/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.1003438]

I dare you, I double dare you, motherfucker, show me a rational female philosopher.

[Anonymous No.1003442]

Ayn Rand

[Anonymous No.1003443]

Ayn Rand

[Anonymous No.1003448]

Ayn Rand 

[Anonymous No.1003451]

>>1003438
Not a troll answer: Philippa Foot

[Anonymous No.1003454]

Emma Goldman

[Anonymous No.1003450]

Ayn Rand  

[Anonymous No.1003457]

>rand
>philosopher

and so is every freshman in college

[Anonymous No.1003458]

>>1003442
>>1003443
>>1003448
>>1003450

Shiiit, negro, that's all you had to say.

[Anonymous No.1003459]

Simone de Beauvoir

[Anonymous No.1003456]

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AynRand

Ayn Rand

[Anonymous No.1003472]

g e m anscombe
my cute sociology ta

[Anonymous No.1003474]

>>1003459

>Female Sartre
>rational

I don't think so.

[Anonymous No.1003479]

itt: modshit

[Anonymous No.1003481]

>>1003459
only real answer in the thread

[Anonymous No.1003487]

>>1003479
>Impying /lit/ has mods

[Anonymous No.1003504]

>>1003487
fuck you

[Anonymous No.1003496]

>>1003481
No. Philippa Foot and g e m anscombe are the only serious answers

[Anonymous No.1003506]

>>1003496
cute ta is a serious answer as well.

[Anonymous No.1003509]

oh and emma goldman is great.

[Anonymous No.1003512]

>rational
>female

Pick one.

[Anonymous No.1003519]

On a more serious note, Rand is a pretty rational philosopher. Humans are selfish and forced altruism goes against our biology.

Objectivism makes perfect sense even if you don't agree with the sentiment at its core.

[Anonymous No.1003523]

>>1003512
herp durp anonymous misogyny is kewl

[onionring !Rrxa7zePwI No.1003526]

the irony here is that all the hurr females dumb guys here don't know any of the female philosophers posted.

[onionring !Rrxa7zePwI No.1003530]

>>1003519
no. it's stoopid and so is your analysis.

[Anonymous No.1003531]

Show me a rational female.

[Anonymous No.1003533]

Show me a female.

[Anonymous No.1003535]

Show me.

[Anonymous No.1003545]

>>1003523

I love women, but rationality is not a trait common in women. Because emotions are not rational and most women think with their emotions.

You'd never find a female Peter Singer, for example.

This is why Rand is a good female philosopher. Because her philosophy is based in common sense and so divorced from emotion that the dickheads in this thread, such as yourself, even feel the need to whine about it.

[Anonymous No.1003569]

>>1003545
>I love women, but rationality is not a trait common in women. Because emotions are not rational and most women think with their emotions.
It seems we also found a men who doesn't think.
Seriously? That woman-emotion, men-rationnal bullshit? Again? You know you're using a XIXth century argument here, right?

[Anonymous No.1003574]

>>1003545
>Hurr durr women think with their emotions hurr durr I have no fucking clue what I'm talking about I spout popular misconceptions that fly in the face of all logic as well as scientific evidence.

Shut the fuck up. Any point you had to make was completely invalidated by that asinine statement absolutely ignorant of gender role psychology.

[Anonymous No.1003584]

>>1003545
Rand is a horrible example of a rational female philosopher not driven by her emtions if you know ANYTHING about her personal life.

There are plenty of examples of women philosophers in this thread that are actually academically respected and made major contributions to the field of philosophy. If that isn't rational I don't know what is.

[onionring !Rrxa7zePwI No.1003593]

amagad female logician unpossible

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Barcan_Marcus

[Anonymous No.1003595]

Ayn Rand was no more a philosopher than Humpty-Dumpty was a lexographer.

[Anonymous No.1003600]

>>1003569

nice roman numerals

[Anonymous No.1003601]

>>1003569

It's true. It's not politically correct to say it now. That's all that's changed.

The time I've spent around women has made it very clear in my mind that common sense is not something women inherently have.

