/lit/ - Literature

>>15943008
what female philosopher are you refering to? From what I've seen they know that very well

>>15943008
Philosophy=autism=masculine

>>15943022
And that’s a good thing

>>15943008
I've never seen female philosophy majors do this anon. Where do you hang out? They all recognize them as sexist, and most look past it because it was a different time and culture, and recognize philosophers had both good and shit ideas. There's some people, not just female, who are bothered much more by said past sexism and other such stuff, enough that they can't read those philosophers, but usually that puts them off the major, or even academia as a whole, since the arts and the sciences are both built upon a foundation of faulty human beings of the past.

>>15943008
refute sexism

>>15943008
>all the greatest thinkers fit in my 20th century social science concepts

>female philosophy majors

are you talking about the incredibly tiny minority of "ethicists" who study shit nobody else cares about? or the critical theorists who apply men's summarized versions of french philosophers to low hanging fruit like gender and race politics, like judith butler

because there are no actual female philosophers, or like one every 500 years

>>15943008
>Every philosopher has both good and shit ideas.
You mean good ideas like sexism and bad ideas like platonic forms, right?

>>15943008
The way you're framing it implies that sexism is derived or is in itself a shit idea
This is not the case
Feminists and female philosophers can fuck off

>>15943008
>ALL philosophers pre-20th century are sexist, yes.
Ok ESLtard we get it you hate women

>>15943008
>sexes are different and distinct
>in nature, different and distinct things are given different and distinct roles and behaviours to serve a function

>no such thing as equality in natur-

>REEE REEE SEXIST NOT ENOUGH BLACK LESBIAN ENTOMOLOGISTS ADMINISTRATION IN NEW JERSEY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT !!1!111!1!!11!!!!!!!!!1!! REEEE

Please my dearest love for the good of mankind shut the fuck up, stop pretending to be smart and get back in the kitchen and unsurprisingly the world problems will disappear

>>15943008
Philosophers discuss papers published last week, not outdated books from hundreds of years ago.

>>15944211
Everyone here hates women except the Reddit tourists.

>>15944172
>because there are no actual female philosophers
Get a load of this retard.

>>15943008
No, many feminist philosophers analyze how sexism or racism or heteronormative inclinations of a philosopher manifests in his philosophical work.

>>15943008
>ALL philosophers pre-20th century are sexist
Not Max Stirner.
There are some exceptions out there.

>>15944244
Lol no.
They study and discuss old shit, but when they graduate and need to start publishing papers they have to focus on new shit.
Also many of these papers are about old books in the first place.

>>15944251
Only commentators on great male ones, and almost all of them are indeed focused on ethics. Foot, Arendt, Anscombe, Stein, Weil, and others like that are all fine. For every one of those there are a hundred tryhard Lacanians or some shit like that.

Not one original philosopher in human history has been a woman.

>>15944262
You don't know what you're talking about.

>>15944258
Philosophers don't discuss 'old shit' any more than mathematicians or biologists do. Only pseuds on /lit/ get hung up on individual "thinkers" from ages past.

>>15944305
Very retarded post, nicely done anon. Post some examples to substantiate this very retarded thing you're saying.

>>15944293
Yes I do. Stop crying like a woman and say something of substance.

>>15944309
You have no idea what philosophy even is, pseud.

>>15943008
I was a philosophy major at UMD. Not many people do philosophy anymore. And of course it was overwhelmingly male. Good thing about my program? There weren't any feminist interpretations. It was all quite free from that.

>>15944319
Still whining like a woman instead of saying something of substance. Is this how you reasoned when you took that one philosophy class in university? By crying? No wonder you failed.

>>15944334
>projecting this hard

>>15944172
sure, maybe female philosophers tend to be ethicists or derivative critical theorists, which...is certainly unfortunate, but to give credit where it is due, at least women don’t flock to analyt*c “philosophy,” the retard’s playground of the field

>>15943779
>hey all recognize them as sexist, and most look past it

how do they rationalise all the greatest thinkers of the past thinking women are bad/stupid and disagree with them?

>>15944349
Continentals aren't even philosophers.

>>15944349
Women can be good at math which is what analytic philosophers wish they were and fail at being.

>>15944341
Glad we agree that there are no original woman philosophers, otherwise you would have named one.

>>15944326
UMD used to be strong in philosophy of physics, with people like Ruth Kastner. Looks like most of them transferred or retired recently.

>>15944365
You don't even know what philosophy is, pseud.

>>15944305
>>15944319
>>15944393
Take your meds.

>>15944401
Why are you even posting in a philosophy thread, pseudboy?

>>15944404
Because I'm a man, unlike you.

>>15944406
No, you're a retard. Retards are inherently sexless. You're a big squishy bag of genderless idiocy.

>>15944427
Reddit

>>15944435
Is that your home? Go back there. You're out of your depth here.

>>15944350
It was the past and basically everyone thought that. The few people who disagreed tended to be philosophers, other kinds of intellectuals, or prophets/theologians. Funny how that works.

>>15944427
Once again I must tell you to take your meds.

>>15944444
>44444
Wasted.

>>15944453
Keep denying my digits, brainlet.

>>15943008
You are ignorant, as these accusations of “sexism” come straight from Twitter SJWs, and not from real theoretical works. You could have tried to guess that they need to be judged relatively to undisputed norms of contemporary societies, and for that the knowledge of those societies is required.

>>15943008
The thinkers of the past had a better understanding of women than we do

>>15944350
Maybe they were right and you are wrong