Philosophy Now Forum

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 10:27 pm 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.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 1:43 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 6:14 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 3:20 pm
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?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 10:27 pm 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.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 05, 2021 4:37 am The fact that there are lesser women in the field of philosophy implied there are real constraints.

One of the constraint I mentioned is biological

There is no question of authoritarian force in my perspective.

As I had stated all humans has a natural inherent potential drive for philosophy [more dormant in women].

Perhaps you are thinking from the feminism perspective where they demand at least 50-50 participation,

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Nov 05, 2021 3:03 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 05, 2021 4:37 am The fact that there are lesser women in the field of philosophy implied there are real constraints.

You said you have no proportions in mind.

If you don't know what the right proportions should be, then how do you know they're not already right -- that every woman who wants to and has the ability is already a philospher?

And how do you say there are "lesser" women in the field of philosophy, if you don't know what the "more" should be?

One of the constraint I mentioned is biological

If that's true, then why tell women to fight against their biology?

There is no question of authoritarian force in my perspective.

Then how are you going to compel it to happen, since it's not happening by women's free choice? You're going to need force of some kind. And you even said earlier, that one strategy would be to fire the men. If that's not using "authoritarian force," I don't know what such "force" would mean.

As I had stated all humans has a natural inherent potential drive for philosophy [more dormant in women].

A drive for philosophy that's latent in women, dormant but inherent, you say? But more "awake" in men?

What's your evidence that that is the case?

Perhaps you are thinking from the feminism perspective where they demand at least 50-50 participation,

Funny. I was thinking you must be thinking that: for it was you, not I, who claimed there were "lesser" women in philosophy. That sounds to me like you think maybe there should be as many women in the discipline as men. Or did you mean there ought to be more women than men? You certainly must have some final balance point, some proportion in mind: for there would be no other way for you to say coherently that there were too few women in the field.

How do you know?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 06, 2021 9:16 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Nov 05, 2021 3:03 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 05, 2021 4:37 am The fact that there are lesser women in the field of philosophy implied there are real constraints.

You said you have no proportions in mind.

If you don't know what the right proportions should be, then how do you know they're not already right -- that every woman who wants to and has the ability is already a philospher?

And how do you say there are "lesser" women in the field of philosophy, if you don't know what the "more" should be?

At present Nov 2021, it is empirically evident there are lesser women in the field of philosophy.
We can count the number of known women philosophy.
We can count the number of philosophical books, articles, etc. [published or otherwise] authored by female philosophers.
Their evident number is less than the men.

I believe for the sake of humanity, the number of female philosophers need to be more relative to whatever the current numbers are.

One of the constraint I mentioned is biological

If that's true, then why tell women to fight against their biology?

I did not claim the biological factors are permanent. The biological factors I referred to are relative to the current phase of evolution which are expected to change in time and that is very natural evident.

There is no question of authoritarian force in my perspective.

Then how are you going to compel it to happen, since it's not happening by women's free choice? You're going to need force of some kind. And you even said earlier, that one strategy would be to fire the men. If that's not using "authoritarian force," I don't know what such "force" would mean.

In general [not any exceptions] did we force women to go into education and work?

It will be same with philosophy

As I had stated all humans has a natural inherent potential drive for philosophy [more dormant in women].

A drive for philosophy that's latent in women, dormant but inherent, you say? But more "awake" in men?

What's your evidence that that is the case?

If you study all the trends within humanity since 200,000 years ago there is a core inherent trait within humanity of a striving continuous improvement over the previous state. Surely this is very obvious with technology, agriculture, knowledge, arts, etc. Philosophy as inherent & subject to a trait of continuous improvement is a Johnny-come-lately which is unfolding slowly in humans and more slowly in women.

