Where are all the female philosophers?

Уeбывaй.

Olga Plümacher née Hünerwadel
Agnes Taubert

Forgotten because they were conservative bigots who didn't want suffrage or social democracy

Ayn Rand is the greatest thinker the west has produced

Diamond Perri is the greatest philosopher of the past 1000 years.

would you?

Diotima of Mantinea, Simone Weil, Hannah Arendt, Isabelle Stengers, Simone de Beauvoir, Barbara Cassin, etc.

nigga she russian

kek

simone de beauvoir is really under appreciated tbf

writting in cali

>female philosopher

Who is this? What's it all about?

>simone de beauvoir is really under appreciated tbf

Better than Sartre.

What a fucking mess

ПATAMУ ЧTA ШКУPЫ TУПЫЫЫEEE AЗAЗAЗAЗA!1111

on muh dih

have in jail for 8 years

could you repeat that?

*have fun

in the kitchen, making me a sandwich.

ok

you called?

I would not.

1) OP asked for Philosophers
2) OP asked for women

Based Judith Butler.

Anscombe Anscombe Anscombe. You plebs drool over Wittgenstein all the time so you might as well read his greatest student

They're stuck in the cave

Why is it only Gay men can stand up to roasties.

Just read Schopenhauer's "On Woman" for an explanation.

>Wittgenstein remarked to Elizabeth Anscombe (presumably an honorary man) 'Thank God we have got rid of the women!' on realising that there were no female students left in the class. Szabados speculates that this was a lapse, an act of recidivism, or a joke, 'an example of Wittgenstein's humor which tended to take the paradoxical or the incongruous as its object'

theyre busy thinking

There is considerable evidence that Wittgenstein had a low opinion of women in general. He was opposed to giving them the vote and even, on social occasions, ignored women guests. Szabados has an interesting angle on this: 'Wittgenstein's misogynistic attitudes are in line with the greater part of the philosophical tradition of the West and cannot be explained merely in terms of his personal idiosyncrasies' (p. 63). Szabados cites some disappointing remarks of Aristotle, Aquinas, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. Yet Wittgenstein did rather better than these distinguished predecessors because although, early on, he fell under the evil influence of Otto Weininger, he subsequently, according to Szabados, prised himself free, acquired a better attitude and ended up repudiating Weininger's Sex and Character, assessing it as a great work but wholly mistaken. As Szabados admits, it does somewhat put a crimp in his thesis that, as late as 1947, Wittgenstein remarked to Elizabeth Anscombe (presumably an honorary man) 'Thank God we have got rid of the women!' on realising that there were no female students left in the class. Szabados speculates that this was a lapse, an act of recidivism, or a joke, 'an example of Wittgenstein's humor which tended to take the paradoxical or the incongruous as its object' (p. 73).

ndpr.nd.edu/news/ludwig-wittgenstein-on-race-gender-and-cultural-identity/

While Wittgenstein might have adopted this policy when Dyson was at Cambridge, there were in fact several women who attended Wittgenstein's lectures over the years. You can find some of this info in O. K. Bouwsma's 1961 review of the Blue Book (pdf). Bouwsma quotes from a letter by Alice Ambrose, who attended Wittgenstein's classes in the 1930's. Ambrose says that she and Margaret Masterman were among a select group of students who recorded Wittgenstein's thoughts (under his direction) for the Blue Book. Ambrose adds that a Mrs. Helen Knight also attended some of those sessions with Wittgenstein. And, of course, there's G. E. M. Anscombe. In addition, Rose Rand attended some of Wittgenstein's classes in the early 1940's. In the thread at Leiter's blog, Michael Kremer adds that Margaret McDonald was at some of Wittgenstein's lectures and took some of the notes that were later published. So, at least six women attended Wittgenstein's classes. Moreover, Wittgenstein seems to have respected not only Anscombe's philosophical abilities but those of Ambrose and Masterman as well.

tl;dr in general women are completely fucking useless for philosophy, way more so than men. BUT there are exceptions.

