|existentialism ° art ° poetry ° exquisite corpse ° chat ° search engine|
|( the cry ) Philosophy Discussion Board|
Posted by Indira on Thursday, December 05, 2002 at 00:48:16 :
In Reply to: Re: thank youm Joe. posted by Spratley on Wednesday, December 04, 2002 at 19:40:51 :
a person whose skin color is black has certain physiological traits that made him liable of slavery and torment.
excuse me jason, but this is my interpretation of what you're saying, and I think this is wrong.
actually, both erfan and you are talking as if philosophy was either a separate isolated field where anyone interested in the matter could just get into it without any consideration of his/her situation, or a special closed system where certain physiological traits would allow a reduced number of people (men) realize the path to its thought and follow it as a parallel line to everybody's path.
from my point of view, both things are incorrect.
first, erfan does not define what he calls philosophy. No definition needed, maybe not, I don't need anyone to define philosophy for me, unless he's trying to make a sociological point.
what is philosophy for erfan, I don't know.
I consider politics to be philosophy sometimes, and I've known quite a few women involved in it more seriously than arguing at an internet board.
second, philosphy as an intellectual activity, is related to everything that happens in everyday life. the image of the philosopher, or the poet, beyond everyday life, is a cliche. most philosophers have to eat and sleep, and you don't do that just thinking. for how long have women been not allowed to read, or study, and have been kept in the dark to raise the children and do the minor tasks of cleaning the house and knitting? it doesn't happen now, not everywhere at least, but societies do not change from one day to the next, and changes happen only when needed I think.
For how long have women been taken almost as slaves, with no right to do anything without their husband's or father's permission?
how can anyone pretend to find in history, which by the way was written mostly by men, women philosopers, when history has taken the job of turning women into a useless object whose main power was social acceptance and reproductive skills?
third, I don't think it's about linear thought, I think it's about the possibility of thinking, which is something that has been banned from women for too long. no one can pretend to wake up one day and say, now women, c'mon, think!
women have tried to escape from their prisons in many ways, philosophy not being the most important way out, since it was made and preserved by men, who, by the way, where they really fond of women?
what do greeks say about women? and a thousand more examples, through philosophy's history, to demonstrate that women have been intentionally excluded from philosophy.
homosexual relationships are to be considered a matter of philosophy, but women are like slaves?
what are we talking about when we say philosophy, except that most of the times we have to swallow whatever shit that comes attached to philosophy, in order to get a glimpse of what men have been trying to say in the last centuries?
most criticism done to chauvinist philosophers has been done from the feminist point of view, a failure from the start considering that it is just a pose.
and last, society is the result of power fights between different communities. it is an intentional system, and it has been ruled by religions and political (religious?) powers since the beginning.
everyone has a plan, and society is the result of this plan.
imagine twentieth century without women being freed from their chains: what would had happened, with industrial revolution having covered almost every area of material production?
what would it had happened to "work" without eager workers trying to "emmancipate"?
I think that your main point is wrong. society does not, and could not possibly interpret that a beat repeated a hundred times with a music loop behind would please some interesting percenteage of the population, to create techno music. (and sell like crazy, computer made loops)
I hope you don't find my response offensive?
: : Joe,the society force women to behave such a
: : way that men like,what do you think?
: Erfan, I think that we can only put responsibility on society (as opposed to something phiysiological) if society is a totally intentional system. Because if its not, then society could be a reflection of physiological traits --soeicty could force women into certain roles because of the physiological traits of men and women.
Post a Followup