♀️ Females in philosophy

[Veritas Aequitas]

OK I need to add, philosophy-proper [in contrasted to the bastardized academic philosophy] is a natural evolved drive in all humans albeit existing in dormancy in the majority especially women.

Perhaps there is LIVE-philosophy and DEAD-philosophy. Live-philosophy is how many women I've known are essentially living... every day... in the way they think. There is often some psychology mixed in too. All throughout life, I've experienced very perceptive female beings... who are steps ahead of their male partners who are often bumbling around focused on ONE thing... and the women congratulate the males for that. (Okay, I was just having a little fun with that description. Many men I've known have agreed it's true, however.) Men, it seems, are typically more interested in established, unchanging philosophy, which could be described as DEAD-philosophy. It is set... unchanging... studied... and used to proclaim being 'right'. None of the women I've known would have interest in that. Life is changing every moment, and it requires dynamic interaction to understand it and maintain efficiency with it -- to understand the connections and flows and logic as people and circumstances shift and mutate! Anyone can claim to 'know' or understand a still target -- but what does it take to understand and practice philosophy on moving targets?

As I had stated, ALL humans [men and women] are 'programmed' with a faculty of philosophy-proper albeit less active in women as evident.

So it is true women are triggered to do 'philosophy' in their womanly way but it is not sufficient since philosophy-proper has higher degrees of complexities which at present the average women [there are exceptions but few] in the past, so they have to develop to deal [in future] with these complex matters.

Note the complexities in logic, metaphysics, epistemology, mathematics, geometry and the likes, & at the higher levels they are not the common garden variety of thinking. In the past the circumstances did not provide the opportunity to graduate to such thinking but now I believe it is possible.

[Sculptor]

OK I need to add, philosophy-proper [in contrasted to the bastardized academic philosophy] is a natural evolved drive in all humans albeit existing in dormancy in the majority especially women.

Perhaps there is LIVE-philosophy and DEAD-philosophy. Live-philosophy is how many women I've known are essentially living... every day... in the way they think. There is often some psychology mixed in too. All throughout life, I've experienced very perceptive female beings... who are steps ahead of their male partners who are often bumbling around focused on ONE thing... and the women congratulate the males for that. (Okay, I was just having a little fun with that description. Many men I've known have agreed it's true, however.) Men, it seems, are typically more interested in established, unchanging philosophy, which could be described as DEAD-philosophy. It is set... unchanging... studied... and used to proclaim being 'right'. None of the women I've known would have interest in that. Life is changing every moment, and it requires dynamic interaction to understand it and maintain efficiency with it -- to understand the connections and flows and logic as people and circumstances shift and mutate! Anyone can claim to 'know' or understand a still target -- but what does it take to understand and practice philosophy on moving targets?

As I had stated, ALL humans [men and women] are 'programmed' with a faculty of philosophy-proper albeit less active in women as evident.

That is not evident.
What is evident is a socially constructed division as it is in many other fields.

So it is true women are triggered to do 'philosophy' in their womanly way but it is not sufficient since philosophy-proper has higher degrees of complexities which at present the average women [there are exceptions but few] in the past, so they have to develop to deal [in future] with these complex matters.

That is utter bollocks.
I have only to show one example of a woman who is a better philosopher than any man to prove that statement wrong.

Note the complexities in logic, metaphysics, epistemology, mathematics, geometry and the likes, & at the higher levels they are not the common garden variety of thinking. In the past the circumstances did not provide the opportunity to graduate to such thinking but now I believe it is possible.

Such complexities are more than mastered by many woman whereas you have evidently failed.

Are you also a racist, or do you restrict your prejudice to sexism?

[Immanuel Can]

Well, then, how did you decide there needed to be more women in philosophy?

You must have had some fact in mind... how did you decide that the current proportions aren't exactly the ones women want?

My point is every human [men and women] has this dormant philosophical drive within but at present the women faculty of philosophy-proper is less active as evident. So in a way we need to increase their % not to be more than men, but contribute to the overall %.

I can't see how that shows we need to "increase" anything, or "contribute" to the overall percentage, whatever it may be. What we need to know is that women actually want to do that. And how do we know that?

[Lacewing]

As I had stated, ALL humans [men and women] are 'programmed' with a faculty of philosophy-proper albeit less active in women as evident.

So it is true women are triggered to do 'philosophy' in their womanly way but it is not sufficient since philosophy-proper has higher degrees of complexities which at present the average women [there are exceptions but few] in the past, so they have to develop to deal [in future] with these complex matters.

Note the complexities in logic, metaphysics, epistemology, mathematics, geometry and the likes, & at the higher levels they are not the common garden variety of thinking. In the past the circumstances did not provide the opportunity to graduate to such thinking but now I believe it is possible.

The 'higher philosophical complexities' of men is apparently good enough for you. Nothing more to see.