Perhaps you are thinking from the feminism perspective where they demand at least 50-50 participation,

Funny. I was thinking you must be thinking that: for it was you, not I, who claimed there were "lesser" women in philosophy. That sounds to me like you think maybe there should be as many women in the discipline as men. Or did you mean there ought to be more women than men? You certainly must have some final balance point, some proportion in mind: for there would be no other way for you to say coherently that there were too few women in the field.

How do you know?

Note my explanation above.
The target is an improvement over the previous state not a targeted state [50-50 e.g.]

...the principle [my point] here is, to increase over whatever the present state

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 05, 2021 4:37 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 1:43 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 6:14 am
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?

The fact that there are lesser women in the field of philosophy implied there are real constraints.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 06, 2021 3:01 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 06, 2021 9:16 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Nov 05, 2021 3:03 pm
You said you have no proportions in mind.

If you don't know what the right proportions should be, then how do you know they're not already right -- that every woman who wants to and has the ability is already a philospher?

And how do you say there are "lesser" women in the field of philosophy, if you don't know what the "more" should be?

At present Nov 2021, it is empirically evident there are lesser women in the field of philosophy.
We can count the number of known women philosophy.
We can count the number of philosophical books, articles, etc. [published or otherwise] authored by female philosophers.
Their evident number is less than the men.

That answers nothing. How do you know that the number of women's books is not exactly what women freely want it to be?

I believe for the sake of humanity, the number of female philosophers need to be more relative to whatever the current numbers are.

I can see that you "believe" that. I can't see any reason or evidence you have to warrant your "belief" in that, however.

So I have to ask again: what's your proof that the number of women's books or the participation of women in philosophy is too low?

If that's true, then why tell women to fight against their biology?

I did not claim the biological factors are permanent. The biological factors I referred to are relative to the current phase of evolution which are expected to change in time and that is very natural evident.

Again, what gives you the power to look into the future, say what women "should be" doing, and then the right to find ways to make them do it?

Then how are you going to compel it to happen, since it's not happening by women's free choice? You're going to need force of some kind. And you even said earlier, that one strategy would be to fire the men. If that's not using "authoritarian force," I don't know what such "force" would mean.

In general [not any exceptions] did we force women to go into education and work?

Actually, yes we did. As you point out, women were forced into work during two world wars, when the men were away. That was the big swing. And after that, we started telling them that real women had to stay out in the workforce, or they weren't "Feminist" enough. It wasn't a free movement of women into bomb factories; they did it because they had to.

And as for education, we have arranged a system that asks them to forego their biologically most-fertile child-bearing years in the hope of getting a high-paying job. The average woman gets married now between 28 and 30...when fertility is already past is zenith. Add to that the need to establish their careers, and we are pushing the reproductive years toward the mid 30s. That wasn't any woman's idea, either. We did that, because we don't care about whether or not women get to have children in their best years. We left that as "their problem." So no wonder so many Western women are struggling with getting pregnant, and having later and more dangerous pregnancies, and paying too much to fertility clinics to solve a problem we imposed on them.

Now, there's a real "women's issue" for you. But not having as many women in philosophy as VA thinks should be, that's not necessarily a problem, unless the women themselves want there to be more and can't make it happen for some reason we can fix.

But as yet, you've given no evidence that's the case at all.

It will be same with philosophy

You mean we have to force them into it by necessity, like we did during the war?

As I had stated all humans has a natural inherent potential drive for philosophy [more dormant in women].

A drive for philosophy that's latent in women, dormant but inherent, you say? But more "awake" in men?

What's your evidence that that is the case?

If you study all the trends within humanity since 200,000 years ago there is a core inherent trait within humanity of a striving continuous improvement over the previous state. Surely this is very obvious with technology, agriculture, knowledge, arts, etc. Philosophy as inherent & subject to a trait of continuous improvement is a Johnny-come-lately which is unfolding slowly in humans and more slowly in women.

You have no idea whether or not that's true. You call women "slow" in this regard...what's your evidence they're not moving at exactly the pace they want? And what's your evidence that women have contributed nothing to the various departments you listed?

