[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 9 KB, 250x250, 1625227874444s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR] No.19111624 [Reply] [Original]

Do you think we will one day get an actual female philosopher that goes beyond "muh feminism", solipsism, sex or gender dynamics? Or are they incapable to ascend to the higher levels of human thought?

>> No.19111637

We won't have a female philosopher for the same reason we won't have a male birthgiver: systemic oppression

>> No.19111646

>>19111624
women don't have consciousness
I still remember the day my ex told me she had never seriously thought about her death

>> No.19111647
File: 415 KB, 614x616, AYNRAND.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

...

>> No.19111655

>>19111624
Hypatia

>> No.19111664

>>19111647
Ah yes "the philosophy of me, me and me. Everyone else can go fuck themselves". That's basically female manifestation of solipsism, which is part of female psyche anyway and therefore still within the typical female frame of though.

>> No.19111672

>>19111624
Ruth Barcan Marcus?
Christine Korsgaard?
Martha Nussbaum? Most of her work is in politics and ethics but I don’t think it’s super feminist-y.

>> No.19111681

>>19111647
OP said no solipsism

>> No.19111718

>>19111672
Christine Korsgaard is a feminist-lite that triest to apply the a female feminist-like thought to things that should be viewed by a greater lens. Therefore she's not what I requested.

Martha Nussbaum seems to be a hidden feminist from what I gathered, kudos to her to be more willing to explore things from a non-feminist framework though.

Ruth Barcan Marcus seems to be pretty based from her quick eli5 introduction though. But I'm not familiar with her so I might be wrong, seems like she's worth a shot at least.

>> No.19111730

>>19111655
Seems pretty based. Worth a shot I guess.

>> No.19111749

>>19111664
You clearly haven't read her and only know objectivism by strawman and reddit tier memes

>>19111681
her philosophy is the exact opposite of solipsism

>> No.19111752

the average woman is too self aware for what most philosophers over history have done, ie confuse their own beliefs and prejudices for universal truths

>> No.19111761

>>19111718
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~korsgaar/Complete.Writings.html
Korsgaard has a ton of papers that don’t have anything to do with feminism. Mainly on Kantian ethics.

>> No.19111763

>>19111749
Lmao this is golden. Alright chump, enlighten us how her philosopy is totally not solipsism.

>> No.19111783

>>19111752
Sure, philosophers have fucked up and written a lot of dumb bullshit before. But at the opposite end of the spectrum, if everyone just gave up and said “you have your opinions and I have mine so let’s just agree to disagree and we’ll all get along uwu” then we’d still be living in mud huts and civilization and knowledge would never have progressed.
There’s nothing wrong with making mistakes as long as you maintain a healthy skepticism towards yourself.

>> No.19111810

>>19111761
>http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~korsgaar/Complete.Writings.html
Okay I take that back, some of her stuff seems really interesting.

>> No.19111823

They don't have the capacity for it. He may be a much maligned meme but Schopenhauer nailed it when said they were incapable of philosophy

>> No.19111839

>>19111823
Wasn't that just his anger at being turned down?

>> No.19111845

>>19111783
but no (systematic at least) philosopher has ever actually succeeded. if they did they would be a household word like newton or darwin. if some philosopher tomorrow really achieved what he thought he did it would be front page news and completely transform society.

>> No.19111869

>>19111845
If we are to take the unwashed masses as a basis for success, then outside of being known for being this "really really smart nerd guy", Newton hasn't achieved much. I suppose Darwin is the only one who actually managed to convince normies that theory of evolution is real, so he gets a pass. The reason I hesitate to include Newton is because plenty of people are incapable of understanding physics even in western society (too lazy I suppose).

Success shouldn't be measured by normies though.

>> No.19111926

>>19111869
but then theres also no elect group of people who follow the exact same philosophical system because theyre all more intelligent or reasonable than average. its pretty much impossible not to read any major thinker without coming up with an interpretation you havent heard from anyone else in its entirety.

>> No.19111947

>>19111845
Nietzsche and Marx are household names. Plato is probably a household name. Aquinas is known to many Catholics who don’t even formally study philosophy. Going down another tier in popularity, a lot of people know about Hobbes and Locke.
The question of what constitutes “achievement” in philosophy is a complex one. But I’m pretty confident that it’s independent of a philosopher being a “household name”.

>> No.19111963

>>19111947
nietzsche and marx are also two of the most controversial, debated and misinterpreted people to ever live, and the average person has absolutely no idea what plato thought. hardly anyone though (except some who are mostly seen as insane) is going to argue against natural selection or the existence of gravity.

>> No.19112001

>>19111637
underrated post

>> No.19112002

>>19111963
You're moving goalposts. Regardless of their controversiality, they havee achieved something that is akin to your Darwin and Newton "household name" argument.

The argument is refuted.

>> No.19112025

>>19112002
alright

>> No.19112040

>>19111783
>civilization and knowledge would never have progressed
It would have progressed much faster because many wars would have never taken place.

>> No.19112053

female philosophy is nameless because it becomes common knowledge when they spread it rather than hermetic.

>> No.19112057

>>19111637
Yeah, yeah, and don't forget socio-economic factors

>> No.19112075

Bicause they are too stupid

>> No.19112093
File: 65 KB, 1068x601, 1623370275933.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>19111749
All of my perceptions of Ayn Rand are based on her fans and what other people have told me about her work. Sorry, I will never her because I refuse to read Jews or women, much less a jewess.

>> No.19112332

>>19111763
her philosophy already presupposes that reality exist independent from our minds and that we are able to perceive reality
the opposite of solipsism

>> No.19112345

>>19111672
Nussbaum is definitely into doing feminist philosophy. She spends a LOT of time arguing for liberal feminism.
>>19111624
rosa luxemburg

>> No.19112353
File: 57 KB, 1200x1200, Hannah Arendt.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>19111624
Try reading more.

>> No.19112403

>>19111637
had me in the first half

>> No.19112423

>>19112353
>Stalin and Hitler are literally identical!
Into the trash it goes

>> No.19112435

>>19111839
Schopenhauer was a chad who had children out of wedlock with his Italian mistress, anon.

>> No.19112438

>>19112075
>bicause

>>19111624
GEM Anscombe

>> No.19112591

>>19112438
Seems like a decent read, thanks.