»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Phil and Sophia
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Phil and Sophia |
|
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Men have always arrogantly dominated the machinery of philosophy, as the commandeers of studies, constructing its components to more suit their needs. This is unfortunate, for men could think less and know more if they were more closely aware of and attending how women thought and knowledged. And this would take less time to get to wiser results. The truth is most men did and many still do discard women as if they have no or little intellect but are creatures made of mercury and impulse alone, who should remain on their more superficial and physical plane, but be there to restore their vigor when needed. Maybe its true that men have thought more, and published more wisdom in words, but they have not done more wisdom in deeds. Mankind is simply not as faithful to their philosophies, even though they are more articulate. Women are more vague about their philosphies but have shown more permanance and quickness with them. But I still believe there is no philosophy that is as the highest, but it needs to be a juncture proportioned for both, that is why the word itself is a male and female merged--Phil and Sophia  It is still a lopsided relationship...Sophia should show up more![This message has been edited by Essorant (11-06-2002 06:46 PM).] |
||
| © Copyright 2002 Essorant - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Ayn Rand is vague? While it's certainly true that men dominate philosophy, it's also true that Mrs. Churchland, Hannah Arendt, Mary Hesse, Susan Haack and many others have made significant contributions. I would argue that women, by the very fact of being women, do not necessarily have a better philosophy based on vagueness or something intrinsic to their 'nature', but that more women should get interested in philosophy because have something interesting to contribute. Anything less is a kind of vulgarization of gender theory. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I don't agree that women have ever contributed less to actual philosophy only less to the words and articulations and thoughts that men have called philosophy--the machinery, this is why I say they have been more vague. There is a philosphy on another level in the way of actual approach and doing, there is philosphy in this indeed. There are definitly specific examples to contradict this as you refer to, but overall, I feel women have more directly given their discourses to life, practical deeds more than words to the side of creating more peace, and less war, than men. War and weaponry rose of the society of men not out of that of women, women were involved, but they were never chiefly disposed to these methods with which men went about seeking a structure or civilization with. Men were always the more vigorous vessels so women were taken mauger their own hearts, more forcedly than anything. There was little choice, and they could never articulate their own thoughts or complexes of feelings in a way that could be shared with men completly for the language of philosphy was another structure that was chiefly and arrogantly dominated by men. Plus men just wouldn't listen or would call them witches if they knew women were right. Even though it is still a bitlopsided, I admire the direction of philosphy this day for that it is becoming very more present to women and women are more present to it. This better energy altogether because we need to think together, not seperatly... [This message has been edited by Essorant (11-07-2002 11:17 PM).] |
||
|
fractal007 Senior Member
since 2000-06-01
Posts 1958 |
"War and weaponry rose of the society of men not out of that of women, women were involved, but they were never chiefly disposed to these methods with which men went about seeking a structure or civilization with." I am not sure this claim can be justified with current evidence. Firstly we know that western civilization has, up until recently, been dominated mostly by men. It's been the men most of the time who've made the major political decisions and declared the wars and fired the shots. How do we know that this is not the reason for a lack of women not being "disposed to these methods?" After all, if women have been given domestic roles throughout much of history who are we to judge what they would do if given the chance to create a matriarchal society? Furthermore, perhaps the present period will determine the answer to this question since doors are continually being opened to women where once they stood shut. As far as Phil and Sophia are concerned I was not aware the the word "philosophy" came about as a result of two names in common usage. I was more under the impression that phil and sophia come from Greek words meaning something along the lines of love and wisdom[or perhaps knowledge. I really ought to learn more ancient greek!]. If philosophy is indeed a word stemming from the Greek equivilant of "love of knowledge" then perhaps one might be more inclined to argue[quite justifiably, I might add] that loving and pursuing knowledge are endeavors that can be, and in fact are, pursued by men AND women of all walks, creeds, faiths, races, and nationalities. "If history is to change, let it change. If the world is to be destroyed, so be it. If my fate is to die, I must simply laugh" -- Magus [This message has been edited by fractal007 (11-07-2002 11:50 PM).] |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
