Philosophy Now Forum

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 5:22 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 4:50 pm And neither should they be compelled to take an "opportunity" they do not desire, merely because political correctness of the interests of Leftist propaganda tell them they must.

Oh no... Leftist propaganda is compelling women to do something they don't want to?

Yep. Try telling a Leftist that, say, you want to stay home with your kids. See what reaction you get.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 4:50 pmIs our society so overbearing, paternalistic and autocratic now that we think the rest of us have the right to dictate to women how they must distribute themselves

Has been for a really long time.

Isn't now. Except from the Left.

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 1:04 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 10:53 am

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 4:06 am I think that teaching philosophy should be mandatory for children.

Most children are not capable to teaching philosophy!!

You got me. I meant that learning philosophy should be mandatory for children.

Yes. GOtcha.

Part of the problem is that so few teachers at schools are aware of philosophy. Worse so few know how to think. This is generally true of the population.
Teachers would find it hard to know how to appraoch critical thinking or ethics.
We would have to start with baby steps, and much resistence from the government who would rightly fear having the ideological carpets of lies and dissimulation pulled from under their feet.
Consider lesson one: what is meant by "England"?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 5:43 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 5:22 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 4:50 pm And neither should they be compelled to take an "opportunity" they do not desire, merely because political correctness of the interests of Leftist propaganda tell them they must.

Oh no... Leftist propaganda is compelling women to do something they don't want to?

Yep. Try telling a Leftist that, say, you want to stay home with your kids. See what reaction you get.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 4:50 pmIs our society so overbearing, paternalistic and autocratic now that we think the rest of us have the right to dictate to women how they must distribute themselves

Has been for a really long time.

Isn't now. Except from the Left.

You are such a dumb cock.
LIke a wanky little Don Quickote tilting at your own prejudices.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 8:36 pm You are ...

Aaaaaad hominem!

When the brain gives out, the gums start to flap.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 2:47 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 5:03 am However if women [majority] are not interested, there must be major reasons why they are not interested in philosophy [mainstream].

What else can we conclude? We know that they have greater access to it than at any time in history, unarguably. And yet many are choosing otherwise.

It's not obvious that we should force them to do things they may not want to do, if that's the case. So it's not at all clear that a disparity in the numbers of bricklayers and lumberjacks (mostly male) and nurses and public school teachers (mostly female) requires us to hunt for "prejudice" or "systemic sexism" and compel an equal distribution between the sexes.

Indeed, to do so, if contrary to women's wishes, is tyranny. Do we want to force women to be bricklayers?

So we would need some evidence that women want, just as often as men do, to be in philosophy roles, and are being denied that opportunity by some illegitmate means. And what's our evidence for that?

Yes, the accessibility is not a question.

Other than exceptions, I believe there are biological and evolutionary factors why there are not many females [in the present and past] within the philosophy community, i.e. academic and in general.

The participation by females in philosophy may change/increase but that will perhaps take many generations and only if there are initiatives to get more females to get into philosophy.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 10:12 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 8:36 pm You are ...

Aaaaaad hominem!

When the brain gives out, the gums start to flap.

“For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of”
(Matthew 12:34)

In other words, some people just seem to think out loud effortlessly, while others are much more discreet with their Ad-hominem's to save face of embarrassment. They would rather leave them to fester inside like a constipated cow, or some over inflated hamster. While at the same time, have an over abundance of toxic positivity to spill out in spades, the irony is breathtakingly Urrgh!!

When one is fully awakened to the mindcontrolling brainwashing man-made psyop that is Relgion and Christianity, the ''powers that be'' who ever the fuck they be, won't know where to point their 'gums' ... I mean GUNS :lol

Never mind, That owl character advice to give no oxygen, seems wasted on IC, so that isn't going to happen any time soon, loving the drama and all.




Did anyone even notice my female philosophical contribution to this topic, up thread? which I thought was a pretty good answer to the OP...but Nah! probably just got ignored,because it's all about me, me, me, and what I have to say, isn't it IC

Ic doesn't give oxygen to womens constributions, he'd too cowardly to move out of his own way, he's an oxygen hogger.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 10:12 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 8:36 pm You are ...

Aaaaaad hominem!

When the brain gives out, the gums start to flap.

Does not change the fact that you are a fuck wit.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Oct 29, 2021 10:56 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 10:12 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 8:36 pm You are ...

Aaaaaad hominem!

When the brain gives out, the gums start to flap.

Does not change the fact that you are a fuck wit.

Sometimes you just have to ''call it'' and think outloud.


Woman Secretly Records Her Doctors Insulting Her During Surgery
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twMrpJa95jU

Humans are secret bullshitters. Nice looking on the outside, but ugly as sin inside.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 8:35 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 1:04 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 10:53 am

Most children are not capable to teaching philosophy!!

You got me. I meant that learning philosophy should be mandatory for children.

