- It was, but not in toto. I do not object to therapy as merely one part of philosophy. The point is that it is not the whole.

I don't know what that emoticon means as a proposition. Or the absence of one. — Paine

I'm much the same with regard to your post.

The addition of the poll about shifts the focus of the thread, to the issues of relationships between women and men. Also, I only just saw the link to a reference to the Virginia Wolf's 'A Room of One's Own' because the blue of the link words didn't show on my 'night time' mode on my phone.

I have read the book by Woolf and her writing and her writing was extremely influential in giving women a separate identity and voice in philosophy. At one point, in some Christian understanding, when there was a belief in the 'soul', there was speculation that women did not have souls, although I don't know how widespread that was. But public thought and philosophy was the domain of male power.

So much has shifted since Midgely, in the twentieth first century, and women are not dependent on men and in the public sphere with strong voices. 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'. This conveyed an image of men alone in their rooms reading and writing philosophy, with women being out in the public sphere of interaction. Philosophy itself may have become marginalised, as seen as too abstract and removed from public life.

It is about growing up, and being human, and the inherent limits of great men. — Banno

And that explains entirely its unpopularity both here/now, and at the time. From the isolated SUM comes not so much science, which is irrevocably polyphonic and communal, as capitalism, and fascism.

But of course I would say that!

Had she mastered the usage of punctuation, em dashes, and capitals, something above F would have been acceptable for the essay. But in the context of 8-10th grade, a C is very fair.

Are you married? Have you made a life-long commitment to another adult? — Banno

I've had two in fact, so I win.

The correlation between the philosopher and the lack of romance is as much a product of opportunity as choice. That is to say, I suspect many in their closed off rooms with their books and thoughts long for a deeper connection, but for the introversion often inherent in the philosophical condition, they don't know where to turn.

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

This isn't why. It's because analytical philosophy falls into the same category as STEM subject matter, which is also male dominated. Progress by females in those areas is owed to social efforts to increase it, which means it would be more disproportionate if not being actively pushed in the other direction, but it still stands 2:1
malehttps://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf23315/report/the-stem-workforce#:~:text=The%20share%20of%20women%20and,(figure%202%2D3).


That is to say, unless we buy into the idea wholesale that men and women are in different fields based upon patriarchal social controls, we must admit men and women are simply different creatures.

If you wish to see greater male/female disparity, look to the trades, where plumbers, mechanics, are overwhelmingly male. Plumbers are over 98% male.
https://datausa.io/profile/soc/plumbers-pipefitters-and-steamfitters#:~:text=Employed%20people-,The%20workforce%20of%20Plumbers%2C%20pipefitters%2C%20and%20steamfitters%20in%202021%20was,29%20years%20(65%2C963%20people).

On the other hand, 83% of romance authors are women, so they too are alone in their rooms typing away in solitude, just typing about different things. https://wordsrated.com/author-demographics-statistics/#:~:text=Female%2Ddominated%20genres&text=Female%20authors%20have%20increased%2045,books%20were%20written%20by%20women.

I like the hand written copy. Just for aesthetic reasons.

The focus here on the cogito: at issue seems to be what someone accepts of the world. As a starting point.

Accepting the bare solipsistic minimum seems to be ok with logic abstractions, but nobody takes those seriously (can’t ever recall someone committing suicide (for instance) because of a fault of reasoning and logic in the cogito).

Accepting the world - from Heidegger to Schopenhauer (just cause they rhyme, so please choose a different range, although phenomenology to nascent determinism seems ok…) entails accepting reality in some fashion. Big shock here (sarcasm) that people with different experiences accept different things. Acceptance comes after experience. Post-hoc. Nobody starts life with the cogito.

What are the principles that underlie the acceptance? That is always the interesting thing from my point of view, and information - or opinions on this - seem very sparse.

Hunters vs gatherers? I would suggest that those of us who believe that everything (or to be fair, the thing in this particular case) can be reduced to such a simple thing should also consider that it probably doesn’t tell us very much.