[Anonymous No.1003607]

>>1003595
Really now...have you read For The New Intellect? If not please do and then we can discuss Rand and her philosophical nature.

[Anonymous No.1003611]

Out problem is that we have forgotten - ten thousand years ago it was all matriarchy - culture frozen, bitter and vicious lives lived under the hands of the alpha females.

It took generations and many, many lives to subjugate the women. Then civilization could begin.

Now we've forgotten, and have unleashed them on the world again. We will pay.

[Anonymous No.1003621]

>>1003600
"19th" is forbidden by the French Academy, and I do like the Academy.
Seriously though, that's some kind of rule : roman for centuries, arabic for years.

[Anonymous No.1003622]

>>1003545
You do realize that insecurity and MAN-RAGE count as emotions right? And the insatiable need to fuck everything falls even below the spectrum of emotion. Just because men are emotionally-retarded doesn't make them anymore rational. It just makes them put on an emotionally-retarded display of stoicism whilst pretending to make a rational decision.

[Anonymous No.1003628]

>>1003601
Nah man, I could tell you the women I know are more rational than the men, and that would be also true; but it depends what kind of people we live with.
It changes from places to places, and stereotypes give you the impression it's the same everywhere.

[Anonymous No.1003636]

>>1003601
Oh all the time he's spent around women. So he's passing a judgment on 50% of the world's population based solely on behavior he's observed in his mommy. Not THAT'S rational!

[Anonymous No.1003644]

>>1003607
if you read a page of rand and still can't tell she's a joke, you are the problem.

[Anonymous No.1003648]

>>1003622

Women are the kind of people who think eating meat is not a good idea because they care about the animals.

Men are the kind of people who would not eat meat because red meat could be unhealthy for you.

And the "men think with their dicks" argument is far more retarded and unfounded than a "women aren't rational" argument.

[Anonymous No.1003656]

>>1003636

I know easily over 1,500 women and that's all that is needed for a fair survey.

[onionring !Rrxa7zePwI No.1003658]

>>1003636
my experiences are the most fucking important and your statistics mean nothing. man math works by power, not logic.

[Anonymous No.1003662]

[Anonymous No.1003664]

>>1003545
I shall reply to this by quoting Jeanette Winterson:

"'Women always bring it back to the personal,' said Handsome. 'It's why you can't be world leaders.'

'And men never do,' I said, 'which is why we end up with no world left to lead.'"

[Anonymous No.1003673]

Obvious troll is obviously going to enjoy tonight.

[Anonymous No.1003683]

>>1003664

Why do you want personal in a political environment? Taking away personal bullshit is why we still have working societies.

[Anonymous No.1003681]

Hannah Arendt

Admittedly her opinion on segregation was nonsensical.

[Anonymous No.1003684]

>>1003662

http://images.4chan.org/lit/src/1280886967542.jpg

[Anonymous No.1003694]

>>1003664

And the world is still here. Thus, her statement is rendered false.

Way to fuck up, woman.

[Anonymous No.1003698]

>>1003683
>fails to understand substantive moral thrust of passage
sure is typical

[Anonymous No.1003708]

>>1003673

Op here, I was in fact genuinely curious about a female who was truly rational and could deliver arguments that would remain valid in syllogical form. The only female philosophers I've read are de Beauvoir and Arendt, and they both built their conclusions on various logical fallacies, much like just about every woman I've ever known.

[Anonymous No.1003712]

>>1003648
>And the "men think with their dicks" argument is far more retarded and unfounded than a "women aren't rational" argument.

Orlly?

>Women are the kind of people who think eating meat is not a good idea because they care about the animals. Men are the kind of people who would not eat meat because red meat could be unhealthy for you.

They're also the kind of people who would insist that their grandmother buy a .45 semiautomatic pistol that's prone to jamming rather than an easy-to-use, reliable .38 revolver because semiautomatics look way cooler. Who cares if nana dies while trying to fight off the burglar? At least she died looking cool!

Believe me, this is the mentality of the men I work with on a daily basis.

[fascist goldfish !Rrxa7zePwI No.1003721]

>>1003708
check out
>>1003593
>>1003472
but it will probably go over your head.

