Why are women and PoC more attracted to continental philosophy

>PoC
Just say non-white goddamnit.
Not only have you made up an expression that refers exclusively to people who happen to be non-european descended (there's no such expression for non-asians, or non-blacks), but you're throwing everyone of these different peoples in one category.
It also sounds like you're talking about some magical forest people whose feminine and natural contact with mother earth where destroyed when the cruel white man came and oppressed them and burned down their places of sacred worship or something like that.

It's hopefully b8, but I immediatly dismiss the opinion of anyone who unironically uses that expression.

Because it's related to their immediate concerns.

>but why is continental philosophy more diverse where white men, women, PoC

From what Ive seen this applies only to associated fields like feminism and post-colonial theory which is not philosophy but simply social theory.
You'll be hard pressed to see a significant difference in demographics between scholars of Husserl and Kripke

(contemporary) Continentals care more about ethics, politics, and aesthetics while (contemporary) Analytics get down into the nitty gritty of metaphysics, epistemology, and logic

What are you basing this on?
The continenetal circle in my University were primarily interested in epistemology and hermeneutics, modules on ethics were entirely thought by the Analytic circle.

There is a difference.

If it is a scholar or student who is specifically interested in studying Deleuze, Heidegger, Foucault, etc., then sure it will probably be the same demographic.

But if it has to do with the topics they wrote about (not specifically those three) such as literary theory, critical theory, feminism, the fine arts/aesthetics, then yes, you will definitely see a huge increase in females, LGBT, and to a lesser extent minorities of color besides east Asian.

To put it another way, if you were going to a conference on Deleuze it will be headed by a white male but the audience will be more diverse than if it were a conference on Kant or Kripke.

You won't find continentals nowadays working in pure philosophy of math, mind, physics, science, or logic. Many of the advances made in epistemology in recent years, like Gettier's problem, were made by analytics. The most significant advances in metaphysics over the past century were made by Quine and his disciples, including Kripke. Objections to physicalism in the philosophy of mind, like Mary's Room, were done by analytics, and so on. Continentals just sit there and spew shit

Once upon a time Johnny coined a neologism, "People of Colour", with the intention of referring to non-whites

Johnny, proud though he was of his new invention, decided to put it to use for the first time in public. As he was uttering the phrase, midway his doing so, a greatly distressed gentleman of an European descent chimed bravely in:

"OBJECTION!!! Is WHITE not a colour???"

Johnny: no

>When you look at "advances" in epistemology
>"advances" here being defined as analytic advances
>then you'll find analytics have made the only advances

Ok friend

What have continentals contributed to philosophy since Heidegger and Merleau-Ponty? Wanking over Marxism for the trillionth time while real philosophers work on actual philosophical problems?

They are encouraged to be. They aren't encouraged to be into maths and science.

There is this idea that maths and science are for men, and arts are for women, and also blacks have had a long tradition of being seen as being "good at music and dancing and performing"

When you see other people doing maths, science and logic, and almost none of them are like you, the message you take is "this isn't for me."

You don't go joining in on Chinese religious customs do you? You don't see Chinese buddhists and think, "I could grow up to be like them." Because you automatically think you're excluded.

Can you use a trip so I can filter you? Not even angry, I just really don't have time for you

That's right. The answer is nothing

Not everything in life has to devolve into fanboyism. You can recognize the aims and achievements of both.

...

You could at least point to what a counterpoint to his argument would look like

Now you just look like you dont have an argument

They most definitely are encouraged right now

If you are a woman applying to do grad work in philosophy you are set. Period.

If you are a male applying for grad school and dont have as one of your references a female you are fucked.

Also your example with Chinese religious customs doesnt work because where the hell am I going to find that in Iowa? I can find math anywhere and everywhere.

You'll be hard pressed to find any non-whites speak of Deleuzean metaphysics in relation to Spinoza or really getting to the heart of Being and Time.