Of more interest is the fact that of course the author is correct. And also incorrect. What is missing is the other side of the argument. And then the normalization of both sides (only 2? Lets just stick to 2 for now) into a shared lowest common denominator (haha) from which the principles of acceptance come. That there are different flavours should be embraced, so that we have something interesting to talk about.

So is every epistemological problem really a moral problem? As that is where is seems to lead. Not sure…. would have to give that some more thought. Or research cause it’s already out there somewhere.

So is every epistemological problem really a moral problem? As that is where is seems to lead. — Metaphyzik

What?

I'm not seeing how that makes sense.

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.

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

We are coming from substantially different perspectives, and I can see that you make assuptions that I consider unjustified.

I consider it implausible that you have "alternate valid things you can accept, that are both logically sound". But then I'm an antifoundationalist.

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

We all have epistemic blind spots, where our thinking is not well informed. We are prone to believing we know things that we don't actually know:

Heh what a thread.

I give it a B, in light of its timing. It would be pithy old news these days.

Thank you.

A discouraging word in the hand is better than two birds in the bush.

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

Great video thanks for posting it!

Anyways ya. Maybe i am wrong. Ok by me, but am trying to figure out where.

…. To reply: Interesting. So you don’t believe that there is more than one valid belief on any one subject or topic? You believe in absolute truth but we may never know it and that is ok? Is that the gist?

That may be the case, but in the mean time we go along making beliefs anyways. And it seems to me there is almost always more than one valid answer to anything not trivial or simple.

For instance helping the poor / marginalized in society: some people believe that helping others is best achieved by providing them direct financial help, and others believe that helping them compete fairly is the best long term approach. It is hard to say that either has no merit, depending on the circumstance. But it would be folly to believe that only one way of doing things is always correct.

Or… thinking the world from a woman’s view is going to have different and valid conclusions than looking at it from a man’s? At least sometimes?

If 2 people have a different set of facts available to them, then we could say they are both uneducated in reality. However their conclusions about the sets of facts may be understandable and valid logically. And aren’t we all uneducated in reality to some degree?

Which seems to go along with the quote and video you posted….

https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/Category:Philosophy

, you and make much the same point, taking the thread in an unexpected direction.

Nice.

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

I had close ties with a group of Nepalese folk in the Eighties, with whom I would discuss many cultural differences. I recall being perplexed when they discreetly ask where our meti were. Times change.

The addition of the poll about shifts the focus of the thread — Jack Cummins

Yes, but in its defence misogyny and sexism do tend to increase the length of a thread.

The podcast linked above, which sparked my interest in the titular article, is about public philosophy. Consider:

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

Not that any of us would ever do such a thing on this forum. Nice of Hanover to point out yet another similarity between plumbing and philosophy - the gender disparity.

Elsewhere, there was an extended discussion of the logical structure of the Cogito - "I think, therefore I am". The slogan appears to be a deduction, but if so, it is, at least as it stands, invalid. Some, when pressed, supose it to be an intuition. If it is an intuition, would it be shared by a pregnant women?

Some see the question as unfair. But perhaps it is its framing within the Second Meditation that is unfair. Descartes had a room of his own, complete with an "oven".

Not that any of us would ever do such a thing on this forum. — Banno

I would like for this to be a bit of comedic self-awareness *crosses fingers*.

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.

Mary Midgely's comment about the way women don't put each other down, may be about female psychology. Or, it may be about the situation of females in philosophy and their precarious situation in a male dominated profession in the institution of philosophy at the time, as if being there itself was a 'privilege' and a shared respect for one another as it may be problematic to argue that females never put other females down, such as in situations where they are competing against one another.

The dynamics of institutions involves power relationships and ideas about gender. Even recently, I read of a situation in the news in which a woman applied for a high position in an organisation and was rejected. When she sought feedback, she was told that the reason why she had not been given the job she was told that it was because she had not 'put enough effort into her appearance'. The woman claimed that what this amounted to was she had not worn make up. It reminded me of how the most successful woman I knew in philosophy, a professor and well known figure in medical ethics, who was a tutor, was adored by male students for her sexual attractiveness. I won't name her, just in case she were to read this online forum, but I wonder if she would have risen to fame if she had not been so attractive.

