Philosophy Now Forum

Peter Adamson thinks about the women in the history of philosophy.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/111/Womens_Works

It's very simple, if they actually was good at philosphy there wouldn't be born any babies, it's a very risky and dangerous undertaking. No sane and intelligent person would willingly do that back in the days.

HexHammer wrote:It's very simple, if they actually was good at philosphy there wouldn't be born any babies, it's a very risky and dangerous undertaking. No sane and intelligent person would willingly do that back in the days.

Yes, in exactly the same way no sane male philosophy would be a soldier...no way Socrates or Descartes or Wittgenstein would do anything like that...

There's also the point that many of the medieval philosophers were in orders, whether male or female. Childbearing wouldn't be *expected* to be a huge issue in those circumstances.

Whatever about the medieval thinkers, it's fascinating how ideas of what was fitting were a barrier to early modern women thinkers. Margaret Cavendish was hugely eccentric publishing as a woman. (You can see echoes of that in Harriet Taylor Mill's refusal to have her name appear on works JS Mill says she has co-authored. The same with Anna Doyle Wheeler and the "Appeal of One-half of the Human Race, Women" - it was published under the name of her co-author William Thompson.)

You could be influential as a woman - wrote about Lady Ranelagh for World Philosophy Day whose thinking was outlined in letters and privately circulated manuscript theses. She was acknowledged as an important thinker when she died - and was forgotten 40 years later. Private circulation is a bad way to survive as part of the "canon". There may be other similar women out there hidden in the archives, or whose writing has vanished.

Hi cathyby. Where can I find out more about Lady Ranelagh? I'm thinking that she might be a good subject for a short article in Philosophy Now sometime.

cathyby wrote:

HexHammer wrote:It's very simple, if they actually was good at philosphy there wouldn't be born any babies, it's a very risky and dangerous undertaking. No sane and intelligent person would willingly do that back in the days.

Yes, in exactly the same way no sane male philosophy would be a soldier...no way Socrates or Descartes or Wittgenstein would do anything like that...

Not quite, if a person knows that the enemy will take all your food and kill all your family, then it's a good reason to wage war.
I think you have proven my point.

HexHammer wrote:

cathyby wrote: Yes, in exactly the same way no sane male philosophy would be a soldier...no way Socrates or Descartes or Wittgenstein would do anything like that...

Not quite, if a person knows that the enemy will take all your food and kill all your family, then it's a good reason to wage war.
I think you have proven my point.

I think you have missed her irony.

Arising_uk wrote:

HexHammer wrote:

cathyby wrote: Yes, in exactly the same way no sane male philosophy would be a soldier...no way Socrates or Descartes or Wittgenstein would do anything like that...

Not quite, if a person knows that the enemy will take all your food and kill all your family, then it's a good reason to wage war.
I think you have proven my point.

I think you have missed her irony.

Her attempted irony was quite clear.

HexHammer wrote:

cathyby wrote:

HexHammer wrote:It's very simple, if they actually was good at philosphy there wouldn't be born any babies, it's a very risky and dangerous undertaking. No sane and intelligent person would willingly do that back in the days.

Yes, in exactly the same way no sane male philosophy would be a soldier...no way Socrates or Descartes or Wittgenstein would do anything like that...

Not quite, if a person knows that the enemy will take all your food and kill all your family, then it's a good reason to wage war.
I think you have proven my point.

As you seem to be a little uninformed about such things, there are some upsides to having children as well. And I can tell you, in my academical-degree-dense neighbourhood, females as well as males with those degrees, the ones that goes on about having a "number three" is very seldom the males...

Ansiktsburk wrote:As you seem to be a little uninformed about such things, there are some upsides to having children as well. And I can tell you, in my academical-degree-dense neighbourhood, females as well as males with those degrees, the ones that goes on about having a "number three" is very seldom the males...

I don't think you know what you are talking about, but you sure make some vague ponit. Please clarify.

RickLewis wrote:Hi cathyby. Where can I find out more about Lady Ranelagh? I'm thinking that she might be a good subject for a short article in Philosophy Now sometime.