What the hell is analytic philosophy all about? There are never any threads on the subject that discuss its thinkers, theories, or disagreements thereof. The only threads about it are ones like this, where it is compared with the continental school so as to deride the latter, and people talk about how logical, reasonable, rational, precise, scientific, math, maths, and mathematics, etc., while elaborating on or explaining fuck all.

Has analytic philosophy figured out everything by way of plugging questions into some computer somewhere, and we're all just waiting for continentals to come around or die out? Why can no one talk say anything of substance about this subject?

Why do you feel so attacked? This board leans heavily towards continental, which is precisely why there are hardly any threads on analytic philosophy, and when there are, it's for the exact opposite purpose of what you just stated. People here dislike analytic philosophy because they feel threatened by what are mostly misconceptions regarding the tradition. Most people think of it as still stooped heavily in positivist philosophy and the rigorous dogma of Russell and Moore. They think it's all just logic and numbers and adherence to science, which is wrong. There's probably some inferiority complex mixed in there somewhere and they hate themselves so much that they actually believe what New Atheists tell them while excoriating it online and associating it with analytic philosophy. Just read a fucking book

OP is a /pol/ack.

EVIDENCE THAT THIS IS ACTUALLY TRUE????LOL

Except the guy just asked while again you managed to tell him what analytic philosophy ISN'T while not saying what it is and what it's concerned with at all.

Also, it's only natural people feel attacked (I don't but understand those who do) when we get literally daily threads with Derrida, Heidegger, Nietzsche, D&G or Foucault pictures with witty commentary like "This man was a hack / charlatan / wrote gibberish to show his lack of content".

If anyone is defensive in Veeky Forums, it's the analytic friends. Threads devoted to continental philosophy way too often get derailed by MUH CLARITY and MUH UNFALSIFIABILITY shitposters and if you can see why this makes people mad, you're a way more patient than I am.

Evidence is patriarchal and oppressive

t. Blacks and women

>women and blacks aren't encouraged into math/science

What a nice excuse.
Men are better at philosophy, science, math, and anything that pushes boundaries. They have a higher IQ on average and are more analytical on average. Women, for the most part are more satisfied with the status quo, and do not push boundaries to change it like men do.

Of course I'm not interested in an argument. When he learns to speak and think like an adult I'll consider it

from my experience continentals tend to attack analytical philosophy and are much more defensive

while analytics really don't give a shit about continental philosophy to talk shit about?

lol what world are you living in

white males are better at logic then pocs and roasties.

>obvious b8 is obvious

he's not wrong

there has never been a woman on the level of John Von Neumann

I don't feel attacked. I'm genuinely interested in the field and frustrated that every conversation about it ends in this, empty ad hominems aimed at some perceived threat and endless name dropping. I find it wearisome that it's advocates reveal nothing of its workings or purpose, but project such certainty and arrogance. I just enter every thread hoping to pick up on something of value that I can look into further, but I just wind up leaving empty handed every time.

warosu.org/lit/?task=search2&ghost=yes&search_text=obscurantist&search_subject=&search_username=&search_tripcode=&search_email=&search_filename=&search_datefrom=&search_dateto=&search_op=op&search_del=dontcare&search_int=dontcare&search_ord=new&search_capcode=all&search_res=post

The very separation between continental and analytic is a analytic move.

It's because white men are more rational and logical qua their intellect and higher IQ.

Anyone who denies this is a continental cuck who hates whiteness and masculinity. Based on evidence logic and rationality this is true. It's only based on muh feels that it isn't.

Take the redpill.