Yes. GOtcha.

Part of the problem is that so few teachers at schools are aware of philosophy. Worse so few know how to think. This is generally true of the population.
Teachers would find it hard to know how to appraoch critical thinking or ethics.
We would have to start with baby steps, and much resistence from the government who would rightly fear having the ideological carpets of lies and dissimulation pulled from under their feet.
Consider lesson one: what is meant by "England"?

So teaching philosophy should be mandatory for teachers first.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 29, 2021 5:11 am The participation by females in philosophy may change/increase but that will perhaps take many generations and only if there are initiatives to get more females to get into philosophy.

"Initiatives?"

I don't see that. If the only reason women aren't going into philosophy is "lack of initiatives," then maybe. But that seems implausible: women are more encouraged to do more things these days than at any time in previous history. And universities are bastitions of privileged females these days, with male enrolment overall dropping precipitously, and female enrolment far higher than male, overall. If women are ever going to have "initiatives" to get into a subject, it's never likely going to be better than now.

But if, as we were discussing, there's any possibiliy that women are merely electing, of their own free will, to pursue something else, what would "initiatives" entail but trying to convince women against their own choice? And why shouldn't they choose what they want, if it turns out that they prefer other things?

Would we think we need to coerce a 50-50 distribution of women in bricklaying, too? Or lumberjacking? What's magical about a 50-50 distribution? Is it automatically guaranteed to serve the best interests of women, or even of the profession in question?

It's not an unreasonable thought to doubt that "initiatives" are called for: certainly there have been many recent "initiatives" to get women into the military, traditionally a male occupation. Even the idea of pregnant women piloting in combat has been floated. So there are people who think "initiatives" are what we need; but I think leaving it to women's free choices is a better strategy, don't you?

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Oct 29, 2021 6:19 am ...it's all about me, me, me, and what I have to say, isn't it IC

It shouldn't be. But if you'd be less dramatic and less ad hominem, you'd probably get your worthwhile comments noticed. As it is, they're often hidden in a pile of drama and invective...and nobody's got time for mere drama and invective.

You're being your own worst enemy without realizing it. You do seem capable, sometimes; but at others, the drama's too much for anyone to spend any time on.

Be less dramatic, and you might get more credibility with folks.

One might wish to consider that [biologically] females have a much better sense of who they are and what their lives are going to be about [although that seems to be changing as women's roles morph]. Men, OTOH, seemingly have less intense innate drives to pro-create and therefore have many more things to "figure out." Philosophy seems to fill the bill for those who believe they can think their way out of it.

Over-intellectualisation, like over-[everything else], is not so great. It creates folks [on the whole] that spend too much time thinking and not nearly enough time doing...and doing is the entire purpose of life.

In the case of philosophy, I believe that most women would be believe it a great waste of free time [something most have little of]. OTOH, I also believe they might feel philosophical inquiry is considerably better than most other common male addictions [drugs, alcohol, porn, food, sports, etc.]. To be fair, women have their own unhealthy preoccupations [food, chocolate, wine, social media, and ragging on men].

Maybe the reason women are not interested in philosophy is that they find meaning in life. Men, on the other hand, could be hard-wired to search for the meaning of life.

Philosophy started with asking questions about life; what it was, what it all meant. With the advent of science, the what it was part was taken over and the what it meant was all that was left. Rationalism and humanism, which morphed into secular humanism, took center stage and the implications of that was being alone in the cosmos.

Women are wired for relationship. Maybe philosophy is too unmoored. Even if women took an interest in ethics, with scientific discoveries raising questions on that topic, if all we have is what we rationalize, without a template to serve as a point of reference it is not an easy task to take on.

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 10:43 pm Maybe the reason women are not interested in philosophy is that they find meaning in life. Men, on the other hand, could be hard-wired to search for the meaning of life.

Philosophy started with asking questions about life; what it was, what it all meant. With the advent of science, the what it was part was taken over and the what it meant was all that was left. Rationalism and humanism, which morphed into secular humanism, took center stage and the implications of that was being alone in the cosmos.

Women are wired for relationship. Maybe philosophy is too unmoored. Even if women took an interest in ethics, with scientific discoveries raising questions on that topic, if all we have is what we rationalize, without a template to serve as a point of reference it is not an easy task to take on.

What is the meaning of life?

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 10:43 pm Rationalism and humanism, which morphed into secular humanism, took center stage and the implications of that was being alone in the cosmos.

That's the point.

If the story secular thought weaves for us were to turn out to be true, it would certainly imply that we are alone in the cosmos. There's nobody to care for us, at least, nobody that ultimately matters. For others will iive on after we're dead, but they will not remember us; and what would it matter if they did? For they, too, will die alone. The world will go on, and they, too will be forgotten.

So what does it matter how many females are in philosophy, since secular humanism gives us no prospect of any answers ever appearing?