Why haven't women made any significant contributions to philosophy?
I literally have not seen one philosophical book written by a woman before; this does not include pseudo-philosophical feminist treatises.
This is not a troll/bait thread. I honestly just want to know why. "Muh oppression" is not a reasonable explanation for thousands of years without women philosophers. They could have easily used a pseudonym, or if their work was good enough it would have still been considered in the canon.
Other urls found in this thread:
There aren't really any male philosophers either, there's just Kant. So it's 1-0 to men which isn't bad. Plenty of time for women to get on the board
Well, Elizabeth Anscombe coined the word 'consequentialism'. Sorry to prove you wrong, sweetie :)
Here's a book by a women philosopher. It's not very good. But you've seen it. The only one on my shelf.
Why did she disappear?
>I literally have not seen one philosophical book written by a woman before
Oh, good, this guy can get rid of Husserl, Frege, and a whole lot of other hard shit he's never heard of from canon. Down side is, we lose Weil's come fight me in real life to Trotsky, and probably have to keep Trotsky, because OP's probably heard of him even though he could define none of his ideas.... I guess that means just Trotsky's actual ideas are inconsequential to Trotskyites, which with Frege gone, we can easily prove to be the case using just empiricism. Wonderful. Yes, we also got rid of Hume's criticism of inductive reasoning, you don't really expect OP to know about that to conjure it into being
she didn't disappear, she's just getting married to a redditor, i'm sure she'll keep writing porn about capitalists.
>she's just getting married to a redditor,
nah she is too young
sasha's pretty old in porn years, user. she's practically veteran status. hell, she was in a soderbergh film, she's past veteran and into dried up on the film front. let her retire to her writing before she dies of hep, she's earned it.
...
>They could have easily used a pseudonym, or if their work was good enough it would have still been considered in the canon.
I don't think you understand how oppression works/worked.
I don't think you understand how History actually was and how many women actually wrote things but they just suck.
i didnt feel the same way until recently. im making a survey of philosophy and i finally got to arendt and beauvoir. what ive read of arendt is interesting, but calling her a philosopher is really pushing it - she's more like a really good journalist. beauvoir insists over and over that she is just expounding sartre's ideas, but the SEP drools over her contributions, leading to sentences groups like this:
>Her philosophical voice, she insisted, was merely an elaboration of Sartre’s. Those denials coupled with the fact of her life-long intimate relationship with Sartre positioned her in the public and philosophical eye as his alter ego. Decoupling Beauvoir from Sartre became the first priority of those interested in establishing her independent philosophical credentials. Sometimes the issue concerned Sartre’s originality: Were the ideas of his Being and Nothingness stolen from Beauvoir’s She Came to Stay?
to answer op's original question, though, the answer is i'm not sure. oppression certainly cannot be the whole answer. i think i may have seen the idea that men have higher iq distributions at the very tail end debunked, but i'm not sure. the fact that the majority of what are considered female philosophers are ashkenazi jews tells me that this is, at least in part, iq related. iq though is just one measure of intelligence. can you identify the characteristic of women to slavishly seek recognition outside themselves as a matter of oppression or intelligence? either way, this would seem to be an enormous block to philosophical thought.
so:
>historical non-participation
>mental horsepower
>inability to be a true individual
I'll take who is Mary Wollestonecraft for 400 please Alex.
RAND
BRAVO
R
A
V
O
Because like sports, philosophy is all about challenge and the desire to challenge is a dominantly male trait. /thread
that's not sasha grey tho
Can you provide evidence that women wrote and were published anywhere near as often as men before the 20th century?
"Published" is the important part because even if they had written hundreds of great works, it was pretty much men who allowed them to see the light of day, and considering how oppressive/sexist men were back then they probably didn't even bother to read what women wrote, and even if they did they didn't take it seriously NOT because of whether or not it was ACTUALLY good, but because they always had a predisposition to dislike anything women wrote.
Also, keep in mind that women did not have access to the same kinds of education men did, which plays a big role in being a good and/or successful writer. You can't be a great writer or philosopher if you are not even allowed to learn about writing and philosophy in your life.
there are quite a number of women saints had works published in the middle ages
>St. Teresa of Ávila (Interior Castle and Way of Perfection) 1515-1582
>St. Catherine of Siena (The Dialogue of Divine Providence and numerous correspondences with Pope/kings/mercs/others) 1347-1380
>St. Gertrude the Great (The Herald of Divine Love) 1256-1302
>Julian of Norwich (Revelations of Divine Love) 1342-1416
>Mechthild of Magdeburg (The Flowing Light of Divinity) 1207 - 1282/94
Where the attitudes toward women of the religious world different than that of the secular? I doubt there would have been so much of a divide though. Or perhaps it is a phenomena that emerged mostly in early modernity when non-religious writing by men gained more prominence.
>Absolute musts: High iq, no gf, friendless or only friends with spergs
>Nice to have: High levels of patience, phlegmatic/apathetic personality, stoic calm
>Favorite hobby: Thinking about abstract ideas instead of chad's dick
>Day-to-day business. Reading and writing, by yourself
>Social/material payoff: n/a
dunno lol beats me
I don't know OP, there's some pretty gems out there like Greenspan (annagreenspan.com
Exclusivity is not gender exclusive, and it might actually hurt any kind of feminine development to assume otherwise (for better or worse). And by the way some of the best people of their times in other fields out there did use pseudonyms to teach and etc. like Emmy Noether
Arendt is pretty based.
Because for thousands of years, whenever a woman opens her mouth, men tell her to shut up and look pretty. You can argue it's different now, of course, but it's a fact that it used to be that way.
Because you're a pleb
echoing arendt, not only precise and well argued but highly readable
There was that one ancient Greek woman but I can't remember her name.
hypatia
If men were told to do that they would overthrow whatever system was oppressing them. Thats no excuse.
sappho
Yeah her, from Lesbos.
>tfw most of her work is lost
Being the worlds first dyke doesn't make you a philosopher
>Who is Elizabeth Anscombe
>Who is Phillipa Foot
>Who is Hannah Arendt
>Who is Martha Nussbaum
>This isn't a bait thread
Sure it isn't OP.