism as such.

I got the impression that the focus of Nodding’s relational ethics approach to education was about the relationship between the teacher and student, with the aim to develop the ‘whole child’. I would think Roosevelt’s ‘People don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care’ is more appropriate. I would agree with this, but I’m dubious of her reference to ‘happiness’ in the book title: the idea that an aim of education is ‘happiness’ sets an unreasonable expectation for teachers and schools, in my opinion. But I think I see where she might be coming from:

“We will not find the solution to problems of violence, alienation, ignorance, and unhappiness in increasing our security, imposing more tests, punishing schools for their failure to produce 100 percent proficiency, or demanding that teachers be knowledgeable in the subjects they teach. Instead, we must allow teachers and students to interact as whole persons, and we must develop policies that treat the school as a whole community.”

This preference of Nodding is certainly a focus of the private school my own children attend, and largely endorsed by my teacher husband (except for the knowledgeability of teachers - but he does teach maths).

We might consider the distinction between what the future holds for the 'field of philosophy' in academic settings and how the general population might derive benefit from it. — Amity

As far as I'm aware, analytic philosophy bears no fruits to the hoi polloi, contrary to the first link you provided, and that in-of-itself is a huge issue for academic philosophy nowadays.

This includes thinking of the function and aims of philosophy; theoretical and practical. — Amity

Yeah, the issue is nuanced. [Personal opinion] I believe that philosophy will encounter a revival as technology leads to saturations in productivity increases, meaning that eventually at some point down the road people will become redundant in many fields that will be taken care of by ever more intelligent machines. Now, I do know that when this will happen is contested; but, when, and not if, this happens will be when philosophy becomes the sort of work that people won't even consider work again. [/Personal opinion]

Not sure how you’re correlating Locke’s tabula rasa with a liberal education, or with feminism as such. — Possibility

Yeah, I suppose I will omit that part. But, I think Lock's conception of a clean slate is implied that education is a driving force to the attainment of happiness. This is where Noddings talks about aims talk and more holistic education that will suit not only the market or economy but the individual too. Rorty comes to my mind when talking about aims talk in his highlighting of the difference that children face when undergoing individualization and socialization. Noddings seems to even go further and talk about the criteria by which we evaluate performance, or even do away with it.

I got the impression that the focus of Nodding’s relational ethics approach to education was about the relationship between the teacher and student, with the aim to develop the ‘whole child’. — Possibility

Yes, and this is where she differs from other feminist thinkers, as far as I'm aware. Her version of collectivism imposes an undue burden on the already aggravated teacher and empathy depleted teacher to care for her or his students more than required. But, of course, I suppose, that once we do away with grades, and evaluations of performance, that the role of the teacher fundamentally is different than what we see nowadays.

people will seek out self-help and personal development in the guise of a mixture of philosophy and psychology. — Wallows

Yes. And not only that. Personal development comes in all shapes and sizes.
Just posted through my door: HF Holidays brochure with Special Interest breaks.
Get the grey matter working...let creative juices flow...learn and improve skills.
Includes exploring nature, mind and body, music, dance, art, bridge...

Mind and body: tai chi and walking, pilates, yoga and walking.

Of philosophy itself barely a mention...apart from 'Words by the Water' - a glittering line up of thinkers, writers and commentators share ideas on history, philosophy, politics and comedy.

And yet, if philosophers were keen to promote their subject, why could it not be an exciting part of a European Discovery tour ? Italy would be the place I would start.
Food for Thought - the Spaghetti Monster a speciality :cool:

Buon appetito !

I do think it is interesting to see how women are expressing themselves in society in various areas.

I think the most noted point for me is in the arts and how this seems to reflect the exploration of ‘coming of age’ - the same thing interests me in regards to men too (whose ‘passage of rites’ into maturity is also being re-realised in some ways).

Given past reproductive trends it seems to me greater freedoms across the board (for men and women) have revealed men’s loss of ‘coming of age’ alongside extended juvenile periods - for both sexes - and new, or more intricate, stages in overall maturity (psychological maturity). Women’s changes are quite explicit in biological terms and the ‘arrival’ of aging makes itself felt more readily than for men. That said one loss or gain (or, as I’m suggesting, extension) may show us what has remained hidden.