[owl of Minerva]

Verites Aequitas wrote:

“Note the complexities in logic, metaphysics, epistemology, mathematics, geometry and the likes, & at the higher levels they are not the common garden variety of thinking. In the past the circumstances did not provide the opportunity to graduate to such thinking but now I believe it is possible.”

……………………………………………………….

It is true that men are more inclined to gravitate to abstract thinking than women. Women are more interested in what is relative. Abstract concepts and symbols may be less appealing. That is not to say that women cannot master abstract thinking if they put their minds to it. A goddess culture where symbols and forms have energy may be where women feel most at home. Abstract concepts replaced forms, that resonated with symbols and energy, when the culture changed to a god culture, which favors concepts and abstraction. The culture of concepts and abstract reasoning has had a long run. It has got us to where we are; the good and the bad, and the unsustainable. It may reach an impasse, if it has not already.

If there is a move to images and symbols, whose energy resonates, women's day in the sun may come; it may be just around the corner. Artists are already there and always have been. When that happens it will be men who will have to adjust.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Perhaps there is LIVE-philosophy and DEAD-philosophy. Live-philosophy is how many women I've known are essentially living... every day... in the way they think. There is often some psychology mixed in too. All throughout life, I've experienced very perceptive female beings... who are steps ahead of their male partners who are often bumbling around focused on ONE thing... and the women congratulate the males for that. (Okay, I was just having a little fun with that description. Many men I've known have agreed it's true, however.) Men, it seems, are typically more interested in established, unchanging philosophy, which could be described as DEAD-philosophy. It is set... unchanging... studied... and used to proclaim being 'right'. None of the women I've known would have interest in that. Life is changing every moment, and it requires dynamic interaction to understand it and maintain efficiency with it -- to understand the connections and flows and logic as people and circumstances shift and mutate! Anyone can claim to 'know' or understand a still target -- but what does it take to understand and practice philosophy on moving targets?

As I had stated, ALL humans [men and women] are 'programmed' with a faculty of philosophy-proper albeit less active in women as evident.

That is not evident.
What is evident is a socially constructed division as it is in many other fields.

So it is true women are triggered to do 'philosophy' in their womanly way but it is not sufficient since philosophy-proper has higher degrees of complexities which at present the average women [there are exceptions but few] in the past, so they have to develop to deal [in future] with these complex matters.

That is utter bollocks.
I have only to show one example of a woman who is a better philosopher than any man to prove that statement wrong.

Note the complexities in logic, metaphysics, epistemology, mathematics, geometry and the likes, & at the higher levels they are not the common garden variety of thinking. In the past the circumstances did not provide the opportunity to graduate to such thinking but now I believe it is possible.

Such complexities are more than mastered by many woman whereas you have evidently failed.

Are you also a racist, or do you restrict your prejudice to sexism?

Your thinking is too shallow and narrow.
Note I have qualifying and referencing to the majority and average.

It is possible a women could be the best human to deal with the most complex problems of the world but it will have no effect on the average and majority.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Well, then, how did you decide there needed to be more women in philosophy?

You must have had some fact in mind... how did you decide that the current proportions aren't exactly the ones women want?

My point is every human [men and women] has this dormant philosophical drive within but at present the women faculty of philosophy-proper is less active as evident. So in a way we need to increase their % not to be more than men, but contribute to the overall %.

I can't see how that shows we need to "increase" anything, or "contribute" to the overall percentage, whatever it may be. What we need to know is that women actually want to do that. And how do we know that?

How do we know that?
As I had stated you need to research and analyze all the trends [positive] to note there is an inherent drive for continuous improvements within humanity [as such entailed men and women].
So in principle all humans, so including women are driven to improve from whatever their current state.
Thus in the case of Philosophy-proper [an inherent positive drive] women in principle will be driven to improve continuously subject to the constraints they are facing at present.

[Veritas Aequitas]

As I had stated, ALL humans [men and women] are 'programmed' with a faculty of philosophy-proper albeit less active in women as evident.

So it is true women are triggered to do 'philosophy' in their womanly way but it is not sufficient since philosophy-proper has higher degrees of complexities which at present the average women [there are exceptions but few] in the past, so they have to develop to deal [in future] with these complex matters.

Note the complexities in logic, metaphysics, epistemology, mathematics, geometry and the likes, & at the higher levels they are not the common garden variety of thinking. In the past the circumstances did not provide the opportunity to graduate to such thinking but now I believe it is possible.

The 'higher philosophical complexities' of men is apparently good enough for you. Nothing more to see.

Its the 'higher philosophical complexities' of humans [not of men] which all humans [men and women] will be driven to progress relative to the current status against whatever the constraints.
This is why we are seeing more and more women are getting involved in philosophy. This is evident even in internet philosophy forums as compared to the early days of the internet.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Verites Aequitas wrote:

“Note the complexities in logic, metaphysics, epistemology, mathematics, geometry and the likes, & at the higher levels they are not the common garden variety of thinking. In the past the circumstances did not provide the opportunity to graduate to such thinking but now I believe it is possible.”

