Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk (Leo Smith)
Subject: Re: Plato's View on Women
Reply-To: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 06:58:00 +0000

mcrae@husc8.harvard.edu (Andrew McRae,   ,,) writes...

>In article <Bx9JK3.35s@quake.sylmar.ca.us>, brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder
) writes:

>> use philosophy to understand issues like race, sex, baldness, economics, and
>> one's unique characteristics, but the philosophical principles are universal,
>> not particular to certain kinds of people.

>Wow! An argument! What can we make of it?

What precisesly do you mean by Wow!. Is it that you feel the need for
an appeal to emotion, in that you suspect your arguments themselves
may be inadequate?

>Consider two views of "feminist philosophy". (I do not wish to
>insist that these exhaust the alternatives, nor that they are
>independent, nor that either is true.)

Then why voice them?

>(1) It is a field of philosophy distinguished from other fields by
>its subject matter -- it investigates issues of particular interest
>to women and of relevance to women's position in the societies they
>live in.

Now why, if you are not a sexist, should you feel that such issues
need a separate (and separately labelled) discipline? Are you saying
that women are simply 'not interesting' to men, and that a male
philosopher is unwilling or incapable of understanding issues
pertaining to women, and that furthermore, there is therefore a need
for SEXUAL SEGREGATION in order to alleviate this?

>(2) It radically differs from traditional philosophy in method and
>approach; among other things, it mounts a challenge to
>presuppositions that underlie traditional philosophy and that are
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I am all for challenging underlying suppositions: But NONE of the
ones I have encountered in this newsgroup have ANYTHING to do with
sexual matters.

>responsible for much of the oppression that women suffer in the
>societies they live in.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Now is the above not in itself an underlying assumption of a much
more biased and dangerous sort.

What you are saying then is:

        (i) All philosophies proceed from assumptions and develop
        conclusions.

        (ii) Feminist philosophy proceeds from the assumption that
        women suffer oppression in the societies they live in.

>If the "universality of philosophical principles" (whatever _that_
>means) counts against the "validity" of feminist philosophy in sense
>(1) -- where the field is distinguished by its subject matter -- then
>presumably it's going to count against the "validity" of any other
>philosophical field distinguished by its subject matter, such as the
>philosophies of mind, language, mathematics, logic, religion, and so
>on and so on. I take it that these count as "valid fields of study"
>in the required sense.

I think what Bryan is validly attempting to say, is that philosophy
attempts to base itself on as few and as broadly agreed assumptions
as possible. Such propositions as 'lets us call the totality of all
experinec Reality' and let us define a property of mind called
Reason etc. etc' or whatever. That is he is attempting to ensure that
the ground rules of philosophy, and of thought itself, are competent
to be applied to more than 50% of the human race. I myself feel that
this is intrinsically more useful than trying to develop philosophies
that are applicable to only 50% or so.

However much I accept the position of those who see the need to
placate and address the underlying social and political aspirations
of those who see themselves as oppressed minorities, I do, however
feel, that philosophy should be kept clear of such hypocrisy.

>It might be that Brian Yoder considers that the content of "feminist
>philosophy" in sense (1) is such that those "universal philosophical
>principles" cannot usefully be applied to it. This would, it seems to
>me, be an interesting criticism of the "validity" of feminist
>philosophy -- but no argument whatsoever has been offered for it
>here.

I think I have commented on that.

>In large part, (2) is simply a denial of the "universality of
>philosophical principles". Therefore, to use a mere unsupported assertion
>of that "universality" -- and that's all the argument in question
>consists in -- against (2) would simply be question-begging.

I think I have also answered that. By all means challenge underlying
assumptions. Ayn Rand (who is apparenlty female) seems to have had
some support here in that guise. But why call it 'feminist?' I have
been trying to challenge underlying assumptions of philosophy - or
at least make people aware of them. But that doesn't mean I have to
call it by a new name. I don't feel that I can use my sex, or any
other minority  status that I may be able to acquire in order to give
anything I might say any more validity than otherwise.

>Therefore, Yoder's argument fails to work against either (1) or (2).

You put up the aunt salllies - you knock em down boy!

>> Feminist philosophy is in it's essence simplyexism, just as "black philosophy"
>> of the kind exemplified by people like Louis Farakahn is simply racism,
>> and (if it existed) "white male philosophy" would be both.

>What more can I say? Yoder's attempt to class feminism with Farrakhan
>aptly betrays the contempt in which he holds both.


I think that ultimately segregationalism and ghettoism is totally
counterproductive if you wish to promote free and honest interchange
between what are called euphemistically 'minority groups'

It is important NOT to confuse power politics, and the need of many
individuals to gain power and support from minority interest groups,
by emphasising the isolation of those groups and their 'group
identity' and painting pictures of 'enemies without' , with
philosophy.  We have seen how philopsophy was used by Nazism - and
indeed with the support of MANY European educated liberals, who saw
it as a correct and proper response to Communism (which they
identified with Zionism!). Do we have to see it used to promote yet
more strife and discord?

If philosophy is NOT a unifying discipline, then I think there is
something wrong with it, and that should be addressed by those within
it.

Generating pseudo disciplines may appease, but it will not
illuminate.