The post I wrote is http://www.irishphilosophy.com/2015/11/19/ranelagh/ and links to the published research I'm aware of. If you want names of people currently involved in research on her let me know.

HexHammer wrote:

cathyby wrote:

HexHammer wrote:It's very simple, if they actually was good at philosphy there wouldn't be born any babies, it's a very risky and dangerous undertaking. No sane and intelligent person would willingly do that back in the days.

Yes, in exactly the same way no sane male philosophy would be a soldier...no way Socrates or Descartes or Wittgenstein would do anything like that...

Not quite, if a person knows that the enemy will take all your food and kill all your family, then it's a good reason to wage war.
I think you have proven my point.

Nothing of the sort.

You said: "it's a very risky and dangerous undertaking. No sane and intelligent person would willingly do that back in the days." War is also a risky and dangerous undertaking. Philosophers who are men (who we'll assume are sane and intelligent) get involved in risky and dangerous undertakings (for good reasons or because they have no choice). What reason is there to assume philosophers who are women won't get involved in risky and dangerous undertakings in exactly the same way?

Of course we can always look at empirical fact. Women have been philosophers and have had children. Off the top of my head, pre 20th century: Christine de Pizan, Harriet Taylor Mill, Anna Doyle Wheeler, Lady Ranelagh, Mary Wollstonecraft.

HexHammer wrote:

Ansiktsburk wrote:As you seem to be a little uninformed about such things, there are some upsides to having children as well. And I can tell you, in my academical-degree-dense neighbourhood, females as well as males with those degrees, the ones that goes on about having a "number three" is very seldom the males...

I don't think you know what you are talking about, but you sure make some vague ponit. Please clarify.

I don't think I will. Try to figure it out.

cathyby wrote:

HexHammer wrote:I think you have proven my point.

Nothing of the sort.

You said: "it's a very risky and dangerous undertaking. No sane and intelligent person would willingly do that back in the days." War is also a risky and dangerous undertaking. Philosophers who are men (who we'll assume are sane and intelligent) get involved in risky and dangerous undertakings (for good reasons or because they have no choice). What reason is there to assume philosophers who are women won't get involved in risky and dangerous undertakings in exactly the same way?

Of course we can always look at empirical fact. Women have been philosophers and have had children. Off the top of my head, pre 20th century: Christine de Pizan, Harriet Taylor Mill, Anna Doyle Wheeler, Lady Ranelagh, Mary Wollstonecraft.

Welcome to the PhiNow Phorum, cathyby!

I hope you find the time you spend here enjoyable and instructive. I see you have met HexHammer, our resident posterboy for the Dunning-Kruger effect. I doubt you will find much to gain from sparring with him; I am certain he will gain nothing from the experience. Many of us have taken to ignoring him completely, and if you decide to follow suit, there is even a feature which helps you to do that—just go to his profile page by clicking on his name at the top of any of his posts, and click the Add foe option you'll find there.

mickthinks wrote: Welcome to the PhiNow Phorum, cathyby!

I hope you find the time you spend here enjoyable and instructive. I see you have met HexHammer, our resident posterboy for the Dunning-Kruger effect. I doubt you will find much to gain from sparring with him; I am certain he will gain nothing from the experience. Many of us have taken to ignoring him completely, and if you decide to follow suit, there is even a feature which helps you to do that—just go to his profile page by clicking on his name at the top of any of his posts, and click the Add foe option you'll find there.

Hi! Thanks for the welcome and the useful information!

Ansiktsburk wrote:

HexHammer wrote:

Ansiktsburk wrote:As you seem to be a little uninformed about such things, there are some upsides to having children as well. And I can tell you, in my academical-degree-dense neighbourhood, females as well as males with those degrees, the ones that goes on about having a "number three" is very seldom the males...

I don't think you know what you are talking about, but you sure make some vague ponit. Please clarify.

I don't think I will. Try to figure it out.

Fine, you haven't understood anything at all, nor do you understand what you are saying youself.

What good is it having a baby for a mom, if you die? What upsides is there to that?

See you are completely clueless about what you are saying.