Once upon a time, Duncan wrote on his blog in a different context: "[Wittgenstein] was not 'awkward and unskilled in social intercourse.' On the contrary, he could be very charming. What he was is rude, which is not the same thing. My sense is that he was perfectly capable of getting along at a superficial level with people he probably thought of as superficial, but that he had a very low tolerance of what he regarded as bullshit when talking with people from whom he expected more, such as philosophers." I think this hits the nail on the head. What is apt to strike us as Wittgenstein's misogyny was probably to a large extent a case of this congenital inability to suffer fools gladly.

Clearly there's a reason hyper-intelligent people are misogynistic.

Either it's because women aren't attracted to intelligence, or it's because intelligent people see through women.

In the kitchen where they ought to be

''Hyper-intelligent'' men are aware of the reality of women (they see through their bullshit). THEREFORE, they are called 'mysoginists' by today's gynocentric societies. But they aren't necessarily mysoginistic.
Mysoginy is hating women. Thats psychological.
But understanding them and treating them accordingly is likely to be met with accusations of mysoginy, even in the cases where the men don't hate them.
Today, you MUST cater to women. Reality cant be brought to the light because of the dogmatical imperative of 'equality'.
Nietzsche 'predicted' feminism is what Im saying.

Any pearls of wisdom you can share?

What exactly is "women's bullshit?"

Some sort of woman-wide conspiracy no doubt.

the radical notion that women are people

>What exactly is "women's bullshit?"

Overwhelming support for collectivist(e.g leftist) politics for one.

The question is too broad. Read and learn for yourself. There's a thing called 'female nature'.

OR you can just assume that I'm a retarded teenager angry at women because I'm a virgin in need to find them 'evil'. Good luck with that.

Funny that most of the women I know are rightists, then.

Anything with the term "nature" in it used in this context is usually nothing other than opinion/ideology. Human nature, female nature, male nature, etc.

Because men keep them in check, for the most part.

Try throwing them down a flight of stairs.

Then we'll talk.

>Funny that most of the women I know are rightists

I don't believe you.

Youre implying that instincts that you know nothing about just dont exist. Female nature is very real. With men, things are a bit different: not all of us lose our shit at the sight of a good pair of tits for example. Not all of us submit to the 'women and kids first'. Not all of us are willing to lie to them at every step telling them that they are what all of us know deep down that theyre not: our equals.
Maybe its sad, and youre free to call me a mysoginist all you want, but at the end of the day women have ONE purpose in life, while men have 1000.

different brains, + they catch dick/get knocked up in their 20s instead of reading

What is a rightist?

underrated

>at the end of the day women have ONE purpose in life, while men have 1000
Maximum autism.

Not convinced. Arguments are poor.

Can someone post a list of women philos? Thanks.

A very spooky person, so spooky they constantly spook themselves.

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

underrated

>feminism is the radical notion that women are people too
I fucking hate this sentence. As if a politico-ideological movement can just identify themselves with some vacuous platitude. No, definitely don't look at how our movement enacts itself in the world, or the form our discourse and vocabulary takes, or how our thinking and speaking and writing is conducted, or how our arguments are made, or our love-hate relationship with scientific and statistical data. If you have any complaints about any of that, you must just think women are subhuman.

Exactly. You fucking mysoginist.
The opposition is always this simplistic shit that doesn't make any sense, isn't it. If it made sense, I'd have to consider stuff, to challenge stuff, to actually argue stuff. No, no. Can't be. Gotta listen to fucking hermione again vomiting her feelings on TV again. Now THAT is culture.

>replying to yourself
Oh honey, there's no need to be so upset. Go scroll through r/MensRights for a bit, that should help you calm down.

...

...

...

>women
>"people"
i reject this thesis

Wikipedia is grand innit?
Makes everybody "smart"
That's what smart people do right?
Regurgitate facts on command.

Do when ever question the sexual liberation and begin to think that actually condoms and 'the pill' make them feel sterile and that they are failing in the underlying biological instinctive drive to reproduce, so much so that they openly reject the idea that women should go for the 'leftist feminism' and instead try to go start a family?

objectivists BTFO

>you called?
I didn't.

fake news. there are two types of people in the world: feminists, and sexist, racist, misogynist pieces of shit

Whenever I think of female philosophers I think of the only one I remember(and unfortunately dont remember her name)
She said something like, the need to wonder about everything, experiment with everything and know everything is a result of male's hypermasculine desire to control things outside of their control, a desire women don't have
And ever since then I've thought like, damn are women that passive about the world?