[Anonymous No.1003732]

Rosa Luxemburg

[Anonymous No.1003739]

>>1003712

And women aren't likely to buy any gun because "a gun is a gun"?

Any normal man would give thought to the properties of a weapon such as a gun rather than its look. The men you work with are stupid and seeing as there are stupid people in both gender groups, they are irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.1003750]

On a related note, "smart women" are often not very smart at all. They simply have an "air of intelligence" which is a facade of large words slightly incorrectly used and regurgitation of social commentary that hides their inability to interpret and reason events and data into logical arguments.

[Anonymous No.1003754]

>>1003750
at least they are smarter than you appear to be, anon.

[Anonymous No.1003758]

>>1003750
>On a related note, "smart men" are often not very smart at all. They simply have an "air of intelligence" which is a facade of large words slightly incorrectly used and regurgitation of social commentary that hides their inability to interpret and reason events and data into logical arguments.

You're clearly generalising.

[Anonymous No.1003765]

Christine Korsgaard

[Anonymous No.1003769]

>>1003698
>moral

[Anonymous No.1003778]

Nancy Cartwright

[Anonymous No.1003793]

Iris Murdoch

[Anonymous No.1003795]

>>1003754

Clearly not.

>>1003758

No. Women would like to think that the reason most of the world's great authors and academics and scientists are men is because of a lack of opportunity.

This argument does a great disservice to the legions of men who armed with a computer and phone started their own multi-billion dollar companies or sat down and wrote great works on their typewriter in their house over a summer.

Women have houses and computers, don't they? Then they should have no excuses.

[Anonymous No.1003916]

>>1003739
>The men you work with are stupid
No argument there. But even the smart one will screw around on his girlfriend then refuse to let her go out with her gay best friend because he's afraid she'll cheat on him.

>And women aren't likely to buy any gun because "a gun is a gun"?
No, it usually has to do with all the horror stories they hear about children or suicidal teenagers getting a hold of their parents' weapon and shooting themselves with it. But trying to protect your young, that's totally irrational, right? Then again, the women who do come to shoot on the range usually shoot better than the men because they actually learn how to shoot it right rather than imitate what they see in the movies. That is unless they come with their boyfriend who will inevitably get her the biggest hand canon he can find so that he can demonstrate how much bigger and stronger he is.

[Anonymous No.1003919]

>>1003795
i find it remarkable taht you are so dumb yet you are still compelled to reply.

[Anonymous No.1003945]

>>1003919

I find it remarkable that you don't even respect yourself enough to obey the laws of grammar.

You are obviously a woman.

>>1003916

I've never seen any of these men imitating movies at my rifle range. I see sportsmen who enjoy shooting and have high safety standards.

[Anonymous No.1004132]

>>1003795
J.K. Rowling started writing the Harry Potter series on napkins. But you're right, lack of opportunity doesn't necessarily lend itself as an excuse, though we can all agree that it's hard as hell to start a business whilst raising five screaming children. After all, if Shakespeare had spent half the amount of time raising his kids as he did writing plays, he would have gotten a lot less work done.

Now, American women were granted the right to vote in 1920, however it wasn't really until the 1970s that they began to break out of that "wife and mother" mold. That means, even if you count the 1920s as the beginning of the women's lib movement, you're still pitting a whopping 18 decades of female emancipation against thousands of years of unrestrained male intellectual and creative freedom. On top of that, now that women have come to the realization that being forced to raise the children of their oh-so-successful male counterparts has been keeping them down, men are getting butthurt over their rational decision to terminate pregnancy in the womb. Why? Well, have you no heart, woman? You're killing your own child!

[fascist goldfish !Rrxa7zePwI No.1004137]

i for one welcome our new feminine overlords.

[Anonymous No.1004149]

>>1003945
No,of course not. You're to busy scoffing at the fact that your delicate little girlfriend can't handle a 12 gauge on her first try and laughing about her petty "feelings".

[Anonymous No.1004151]

>>1004132

>unrestrained male intellectual and creative freedom

lol you think this is how it was

[Anonymous No.1004165]

>>1004149
*too busy
Pardon me.