……………………………………………………….

It is true that men are more inclined to gravitate to abstract thinking than women. Women are more interested in what is relative. Abstract concepts and symbols may be less appealing. That is not to say that women cannot master abstract thinking if they put their minds to it. A goddess culture where symbols and forms have energy may be where women feel most at home. Abstract concepts replaced forms, that resonated with symbols and energy, when the culture changed to a god culture, which favors concepts and abstraction. The culture of concepts and abstract reasoning has had a long run. It has got us to where we are; the good and the bad, and the unsustainable. It may reach an impasse, if it has not already.

If there is a move to images and symbols, whose energy resonates, women's day in the sun may come; it may be just around the corner. Artists are already there and always have been. When that happens it will be men who will have to adjust.

Good point.
However there is no need for men to compare or compete [or to adjust].
Humanity must recognize the inherent drive re continuous improvement [re philosophy] as a natural evolutionary drive which should be allowed to take its natural course.

[Immanuel Can]

My point is every human [men and women] has this dormant philosophical drive within but at present the women faculty of philosophy-proper is less active as evident. So in a way we need to increase their % not to be more than men, but contribute to the overall %.

I can't see how that shows we need to "increase" anything, or "contribute" to the overall percentage, whatever it may be. What we need to know is that women actually want to do that. And how do we know that?

As I had stated you need to research and analyze all the trends [positive] to note there is an inherent drive for continuous improvements within humanity [as such entailed men and women]. So in principle all humans, so including women are driven to improve from whatever their current state.
Thus in the case of Philosophy-proper [an inherent positive drive] women in principle will be driven to improve continuously subject to the constraints they are facing at present.

We don't know that they are facing any special "constraints" everybody else isn't also facing. We don't know that forcing them to do something they may not want to do would be an "improvement." We don't know there's anything problematic about their "current state," whatever that may be taken to mean.

So we're back to the problem: if women are choosing not to go into philosophy, (if that is indeed the real case) then on what theory do we force them to?

[bahman]

I can't see how that shows we need to "increase" anything, or "contribute" to the overall percentage, whatever it may be. What we need to know is that women actually want to do that. And how do we know that?

As I had stated you need to research and analyze all the trends [positive] to note there is an inherent drive for continuous improvements within humanity [as such entailed men and women]. So in principle all humans, so including women are driven to improve from whatever their current state.
Thus in the case of Philosophy-proper [an inherent positive drive] women in principle will be driven to improve continuously subject to the constraints they are facing at present.

We don't know that they are facing any special "constraints" everybody else isn't also facing. We don't know that forcing them to do something they may not want to do would be an "improvement." We don't know there's anything problematic about their "current state," whatever that may be taken to mean.

So we're back to the problem: if women are choosing not to go into philosophy, (if that is indeed the real case) then on what theory do we force them to?

On the theory that we force children to go to school and learn things instead of staying at home or street playing games.

[owl of Minerva]

Veritas Acquitas wrote:

Good point.
However there is no need for men to compare or compete [or to adjust].
Humanity must recognize the inherent drive re continuous improvement [re philosophy] as a natural evolutionary drive which should be allowed to take its natural course.

………………………………………………………

owl of Minerva:


Time will tell if there is a need to adjust. The 20th Century had some horrendous events, many of which were based on philosophies, whether hijacked or misinterpreted; they caused a lot of suffering. If philosophy’s natural evolutionary drive leads humanity to enlightenment, that would be good. But there is little evidence of it. It is thesis, antithesis, ad infinitum, without synthesis. That, admittedly could go on forever. Life is a moving target and as such it is not easy to hit the bullseye. Each worldview, whether goddess, symbolizing the natural world, or god, the world of concepts and abstractions, may serves a purpose in its time; it is not that one worldview is superior to the other. A dominant worldview lasts for a while and is replaced. That is the way it has been, humans have not been able to incorporate two worldview in their minds at the same time, so they occur serially and find expression in the dominant cultures of different Ages.

[Immanuel Can]

So we're back to the problem: if women are choosing not to go into philosophy, (if that is indeed the real case) then on what theory do we force them to?

On the theory that we force children to go to school and learn things instead of staying at home or street playing games.

Wow.

So your theory is that women are like children? We should force them to become philosophers, because the poor little dears don't really know what's good for them, or what's good for society? They need us to make them, or they'll just "play games" instead?

[Sculptor]

I can't see how that shows we need to "increase" anything, or "contribute" to the overall percentage, whatever it may be. What we need to know is that women actually want to do that. And how do we know that?

Is that the Royal "WE"?
FFS

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Perhaps women simply realise what a load of pretentious hogwash most of 'uni' philosophy is, and they value their sanity. Doesn't mean they don't think about things or have insight.