Read eastern philosophy.
Yin and yang. The issue of passivity and activity wont be a mistery for you anymore.
Philosophy is the most masculine endeavour there is. Its about penetrating reality with our minds and finding a meaning in the middle of this fucking mess. Females are not penetrating (deep), but penetrated.
Nietzsche said once, in response to someone that said "females are superficial": "females are not deep. Theyre not even superficial".
What is the precondition for something to be superficial? Is the question you must ask yourself to understand this.

De Beauvoir and Butler are fucking dope. Sontag is cool too if you count her as a philosopher.

>She said something like, the need to wonder about everything, experiment with everything and know everything is a result of male's hypermasculine desire to control things outside of their control, a desire women don't have

Has to be Camille Paglia.

You think so? Looking her up it sounds like something that would be in Sexual Personae but I don't see any quotes that ring a bell
Any more of her work similar?

youtube.com/watch?v=vvrxQ4M3EOo&

She echoes those exact sentiments in this video.

In the kitchen making us GOAT tier male philosophers tasty sandwiches.

Holy shit, never laughed this hard.

That's definitely where women belong! Maybe the bedroom sometimes if the sandwich was good lol

>"[Wittgenstein] was not 'awkward and unskilled in social intercourse.' On the contrary, he could be very charming..."
So waving a red hot poker at Russel for disagreeing with him on philosophical issue is merely described as rude? Read the account of his "friend" who went on holiday with him. He hated every minute of it. Wittgenstein was so socially inept he though that after an entire holiday of yelling at and berating his "friend" he thought they both had a wonderful time.

I will though it is usually followed by someone saying if I haven't heard of them they can't be "real" philosophers.
>Anscombe
>Beauvoir
>Arendt
>Weil
>Nussbaum
>Butler
I made sure to only mention major female philosophers for the 20th century. If it were to include any of the hundreds of obscure ones people would claim you are being reduced to naming any bum-fuck to bump your numbers.
If you want non-20th century female philosophers:
>Sosipatra
>Elisabeth of the Palatinate
>Hypatia of Alexandria
>Hipparchia of Maroneia
>Tullia d'Aragona
>Hildegard of Bingen

If you don't know who Weil, Arendt and Beauvoir are and therefore assume you have to resort to wikipedia only shows how little you know about philosophy. Also
>You had to resort to a source in order to gather information
>Somehow this is bad
>t. someone who has never been to uni

They're all shit. Congrats on being brainwashed if you think any of them are as rational and logical as a male philosopher

ITT

>You mentioned a philosopher
>Therefore you must think they are right
Are you stupid?

>Implying their counterparts's syllogisms don't end up(actually begin) wanting the P.

>waving a red hot poker at Russel
that was Popper you pseud

>Tampons, pads and ironclads: Stonewall Jackson and freebleeding

Holy fuck my sides

>Dismissing an argument because of a mistake in the unessential particular of the statement
Maximum pseud alert. If Popper were the one brandishing the poker then I would have been BTFO, but no, It was still Wittgenstein doing the poking, which was the only important part of what was being said. Yes you were right, but that doesn't effect my point at all.
P
S
E
U
D

>Szabados cites some disappointing remarks of Aristotle, Aquinas, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche.
>disappointing
>claiming to believe philosophy has value but only listening to the philosophers when they agree with your preconceptions

>still not having learned to spell simple words
You're probably doing it deliberately but FYI being unable to spell "misogyny" while talking about it makes you look like a massive retard Chimpenberg mongoloid.

Anscombe
Philippa Foot
Julia Annas

Those are all I've read desu

Who is this protein putrefier?

there's no such thing as a female philosopher

>t. not a philosopher, also probably a woman since this user thinks women are stupid

Writing shitty, narcissistic self help books

SIMONE WEIL