[Anonymous No.1004184]

>>1004132

There are millionaires in this world who made their money before they were even 18. You assume children are the cause of this, but not all young women have children.

[Anonymous No.1004191]

>>1003793

this

[Anonymous No.1004210]

>>1004151
Even if the slaves and farmers were kept down, the opportunity to become intellectuals was still only allotted to the men of the upper classes.

[Anonymous No.1004226]

>>1004210

lol you think the educated had unrestrained intellectual and creative freedom

[Anonymous No.1004235]

how about virginia woolfe

[Anonymous No.1004247]

Simone de Beauvoir?

[Anonymous No.1004265]

kant was pretty much a girl

[Anonymous No.1004290]

>>1004184
You're assuming that young women always had the luxury to choose whether or not to have children. You're also making examples of very uncommon circumstances and measuring success by wealth. How typical of a man.

[Anonymous No.1004311]

>>1004226
If you're referring to Galileo, he was only stopped by the Church, also a body of men with unrestrained power.

[Anonymous No.1004347]

>>1004265
Didn't your mother teach you that's not a nice name to call any girl.

[Anonymous No.1004354]

Please, people, stop responding to trolls. Hint: you can detect them because they make no/invalid arguments in every single post and write in a trollish manner. Thank you.

[Anonymous No.1004405]

Iris Murdoch
Mary Midgely
Elizabeth Anscombe

[Anonymous No.1004406]

>>1003472

/thread

Anscome is the only answer. Foot is reasonable. Ronna Burger if you want someone not hella old.

[Anonymous No.1004667]

>>1004290

I measure success by creation and exploration. Creation of art, wealth, buildings, exploration of sciences, our world, etc.

[Anonymous No.1004722]

>>1003519
Humans are insanely complicated creatures and any attempt to simplify human nature to one trait is pointless and insulting. "Humans are naturally good!" "Humans are selfish bastards!" Both are right, and both are wrong.

[Anonymous No.1004729]

>>1004722

I never said they were bastards. But humans do look out for themselves by nature. It's survival. To deny it, you're only lying to yourself.

[Anonymous No.1004736]

AYN RAND, oh rational, nevermind then

my captcha was shanango richard, my name is richard, what the fuck does shanango mean?

[Anonymous No.1005300]

Simone de Beauvoir

[Anonymous No.1005306]

breaking the rule, but ayn rand?

tempting the fury, I know.

[Anonymous No.1005313]

I'm not going to bother to try when the only possible outcome is failure.

[Anonymous No.1005320]

Gayatri Spivak

[Anonymous No.1005359]

Simone de Beauvoir
Hannah Arendt
Rebecca Newberger Goldstein
Cynthia Freeland
Noël Merino
Martha Nussbaum

[Anonymous No.1005508]

>>1004132
I just wanted to point out that this is the biggest load of crap in this thread.


>On top of that, now that women have come to the realization that being forced to raise the children of their oh-so-successful male counterparts has been keeping them down,

Children of their male counterparts? I'm sorry but aren't they also children of their own? We, men and women, have equal stakes in the kids, we both want our genetic material to survive. So how do you dare to say you're just raising the man's kids? I think you'll make one pretty bad mother.

>men are getting butthurt over their rational decision to terminate pregnancy in the womb. Why? Well, have you no heart, woman? You're killing your own child!

Wait, it's men who are against anti abortion as part of some huge battle of the sexes conspiracy to keep women down?

Finding these statistics wasn't that easy but here they are according to Reuters, 8 jan. 2001

>By gender, men and women's feeling were statistically the same - 51% of both men and women agreed that abortion destroys a human life and is manslaughter while 37% of men and 33% of women said that abortion neither destroys a life nor is manslaughter. While 7% of men and 9% of women agreed with neither statement, 5% of men and 7% of women were not sure.

So what now, claim Reuters is part of the male conspiracy?

also
where the hell is my sammich?

[Anonymous No.1005538]

Judith Butler is the most obvious answer and hasn't been stated in this thread.

[Anonymous No.1005580]

>>1005508
reading isn't your thing, eh?