Anyway, just riffing. Interested to hear your thoughts on these loose ideas.

Thanks

Addressing the OP more specifically, I think the future of philosophy at the academic level will be towards greater polarization, with departments dividing along ideological lines. I see no reason to think academia will be immune from the same political direction as society in general. The comments here assume a continued leftward march (overturning the vestiges of patriarchy, proclaiming capitalism harmful), yet I expect backlash from what we wish to assume are neutral fact finding bodies. I expect there will be CNN universities and FoxNews universities (so to speak), or departments at least. I, for one, think that'd be a good thing. I think truth derives only through a truly adversarial process. Seeking intellectual agreement is the path to stupidity.

I think the most noted point for me is in the arts and how this seems to reflect the exploration of ‘coming of age’ - the same thing interests me in regards to men too (whose ‘passage of rites’ into maturity is also being re-realised in some ways). — I like sushi

What do you mean by "coming of age" and "psychological maturity"?

Addressing the OP more specifically, I think the future of philosophy at the academic level will be towards greater polarization, with departments dividing along ideological lines. — Hanover

What makes you think that the already status quo in the field of philosophy is enriched or saturated with already liberal thinkers will allow this to happen?

I mean there are fewer and fewer ‘passage of rites’ in modern western societies - other than religious remnants. These generally used to coincide with immature people being given a sense of responsibility alongside physiological changes.

For girls their bodies tell them when they’re ‘women’, and for men this is less obvious. Even so. I’d say for both sexes such transitions have become more and more severed from the public eye. Today there is graduation and such events, but there doesn’t seem to be an institutional force behind them that emphasizes these changes.

The ‘rituals’ today (leaving home or finishing school) are either actively avoided or given no psychological significance in communities at large. Graduation is ‘celebrated’ but there doesn’t appear to be any thought about this ceremony as ‘preparation’ for struggles to come. It is almost treated as an ‘achievement’ above all else with no regard for sacrifice.

It is as if society has instilled the idea that fighting with foam swords is some kind of passage into psychological maturity. I think women are certainly playing with breaking open their potential right now - it’s a great thing. There are dangers and their should be. What bothers me is men have fallen back and resisted danger due to this to some extent. The juvenile period has been extended a huge amount which certainly plays into women's hands more than men’s because men lack urgency and did to be driven by a sense of urgency, whilst women are naturally inclined to a sense of urgency so extended juvenile periods leads to women being in a situation where they can mature more thoroughly.

By the social extension of juvenile periods - a recent occurrence in terms of human history - older rites have fallen away and nothing new has been developed to replace this yet. My thinking is that due to huge shifts in human society hidden ‘transitions’ (buried by necessity of survival) have been given light to flourish in. We’re still trying to figure out what aesthetic appeals to this ‘passage of rites’ as it’s immature itself.

I don’t know much at all about ‘feminist ethics’. At a glance there is certainly something to be said for ritual regarding the ‘feminine’ and the ‘masculine’ that may be being mistaken - over rather given too much import - for ‘female’ and ‘male’.

The modern ‘peacocking’ world - instagram and twitter - is a reflection of this search for psychological meaning in the absence of societal rites of passage. Cultural admixtures have probably been problematic/beneficial too in some ways.

I think at its essence this is a ‘meaning’/‘value’ problem. The lines appear muddled and lack of direction has freed upon women to impose themselves more in society, yet this is being done blindly. Men on the other hand are do the same inwardly, equally as blinded.

In the past I’ve seen so-called ‘strong’ female role models come through, but they are merely mimicking ‘masculine’ tropes more than ‘feminine’ tropes. More recently, in the arts, I’ve seen powerful ‘feminine’ expression from women - recently noted something of this to a friend if mine in terms of women expressing in a more dominant manner what Jung referred to as ‘Kore’; which can either be a desire to cling to innocence or to move beyond it. I think we’re just about seeing the beginning of women ‘moving beyond’ in a manner that is ‘feminine’ rather than a mock shoulder-padded ‘masculine’ pantomime of feminine psychological maturity.

