But, what I, personally, would really like to see happen, would be a revival in feminist ethics, which has, for the most part, existed on the outskirts of philosophy. — Wallows

I don't know enough about 'feminist ethics' or its history to comment on any 'revival'.
I have never been comfortable with the word 'feminist'. What does it mean to be a feminist ?
What comes to mind when you think of a male, female or another as being 'feminist' ?

Should probably read this for some light on the subject ?
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-moralpsych/

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

Why would you think so ? I don't have inside knowledge of what is happening in academia. However, there is a sense that philosophy is not seen as valuable. If anything I would think the future will bring the opposite to what you suggest. Philosophy departments are having to fight to survive. Example:

http://dailynous.com/2018/12/19/philosophy-hull-threatened-heads-39-uk-philosophy-departments-object/

I see no reason to think academia will be immune from the same political direction as society in general. — Hanover

Yes, even academia as a little intellectual bubble in an ivory tower will be affected by political and economic changes. Any benefits or value of education in society is under constant review. Philosophy is no exception.

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. — Hanover

I don't think that is a correct interpretation of the comments. Where do you see this ?

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. — Hanover

Well, you never can tell what the future will bring. Surprises around every corner...

I think truth derives only through a truly adversarial process. Seeking intellectual agreement is the path to stupidity. — Hanover

What kind of a 'truth' would that be ?
And how 'true' is an 'adversarial process' - what and who are you thinking about as part of this process ?
Stupidity is part and parcel of humanity. No need for a specific path, intellectual or otherwise.

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

Well, I believe that contrary to most outdated definitions, in a sense more "rational", by which I mean, more in alignment with realizing long-term goals, and cooperative behavior, which are hallmarks of economic success along with educational achievement.

Is this something you would perhaps be interested in commenting?

Interesting topic..

I will speak to two threads:

The effect of the evolution or future of philosophy in regard to academia versus society in general.

The notion that a revival or increase of feminine ethics within philosophical discourse could have the efficacy of balancing its perspective in light of the field being traditionally dominated by males.


I believe the impact of philosophy's diversity of thought will always be more profound in the academic community and within those who follow its progress independently than in the public at large. Certain aspects slowly and eventually seep into society, although in modernity it seems such sentiments are often conveyed via pithy memes and tweets rather than with any particular nuance. I agree with the OP's sentiment that perhaps more people with mental illness will seek out help or insight into their conditions themselves, being that more and more of such information is becoming available online. I do not necessarily think that it will more times than not be in the guise of a pseudo-psychological/philosophical hybrid as I do not see an effort to conceal the nature of such resources. Regardless of accuracy or quality, most resources seem to exist within the scope of good intentions, this very forum included.

This second thread is an interesting observation of an aspect of social construction of reality. I find it to be at least adjacent to certain phenomena within the political and ideological zeitgeist, specifically the relegation of debates to black and white fallacies. It sometimes seems intuitive to treat metaphysical problems with physical solutions. In this case, I'm speaking to the notion of the thinking that in order to counter disparity, an equal and opposite reaction or force must be applied. I've observed what I consider to be a ramp-up in such thinking over the course of the last decade or two, wherein the nuance of many debates is stripped down to something akin to good vs. evil. I am not saying that this exactly reflects the OP's sentiment, rather simply likening it to what I see as perhaps social phenomena having an effect on philosophical discourse rather than the inverse as spoken to in the first thread. The thinking that extremism can only be met with diametric extremism seems to be a motif of modern politics and policy, especially in rhetoric, though a measure of it can be observed in attempts at pragmatism as well. I can give an example of this in modern politics within the scope of how it seems to be at odds with "modern stoicism". Rather than operating with pragmatism, elected officials such as AOC and Bernie Sanders seem to use unbridled idealism to counter the regressive policies of their counterparts on the right. Neither side could be said to be employing any long term strategy here, rather they seem to be playing to the sentiments held by the most extreme within their constituencies. In summary, I do not seek to mitigate the efficacy of a potential increase in the inclusion of feminine ethics within modern philosophical discourse, rather I contend that diversity of thought itself, in its entirety, should be held in higher regard than specific ancillary components of it.

You’ll have to do more than outline what you mean. More details perhaps?

a. Does philosophy have/need a future?

b. Hasn't speculating on possible futures always been, or perennially engendered, a future for philosophy?

c. Will philosophers of the future speculate on their possible pasts (e.g. current philosophies)?

d. Does (any) future have/need a philosophy?

e-z. ???

My candidate du jure: machine ethics.

“According to Gilligan, there are two kinds of moral voices: that of the masculine and the feminine. The masculine voice is "logical and individualistic",[10] meaning that the emphasis in moral decisions is protecting the rights of people and making sure justice is upheld. 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

This 'gendered' distinction corresponds to the normative ethics ("feminine voice") and applied ethics ("masculine voice") distinction, which I deploy as a (local-global, personal-public) parallax. Here's a brief schematic sketch.