>warosu.org/lit/?task=search2&ghost=yes&search_text=obscurantist&search_subject=&search_username=&search_tripcode=&search_email=&search_filename=&search_datefrom=&search_dateto=&search_op=op&search_del=dontcare&search_int=dontcare&search_ord=new&search_capcode=all&search_res=post

differences are good

Is Molyneux passing himself off as an analytic philosopher now or something? What the fuck is going on here?

like that one guy said

I get the feeling that many continentals simply misunderstand contemporary analytical philosophy

they still think its some logical positivism support group or something

i never see analytics shit on continental philosophy

they're not into continental. They're into intersectionalis and identity politics derived from 3 dead white KANGS (and sometimes Beveauir or the Frantz "t" Fanon

There have, they just aren't valued as highly, and they aren't encouraged to reach those heights.

>philosophy, science, math, and anything that >pushes boundaries
>Those thing are the only things that push boundaries.
>Contributions to science in the last few years haven't been almost equally made by women, despite their lower participation rate.
>They have a higher IQ on average

This is objectively false (and has been shown to be so in many studies).

> Women, for the most part are more satisfied with the status quo

Couldn't be more wrong.

>and do not push boundaries to change it like men do.

This is right though.

Are you retarded or just autistic?

Analytical Philosophy is philosophy for people who can't do real math.

Continental Philosophy is philosophy.

>PoC

A highly privileged and discriminatory acronym. Does my color horrify you? Are you in fear for your precious hierarchy that you see us overturning ever more rapidly?

I will not be boxed in. I am not merely a 'person of color', I am a person and you are my oppressor, so if anything I am a 'person of oppression'. So if you must try to reduce me with your devilspeak please do it honestly. I am a POO.

absolutely fucking epic post!!!

IN

>Heidegger more like HeiNIGGER
Yeah, I kinda agree with you. I feel Veeky Forums discussion is becoming less about books and more about memes about books, and that makes me sad. Also a bit angry, but mostly sad.

Encouragement has had little to do what great men have reached in the history of humanity, ya dunce.

That's not difference, it's shitposting by a bunch of faggots who think philosophy is fucking Team Fortress or some shit, and it's almost always the analytic autists who start it.

Me neither, but I see them TRYING to almost daily (see )

Neither is black :^)

It really shows how feeble minded social justice types are that they consider "lack of encouragement" an excuse to fail

It does. People strive to be like their peers, people they identify with. It's why people keep up with the Joneses.

You think you're responsible for yourself alone? Shows your childlike thinking. Do you really not think your aspirations and your wants and values are shaped by the others around you?

How many men want to be nurses? The reason men don't often choose to be nurses is because it's thought of as a female field. Caring for the needs of others isn't considered a masculine profession, so men don't pursue it.

You people are retarded.

Weak men blame others. Strong men overcome themselves.
There are more female nurses because women are naturally better at caring.

No, men don't chose nursing because they are men. Inclinations of the sexes differ biologically.
Women are more into social activities of the caring kind due to the obvious connection they have with motherhood.

>>There are more female nurses because women are naturally better at caring.
you are fucking idiot

So are you.

Fuck, ideology has hit you hard. It's not about blame, it's what it's like being an animal. No one chooses who they are. To do so would be to believe in absolute free will, which is a ridiculous position.

>No, men don't chose nursing because they are men. Inclinations of the sexes differ biologically.

Right, but they also get obfuscated by our assumptions based on cultural bias. These sort of assertions become absolutely nonsensical when you start making absolute claims like this in a post-industrial society. Doctors also care for people, but there are a far greater proportion of men in that field. Same with therapists. We only accept that females are nurses because that's the way it is. In the old days, there was a time when most midwives were men, and it would have been ridiculous to think that midwives could be women, but now it's the opposite.

Just as in some tribal societies in Asia, females were seen as the fishers, whereas in other societies fishing is seen as a manly activity.

Bit after the green text was meant for:

>Women are more into social activities of the caring kind due

This isn't true. Men also care about people.

spankbang.com/qtfq/video/cute teen couple

How do you explain the overwhelming dominance of women in nursing fields even within highly educated post-industrial societies with the highest-rated levels of gender equality on the planet e.g. Sweden, Norway? Is it simply unconscious cultural bias, or is that a post hoc explanation for an outcome that contradicts egalitarian fundamentalism?