It's all supposition on your part, so far.

Funny. I was thinking you must be thinking that: for it was you, not I, who claimed there were "lesser" women in philosophy. That sounds to me like you think maybe there should be as many women in the discipline as men. Or did you mean there ought to be more women than men? You certainly must have some final balance point, some proportion in mind: for there would be no other way for you to say coherently that there were too few women in the field.

How do you know?

Note my explanation above.
The target is an improvement over the previous state not a targeted state [50-50 e.g.]

But you say you don't believe in any percentage benchmark. Still, you quote 50-50, and talk like you mean 50-50. And even if we take that as reasonable, how do you know 50-50 is what women want? What evidence do you have that, in the most free, women-positive time in the history of universities, women are not being allowed to go into philosophy, so we have to force them?

Just prove it's true. That's all I'm asking. Very reasonable.

...the principle [my point] here is, to increase over whatever the present state

How do you know women WANT to increase it, and how do you know they're being KEPT from increasing it, even though they want to (you suppose)?

I don't think you know what women want. I think you know what you want, what you expect, what you would anticipate...but not whether or not they agree with you about that.

And after my many requests for proof that the current percentages are not what women want, and that they are being somehow prevented from what they want, you haven't provided a single piece of evidence to back your decision.

Are you going to?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Nov 06, 2021 9:04 pm I think you mean 'fewer'. 'Lesser' has a different connotation.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Nov 07, 2021 8:14 am I have already provided my argument and justifications. Here again,

1. All humans [males, females and the in-betweens] are 'programmed' with an inherent potential for 'philosophy-proper'. i.e. towards the increasing betterment of the well being of the individuals and therefrom humanity.

4....there are fewer females participating in philosophy...

6. If say, the average around the word is 10% females in philosophy, that mean 3.6 billion females are not doing philosophy.

7. Since all humans [males and females] has the inherent potential for philosophy-proper [1]

and also an inherent drive for continuous improvements [2], with already an increasing trend [4] these elements will naturally drive more females from the pool of 3.6 billion to take up philosophy.

8. Thus my point, without focusing any 50/50 target, it will be natural following from the current increasing trend and natural inherent potentials within all humans, there will be a natural continual increment over time in the number of females in philosophy-proper toward the future.

I believe the above points covered all the questions and counter points you proposed.

Now show me where I am wrong in the above on a point by point basis,

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 07, 2021 2:53 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Nov 07, 2021 8:14 am I have already provided my argument and justifications. Here again,

1. All humans [males, females and the in-betweens] are 'programmed' with an inherent potential for 'philosophy-proper'. i.e. towards the increasing betterment of the well being of the individuals and therefrom humanity.

But that's neither an "argument" nor a "justification." It's just an opinion, without any evidence to support it. And points 2-3 aren't even relevant to anything.

2. All humans are also 'programmed with the drive for continuous improvements and this is evident empirically from the acts and consequences of human activities [knowledge, technologies, the arts, etc.] since 200,000 to the present and will continue into the future.

3. The current ratio of male to female is 1.018.
https://countrymeters.info/en/World
For simplicity sake I take it to be 50/50. Thus there are appx 4 billion females at present.

4....there are fewer females participating in philosophy...

But so what? What makes you so certain that it isn't exactly the "few" that actually want to? And point 5 is merely redundant.

6. If say, the average around the word is 10% females in philosophy, that mean 3.6 billion females are not doing philosophy.

Again, so what? Let's grant that: what makes you so sure these 3.6 billion don't prefer to do something else?

7. Since all humans [males and females] has the inherent potential for philosophy-proper [1]

You don't know that that is true, either. On the surface, it looks obviously false: there are surely people on the earth who have no potential for philosophy, unless you broaden the term "philosophy" to mean nothing more than "brain activity."

and also an inherent drive for continuous improvements [2], with already an increasing trend [4] these elements will naturally drive more females from the pool of 3.6 billion to take up philosophy.

