Philosophy Now Forum

Can the illiterate make any claim to philosophy?

Is the phrase "Gender Philosophy" anything more than some idiot gluing two words together?

Grammatical fact, between any pair of correlatives there is one, and only one relative. One can find this in Plato, in Geometry etc.in fact the fundamentals of any grammar system.

Why not Baklava Philosophy? Or Petunia Philosophy? Or Aluminum Philosophy, guaranteed sturdier than Water Philosophy?

Now, even flowers have gender. Has any flower ever learnt to read? I spent a whole year watching flowers hoping to film an orgasm. I eventually spent my lunch money on developing blank film.

As Plato noted, the Job of a Philosophy is Dialectic, which is just another synonym for Binary Recursion for the purpose of information processing.

Now, we can multiply the two elements of the intelligible thing by the two genders, what do we get? A Duh Quartet?

anything more? I think so...

to begin, female brains are structured/wired slightly differently than male brains- not to mention hormonal differences

the differences between males and females are really too numerous to mention

if each individual existentialist is "entitled" to their own philosophy- why should the division according to gender be any less?

then again...

-Imp

Impenitent wrote: ↑Wed Mar 05, 2025 2:17 am anything more? I think so...

to begin, female brains are structured/wired slightly differently than male brains- not to mention hormonal differences

the differences between males and females are really too numerous to mention

if each individual existentialist is "entitled" to their own philosophy- why should the division according to gender be any less?

then again...

-Imp

Really? I would have thought that anyone with even a partial brain would know the foundation of the principles of predication, after all, Plato did a a very long dialog on it.

It amounts to something anyone thinking should conclude:

What may be predicated of any thing, whatsoever, is wholly determined by the definition of that thing.

Now, you might take a few years to figure out what that means.

It is just like having a cup of coffee, the only thing you will find in it is coffee.

Impenitent wrote: ↑Wed Mar 05, 2025 2:17 am

if each individual existentialist is "entitled" to their own philosophy- why should the division according to gender be any less?

So, you actually think that Man is the measure of all things? I know this is the idiot and popular claim claim, but I am want to believe that somewhere, there actually is someone who is actually capable of being literate.

Try Theaetetus by Plato. See if you can understand that the intelligible, which is comprised of universals, can never be particular to any person.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 05, 2025 2:47 am

Impenitent wrote: ↑Wed Mar 05, 2025 2:17 am

if each individual existentialist is "entitled" to their own philosophy- why should the division according to gender be any less?

So, you actually think that Man is the measure of all things? I know this is the idiot and popular claim claim, but I am want to believe that somewhere, there actually is someone who is actually capable of being literate.

Try Theaetetus by Plato. See if you can understand that the intelligible, which is comprised of universals, can never be particular to any person.

Speaking of literacy, what is a "claim claim"? Also, "comprise" means "comprehends" or "includes comprehensively". "Is comprised of" sounds as illiterate as "is included of".

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 05, 2025 2:47 am

Impenitent wrote: ↑Wed Mar 05, 2025 2:17 am

if each individual existentialist is "entitled" to their own philosophy- why should the division according to gender be any less?

So, you actually think that Man is the measure of all things? I know this is the idiot and popular claim claim, but I am want to believe that somewhere, there actually is someone who is actually capable of being literate.

Try Theaetetus by Plato. See if you can understand that the intelligible, which is comprised of universals, can never be particular to any person.

Define yourself - then again, that might require something beyond you...

I am not one to argue against Protagoras

thank you for the insults

finis

-Imp