Er, nu-male cucks maybe.

They're libcuck fags

Nursing was one the few jobs women were allowed to keep after the wars, because of the same reasoning that has been used here.

It is an unconscious cultural bias, they die really hard. A few decades of "egalitarianism" isn't going to kill cultural ideas very easily. What aristotle and plato said about art and poetry still largely dominates the underlying way most people think about art, for instance.

There is nothing inherently womanly about cleaning (literal) shit, poking people with needles, and administering medication. It could have just as easily been men to do these things, and at many times in history it has been men who did these things.

Women's genes don't say to their brains "must become a nurse."

>It's because white men are more rational and logical

this 2bh

Except it's not true.

Because continental philosophy is filled with smart sounding bullshit. It's perfect for woemn, who have lower intellectual ability. They can just whip up some bullshit essay and call it a day.

>Women's genes don't say to their brains "must become a nurse."
But women are consistently found across cultures to demonstrate empathy and recognize emotions better than men, and this difference has heavy support that it exists from birth. The female brain is biologically different than the male brain and has more gray matter in areas associated with emotional responses and perceptions.

Is it not natural that women would favor empathetic, nurturing professions if they have a high emotional intelligence?

It's comfy to think of men and women as equals but they're really not.

While you can find both men and women who would be willing to sacrifice themselves and care for others,
the proportion of such individuals would be lower within the subset of men than within the subset of women.

Men do go into nursing though, and there are lots of male physicians - a job undeniably centred around caring for others. Keep crying about do white man keeping you down though, I'm sure all that complaining will make you succesful one day.

It is, but gender ideology has a problem with nature.
> The reason men don't often choose to be nurses is because it's thought of as a female field.
No, it's because they have no inclination towards care jobs.

I'm the user you replied to and I'm a man.

It has nothing to do with muh oppression and muh victim culture. It's just the act of reading anthropology and looking at things rationally.

I never said men don't go into nursing. There are also plenty of women who go into science and philosophy. What's your point?

> to sacrifice themselves and care for others,
the proportion of such individuals would be lower within the subset of men than within the subset of women.

I honestly doubt this. What do you base your reasoning on?

The reason nursing is so associated with women is because of its roots as a profession. The word 'nurse' comes from child rearing, and the roles etc of nursing, of looking after children, came from the domestic servant role of nurse. But modern nursing is nothing like that. You don't have to be a caring person to be a nurse. You just have to be willing to clean up people's shit, perform minor medical tasks etc etc. The job's really not more caring than any other service. Many nurses are bitter cunts.

Women go into nursing disproportionately compared to men because "lol men aren't nurses you fag.". Otherwise more men would, because it pays well and takes less training time than other medical professions.

>No, it's because they have no inclination towards care jobs.

lol. This is retarded reasoning. What are doctors? What are therapists? What are social workers? What are philanthropists? What are charity workers?
These are areas with high proportions of men. Nursing isn't inherently more "caring" than many other professions populated by men.

I bet men also have no inclination toward being sewage workers either, but they do it, because it pays well.

My point is a focus on cultural influence over an internal locus of control promotes victim culture and tensions across genders and ethnicities.

Opposing biology and culture is stupid. They complement and reinforce each others. Cultural expectations of genders are usually derived from biological inclinations.

>I need to be spoofed
How about you read the wikipedia entry on analytic philosophy and follow some references, or read Glock's "What is analytic philosophy?", or a bunch of other sources on it. It's not difficult.

I hate all of you.

From my understanding, it makes several metaphysical presumptions, similar ones to the Enlightenment philosophers, and from there try to develop a philosophy of language and the limits of understanding as well as learning. This unfortunately has devolved into a philosophy of bending over for science.