What I am arguing is that gender relationships are not simply about misogyny but about stereotypes. 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'.

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

"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.

What I am arguing is that gender relationships are not simply about misogyny but about stereotypes. — 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?

As an example, consider the following from Midgley's article: -

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 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.

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

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.

"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

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 presitgious 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 grueling, stressful, and, other than money, are not terribly rewarding. 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.

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? Wouldn't the acceptance that women don't want X but men do, be a nod towards biology? 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.

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

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.

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?

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

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.

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

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.
But I do worry about the expectation that gender balance in every trade and profession will conform pretty closely to the balance in general population. It could be used as a quota, which would be completely inappropriate. (The same applies to the general expectation that all the diversity balances in every group will conform to the balance in the general population.)
We ought not, ever, to talk about discrimination without qualification. Some discrimination is good, and necessary. What is wrong is discrimination on irrelevant grounds. What the relevant grounds are will depend on the context and may often be contested.

Wouldn't the acceptance that women don't want X but men do, be a nod towards biology? — Hanover

Not necessarily. It depends on why they don't want it.

Part of what I was saying is that biology and culture are not neatly separated or separable. On the contrary, they interact. We cannot generalize, but need to pay attention to each issue as it comes up. Solutions will usually be messy and not please everyone. But allowing people to complain and listening to what they have to say and taking them seriously matters.

I'd say it too, which makes it a "of course we would say that!" -- which of course we would. :D

I'm a Bachelor in the sense that all Bachelor's are unmarried men.

I voted yes all the same. Partially due to @Fooloso4 -- sex and family are not the same now, and I have kiddos in my life, and I have no doubts about others' existence or interiority.

So I thought "Yes" still qualified in the sense that she's designating, but then there may be an objection on the basis that I'm unmarried and so don't have a real insight into what she's saying.

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

I get along with the conclusion, though. And with the opening -- I don't think philosophy is an exercise in proving myself correct or the other person wrong or some such.

If it is an intuition, would it be shared by a pregnant women? — Banno

Dilato ergo summus.

I'm unmarried and so don't have a real insight into what she's saying. — Moliere

No objection from me. We all have mothers after all.

Mary Midgely's comment about the way women don't put each other down — Jack Cummins

Is laughably wrong.

the two interact and are consequently inextricably intertwined. — Ludwig V

I think this is a mistake. I think it is a mistake that leaves us, necessarily, in a hopeless loop of arguing with anyone who disagrees with one end of the spectrum (biology v culture) because there is no possibility of extricating them. I think we can. The charge that any observations are culturally-bound seems wrong to me on many levels.

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

But I thought that there was nothing fundamentally different between men and women? Strange.

I would like for this to be a bit of comedic self-awareness — AmadeusD

The kind of self-awareness where one admits the mistake but does not seem to care about committing the mistake always stroke me as, also, strange.

Misogyny will carry a thread only so far, but perhaps too far to drag it back to something more interesting.

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

One way to think about the Cogito is suggested by the word "ergo", "therefore", that we are to infer our existence from the very act of doubting. On the face of it, this inference is invalid. Elsewhere there was a recent extended discussion of the value of p⊃q, which we might try not to repeat here. 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.

Hence a second way to think about the Cogito, that it is a definition of "I"; that the thing doing the thinking is the self of the philosopher. This has the uncomfortable result that one ceases to exist when not doing philosophy, or at least when one is asleep.

Broader considerations lead one to see doubt as only one aspect of our lives, one game we occasionally play. Descartes had a preference for solitaire, but he could only play that game using the words he had learned as part of a community. He brought that community with him into his room. His private reflections are ultimately public, and not just in being published.

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

This is Parfit's conclusion - he insinuates that there is no personal identity, and so the Cogito could not be a basis for a discreet doubter.