It is about growing up, and being human, and the inherent limits of great men. — Banno
Are you married? Have you made a life-long commitment to another adult? — Banno
When I mentioned to a female friend that there are so many males and not many females writing on the philosophy site she replied, 'They have better things to do than write on philosophy forums'. — Jack Cummins
So is every epistemological problem really a moral problem? As that is where is seems to lead. — Metaphyzik
Assuming you have alternate valid things you can accept, that are both logically sound…. Then your decision is a moral decision. Assuming you like that word for non logical decisions.
And if you accept that basic acceptance of the world amounts to a tautology (I’m not going that far) then the conclusion would be that all epistemology involves moral decisions. — Metaphyzik
You see, one thing is, I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything and there are many things I don't know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we're here, and what the question might mean. I might think about it a little bit and if I can't figure it out, then I go on to something else, but I don't have to know an answer, I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without having any purpose, which is the way it really is so far as I can tell. It doesn't frighten me.
― Richard Feynman
I consider it implausible that you have "alternate valid things you can accept, that are both logically sound". But then I'm an antifoundationalist. — wonderer1
Further, an androgynous ideal tends to emerge from Greek culture, but is this true of philosophy elsewhere? In places like China or India? Somewhat, but probably less so. — Leontiskos
Yes, but in its defence misogyny and sexism do tend to increase the length of a thread.The addition of the poll about shifts the focus of the thread — Jack Cummins
The trouble is not, of course, men as such – men have done good enough philosophy in the past. What is wrong is a particular style of philosophising that results from encouraging a lot of clever young men to compete in winning arguments. These people then quickly build up a set of games out of simple oppositions and elaborate them until, in the end, nobody else can see what they are talking about […] It was clear that we [the women students] were all more interested in understanding this deeply puzzling world than in putting each other down. — Midgley
"Complicated", it seems to me, understates the difficulty. We look to biology to provide an objective basis for cultural stereotypes. But our cultural stereotypes condition what we think of as biology. In other words, the two interact and are consequently inextricably intertwined. Both are deeply involved in the power relationships in play in our social interactions.There is the question of the innate differences of biology, which may involve thinking, as noted by Hanover, and the role of cultural assumptions and the dynamics of power relationships. It may be complicated. — Jack Cummins
That's true. Looking back, one can get depressed by the fact that eradicating hatred and stereotyping is much more difficult than it was thought to be at the time. Is it possible that those tendencies are both ineradicably part of the human condition?What I am arguing is that gender relationships are not simply about misogyny but about stereotypes. — Jack Cummins
I agree whole-heartedly with the point that she is making. I'm sure that what she says here would have been wholly unexceptional when she was writing. But reading it now, I can't help worrying about the category of "women's experience" and especially "women's whole experience", particularly as she focuses on the experience of pregnancy and suckling, which, after all, was a lynch-pin in the justification of the traditional definition of women's role in life. She does then generalize through child-rearing and marriage back to "typical human experience" - but notice that she does not generalize to "our" experience or "universal" human experience.Now I rather think that nobody who was playing a normal active part among other human beings could regard them like this. But what I am quite sure of is that for anybody living intimately with them as a genuine member of a family, Cogito would be Cogitamus; their consciousness would be every bit as certain as his own. And if this is not so for men, it certainly is for women. And women are not a separate species. And an account of human knowledge which women’s whole experience falsifies is inadequate and partial and capricious.
I sympathize. It is a nasty shock to find oneself on the wrong side of a prejudice. But perhaps it is salutary. It's not new. I had a very similar experience (and I was far from alone, and probably lucky) well before this century began. Still, it comes to all of us as we advance into old age.In the twentieth first century the situation may have changed to the point where there is more bias against males in some contexts. For example, what I have found when looking for accommodation is that so many adverts say, 'females only', which may mean some difficulty for males in finding 'a room of one's own'. — Jack Cummins
"Complicated", it seems to me, understates the difficulty. We look to biology to provide an objective basis for cultural stereotypes. But our cultural stereotypes condition what we think of as biology. In other words, the two interact and are consequently inextricably intertwined. Both are deeply involved in the power relationships in play in our social interactions.
In the end, it seems to me, we would do better to manage without pursuing this fruitless attempt and deal with the problems we are facing, whatever their origin. — Ludwig V
Yes, things have changed and are changing in the professions. You may be right about the glass ceiling. But I'm sure are also aware that there are people who are not content to adopt your explanation, and my impression is that they are making headway. I think that change is coming.The issue arose with lawyers, which was once a male dominated profession. If you look today, you have as many or more females in law school, who perform at the top of the class, and who get the prestigious jobs. But, as time goes on, you see fewer and fewer as partners and at the highest levels of firms. The reason, which is interesting, based upon the women are saying, is because women don't want those jobs. They are gruelling, stressful, and, other than money, are not terribly rewarding. — Hanover
Who told you that? If it is true, why do so many men want them?They are gruelling, stressful, and, other than money, are not terribly rewarding. — Hanover
That certainly applies to serving in the army or the police. Yet, some women do want to do that, including, now, serving in the front line. And there are women working in the trades. Though it is true that I've never heard much agitation to change the gender balance amongst dust-men.The same holds true to the trades. Women don't want to work on cars, pipes, and air conditioning units. Those jobs are physically demanding and not terribly rewarding. — Hanover
Most people absorb ideas about what is appropriate for them and most people most of the time do not challenge those stereotypes. If you just pin up a notice "All welcome" and sit back, nothing much will change.When coming up with policy decisions, what do you do? We've made entry open to whoever wants it, but do we then change the industry to make it so different people want it? ... Or do you say that men have figured out the biology of women (yeah, right) and have created systems that make them not want to compete? That would be the patriarchal argument, but it would also accept that biology controls to some point. — Hanover
Not necessarily. It depends on why they don't want it.Wouldn't the acceptance that women don't want X but men do, be a nod towards biology? — Hanover
Great men, simply by their ignorance of a topic, can lay a remarkably strong taboo on the mention of it even where it happens to be entirely relevant. I saw a singular instance of this lately in a correspondence about the law of abortion. A writer pointed out that many women who had wished to be rid of their child two months after conception were eager to bear it three months later, and finished apologetically, “Expect no logic from a pregnant woman.” But of course there was nothing wrong with the logic. The premises were changed. A child at two months feels like an ailment; at five months it feels like a child. The woman had passed from the belief, “I am not well” to the belief, “I am now two people”. And the only thing wrong with that belief is that it is one which is unfamiliar to logicians. That, I suspect, is an unphilosophic objection. — Midgly
Mary Midgely's comment about the way women don't put each other down — Jack Cummins
the two interact and are consequently inextricably intertwined. — Ludwig V
It was clear that we [the women students] were all more interested in understanding this deeply puzzling world than in putting each other down. — Midgley
I would like for this to be a bit of comedic self-awareness — AmadeusD
Descartes is Midgley’s exemplar of the philosophical bachelor. He famously spent large expanses of time isolated and, doubting the certainty of knowledge about the external world. ‘I am here quite alone,’ he wrote in the First Meditation, ‘and at last I will devote myself sincerely and without reservation to the general demolition of my opinions.’ Descartes does just this, demolishing the certainty of all knowledge, except (of course) the existence of his own thought. — Ellie Robson
The most we seem to be able to conclude from more sophisticated parsings of "I doubt" is that "something doubts", and not what that something is. — Banno
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.