Regardless, I don't give a damn because it's a 20th century construct rather than an actual distinguishing factor that every single pre-20th century philosopher had clearly in mind whilst writing or speaking.
Evidence, logic, and rationality are all whipped by 'muh feels'. You only support these things because of 'muh feels', you only think they are correct thinking because 'muh feels'.

Contemporary analytic philosophy and "philosophy as seen by Bertrand Russel" are two different things. Unfortunately, it can take several decades for academic philosophy to be recognized by the public so we have a phenomenon where analytic philosophy is seen as a bunch of mathematicians ranting about the fall of metaphysics, developing logical systems and placing philosophy as a servant to natural science.

The reality is that analytic philosophy since the ~60s has shed its positivist ideology, considers metaphysics a major field and has a growing number of traditional philosophical schools expressed in "analytic terms", such as Aristotelianism. You don't even need to cite very recent philosophers, just look at Alfred North Whitehead - seen as a canonical analytic, but his main work is a system of metaphysics that responds to every great synthesizer.
Then you have the explosion of literature on virtue ethics, which is almost entirely within anglo-analytic circles, yet there's nothing about it that's relatable to logical positivism.
Analytic philosophy still has an emphasis on analysing language, being written in a "clear style" and emphasizing formal logic in certain fields, but that's about it.

Men: A growing minority?
apa.org/gradpsych/2011/01/cover-men.aspx

Almost 82 Percent Of Social Workers Are Female, and This is Hurting Men
m.mic.com/articles/30974/almost-82-percent-of-social-workers-are-female-and-this-is-hurting-men#.1jZjaocnv

Your examples disprove your hypothesis.

I base my reasoning partly on observation and partly on psychology of personality and its various theories.

While no two people are identical in their motivations and cognitive inclinations, there are clear patterns across populations that allow us to differentiate between different kinds of individuals.

If you look at the Enneagram, it will help to differentiate between some of the basic drives that people possess. Enneagram types can then be linked to another useful and a lot more popular tool, the MBTI. That's where statistics can be acquired.

In the Enneagram, type 2 is the Nurturer type, or someone who is motivated by caring for others. Interestingly, there are two personality types - ESFJ and ENFJ - which have a very strong pull towards enneagram type two. You probably know some of them, and if you are more analytical than the average person, you probably avoid them like the plague. But I digress. There are some other personality types with a more prominent pull towards type 2, but again, they are mostly feeler types. The occurence of ESFJs is 13% of the female population, and 7% of the male population. ENFJs are a lot rarer, but that would be 4% of the female population and 2.5% of the male population.

A similar pattern emerges when you look at feeler vs. thinker types - women are more likely to be feeling types statistically. As this has to do with individual cognitive inclinations, it is easy to see how statistics translate into real world situations. More natural nurturers among women equal more stay at home mothers, more female nurses etc. These numbers do not translate directly of course, as there will be plenty of women AND men who are going to be working in nursing for the money.

But of course, then the cultural aspect hits and people go "I can't allow myself to do something like this (as a male or a female)" as opposed to the cognitive "I can't do this (as an individual)".

Unfortunately, the statistics are iffy. I have a hunch the distribution of personality types is a bit different across different countries, so we have to rely on the American ones. I also haven't figured out how hereditary the different types are as there is no clear pattern. But the current distribution (more females feelers vs. more males thinkers) suggests there's a genetic factor in all of this and rational females might have been at a disadvantage historically as there are less of them out there overall as a result. Ironically, rational women oftentimes are also against having children. I haven't met a single INTJ or INTP woman who was planning to have any.

>What are therapists? What are social workers? What are philanthropists? What are charity workers?
>These are areas with high proportions of men.
lol

I like how you conveniently left out the part where he mentioned doctors

Not a matter of convenience. he's right with doctors but absolutely wrong about the rest

Because continentals are feelosophers.

>continentals
>relevant

my sides

pic related: what real MANLY philosophy looks like. yeah, that's right -- it's ANALYTIC.

go back to tumblr, whores