Your assumption is that "continuous improvement" is the same thing as "doing more philosophy"? A lot of people would doubt that the two were true synonyms.

8. Thus my point, without focusing any 50/50 target, it will be natural following from the current increasing trend and natural inherent potentials within all humans, there will be a natural continual increment over time in the number of females in philosophy-proper toward the future.

If it's "natural," it will happen without you doing anything. So what is your rationale for making something happen in an "unnatural" way, like by evacuating philosophy departments by firing the incumbents?

I believe the above points covered all the questions and counter points you proposed.

Oh, my gosh....you believe wrongly. Nothing of the kind, as you can see.

Now show me where I am wrong in the above on a point by point basis,

You have that above. Go ahead and actually answer the question: how do you know that the present proportions of women are not exactly what women want them to be? What's your proof, not your hope, your wish or your opinion?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Nov 08, 2021 7:57 am I agree each premise also need to be justified but that would be too tedious

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 08, 2021 2:33 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Nov 08, 2021 7:57 am I agree each premise also need to be justified but that would be too tedious

Not at all, because I'm not asking you to justify every premise. As I said, most of those "premises" are not actually logically "premises" for any conclusion.

All I wanted to know was one simple thing: how do you know that the proportion of women in philosophy right now is not exactly what women want it to be?

One answer. One bit of proof. That's all I need.

So it could be something like, "X number of females are expressing that their desire for philosophy is being repressed by the following measures currently institutionalized by the Patriarchy," or something as simple as that -- some indication that women WANT to get into philosophy, and that the same women are finding they CANNOT because of some specific institutional fact.

Let's hear it.

• viewtopic.php?p=537250#p537250
  1. All humans [males, females and the in-betweens] are 'programmed' with an inherent potential for 'philosophy-proper'. i.e. towards the increasing betterment of the well being of the individuals and therefrom humanity.
  
  2. All humans are also 'programmed with the drive for continuous improvements and this is evident empirically from the acts and consequences of human activities [knowledge, technologies, the arts, etc.] since 200,000 to the present and will continue into the future.
  
  3. The current ratio of male to female is 1.018.
  https://countrymeters.info/en/World
  For simplicity sake I take it to be 50/50. Thus there are appx 4 billion females at present.
  
  4. There is an increasing trend in the participation of females in philosophy since 500 years ago but at present there are fewer females participating in philosophy, as evident from various criteria, e.g. books and articles published, participation in forums, conventions, etc.
  I have done extensive research and reading into philosophy-in-general and it is so glaring there are fewer females philosophers mentioned in most bibliography in philosophy books, articles, etc. I have read thousands of philosophy books and articles and the number of females authors are very insignificant, and also very minimal or none in the bibliography in those books and article. I don't have have exact figures. If you disagree, show me some clues why you disagree?
  
  5. Re fewer females philosophers, note this clue,
  "Nevertheless, U.S. Department of Education reports from the 1990s indicate that few women ended up in philosophy, and that philosophy is one of the least gender-proportionate fields in the humanities.[4] Women make up as little as 17% of philosophy faculty in some studies. -Wiki"
  The above refer to the USA and I believe the % of the world would be much lower.
  
  6. If say, the average around the word is 10% females in philosophy, that mean 3.6 billion females are not doing philosophy.
  
  7. Since all humans [males and females] has the inherent potential for philosophy-proper [1] and also an inherent drive for continuous improvements [2], with already an increasing trend [4] these elements will naturally drive more females from the pool of 3.6 billion to take up philosophy.
  Surely we do not expect this increasing trend to stop suddenly but will continue to increase in the future.
  So even if there is an effect and increase of 1% that would mean there are additional 36 million females getting into philosophy [say over the next 20 years].
  
  8. Thus my point, without focusing any 50/50 target, it will be natural following from the current increasing trend and natural inherent potentials within all humans, there will be a natural continual increment over time in the number of females in philosophy-proper toward the future.