Maybe my current questions and thoughts are more telling if the transition I’n going through? I just say it as I see it as best I can, and keep trying.

It is as if society has instilled the idea that fighting with foam swords is some kind of passage into psychological maturity. I think women are certainly playing with breaking open their potential right now - it’s a great thing. There are dangers and their should be. What bothers me is men have fallen back and resisted danger due to this to some extent. The juvenile period has been extended a huge amount which certainly plays into women's hands more than men’s because men lack urgency and did to be driven by a sense of urgency, whilst women are naturally inclined to a sense of urgency so extended juvenile periods leads to women being in a situation where they can mature more thoroughly. — I like sushi

Following this up to the point, as to why this bothers you?

And, yes, women are more mature than males on average.

It bothers me because I see the ‘ideal’ as being more or less a situation where both men and women are ‘advancing’ alongside each other rather than some kind of handing the baton on state of affairs and then skulking in the shadows.

Essentially what is ‘feminine’ cannot survive without what is ‘masculine’. Men cannot live without women and women cannot live without men - if they could then humanity is no longer ‘humanity’. I see the psychological ‘division’ between men and women to be manifest in society yet the real psychological ‘division’ is merely a convenient way to express a vibrant cauldron of humanity. I think that analogy works well enough expressing what I am looking at here?

It bothers me because I see the ‘ideal’ as being more or less a situation where both men and women are ‘advancing’ alongside each other rather than some kind of handing the baton on state of affairs and then skulking in the shadows.

Essentially what is ‘feminine’ cannot survive without what is ‘masculine’. Men cannot live without women and women cannot live without men - if they could then humanity is no longer ‘humanity’. I see the psychological ‘division’ between men and women to be manifest in society yet the real psychological ‘division’ is merely a convenient way to express a vibrant cauldron of humanity. I think that analogy works well enough expressing what I am looking at here? — I like sushi

It sounds like nostalgia from the '60s. It seems to me that women are better leaders, in terms of ensuring survival of a company or work. Mind you, I think there's even a bias towards nowadays towards hiring women, due to the fact that they are simply as reliable as men, if not more so.

It’s interesting that you see what I’ve put across in terms of financial profit and hiring. I was talking about this in terms of basic human development.

It’s interesting that you see what I’ve put across in terms of financial profit and hiring. I was talking about this in terms of basic human development. — I like sushi

I guess I don't entirely understand how advancements are made possible without an appeal to some metric of exchange.

I don’t understand. I thought ‘feminist ethics’ was an investigation into psychology and society not an economic model. I’m not focusing at all on who has what job or who earns what - not interested because I find that to be extraneous to developing psychological maturity. One point was that today women are freed up by extended juvenile periods and able to develop more than men in similar circumstances - I think men need risk more.

I don’t agree that women are better leaders than men or men necessarily make better leaders than women. It also depends on what you mean by ‘leader’ too - my own view on what ‘leader’ means is likely more fluid than what you meant.

I don’t understand. I thought ‘feminist ethics’ was an investigation into psychology and society not an economic model. — I like sushi

Yes, and none of what I have said should imply otherwise. My point, at least in terms of menial jobs with which I had experience was that women are more valuable as a worker than a male counterpart.

I’m not focusing at all on who has what job or who earns what - not interested because I find that to be extraneous to developing psychological maturity. — I like sushi

Yeah, you're going to have to spell it out for me, as I'm having a hard time understanding what is psychological maturity.

No probs. I am throwing fragments of several different ideas at you at once. I do find it incredibly hard to condense what I’m referring to and where these thoughts have risen from in anything shorter than a lecture ... anyway, I do see many fruitful opportunities for exploration within ‘feminist’ ideologies.

I’d love to hear more about what you see as important regarding ‘feminist ethics’ in greater detail if you’d care share.

Thanks