have female contributions to philosophy really been historically overlooked?
>>25313077That's a pretty good contribution right there though. She's probably a STEMcy (STEM stacy)
>>25313077/lit/ will get upset but yes. picrel is just one example. wonder what Cavendish would've been able to do if she had a formal education + access to scientific/philosophical institutions in her time. shoutout to The Blazing World, first science fiction novel
philosophy's only use is for disproving its own worth
>>25313077nope
>>25313104This. Also i hate women.
All metrics of success favor men because they are conducive to successThere is no society with female values that does not become an enormous target for a male society to subjugate it
>>25313084This is not the only strain of the foid argument. They also said they were betrayed of their success because they were just witnessed as sidekicks of popular philosphers like stein or amrose
>>25313077female contributions to everything have been historically overlooked. And if it can't be overlooked, then it will be actively attacked. Remember what happened when it turned out a woman was the one that took the first picture of a black hole? People appeared in droves to say "NUH UH, HER ASSISTANT WAS A MAN SO IT DOESN'T COUNT!!" People will get actively hostile if a women does, or even tries to contribute.
>>25313855 >muh picture of a black holeif that's the "scale" of your contributions then we have missed nothing from you being gatekept out of the arts and sciences
>>25313855I remember that case and she literally didn't take the picture, thus making the people saying she was stealing credit for something she didn't do technically correct. Which is the best kind of correct.
>>25313178good rape targets
>>25313077They haven't been overlooked. if females had something to contribute to philosophy, they would have already done so. Nobody is stopping women, and they read more than men (even excluding porn), but they choose not to engage with philosophy for whatever reasons.In modern times, you have Anscombe, Foot and Hursthouse, all of whom are derivative moral philosophers not to mention moral philosophy itself was already debunked in the 19th century through different channels . Sadie Plant was a core CCRU member but had little to add in comparison to Mark and Nick. Butler and Dworkin performed derivative moral feminist kvetching. Beauviour and Patricia Churchland probably had the most meaningful contributions, but they worked together very closely with their husbands. Arendt isn't that deep, but had a close relationship with Heidegger. Weil isn't a philosopher.>>25313084cavendish wasn't the only person who criticized descartes on the interaction problem, but she's taught to try and shove women into the curriculum
>>25313957You can’t debunk a moral philosophy they’re all subjective
>>25313077do any of you go on that website to larp as women? be honest
>>25313077Considering Ayn Rand is the closest we've gotten to a female philosopher? No, I wouldn't say they've been overlooked.
my lady and liege…
>>25313077>Woman, therefore, is especially practical, and not at all speculative in her womanly nature. She can not and shall not go beyond the limit of her feeling. (This explains the well-known phenomenon, why some women have been known to become distinguished in matters of memory, as languages, and even in mathematics, so far as they can be learned through memory; and some also in matters of invention, in the gentler forms of poetry, in novel writing, and even in the writing of history. But no women are known to have been philosophers, or inventors of new theories in the mathematical science.)
>Women are capable of education, but they are not made for activities which demand a universal faculty such as the more advanced sciences, philosophy, and certain forms of artistic production. Women may have happy ideas, taste, and elegance, but they cannot attain to the ideal. The difference between men and women is like that between animals and plants. Men correspond to animals, while women correspond to plants because their development is more placid and the principle that underlies it is the rather vague unity of feeling. When women hold the helm of government, the state is at once in jeopardy, because women regulate their actions not by the demands of universality but by arbitrary inclinations and opinions. Women are educated — who knows how? — as it were by breathing in ideas, by living rather than by acquiring knowledge. The status of manhood, on the other hand, is attained only by the stress of thought and much technical exertion.
sometimes i want a philosophy gf and then i remember women are fucking annoying.
>>25313963sweet summer child
>>25313957>cavendish wasn't the only person who criticized descartes on the interaction problemwhat is this interaction problem and why is it such a big deal to point out?
>>25314098>Given that the soul of a human being is only a thinking substance, how can it affect the bodily spirits, in order to bring about voluntary actions? The question arises because it seems that how a thing moves depends solely on (i) how much it is pushed, (ii) the manner in which it is pushed, or (iii) the surface-texture and shape of the thing that pushes it. The first two of those require contact between the two things, and the third requires that the causally active thing be extended. Your notion of the soul entirely excludes extension, and it appears to me that an immaterial thing can’t possibly touch anything else.it's pedantic nerd shit
>>25313077women are really good at one thing, looking at the world entirely without any emotion and operating in terms of sheer weight of capital, whereas the male mind is constantly seeking validation for it's existence, beyond this novelty, I think women have nothing to add.
>>25313084>first science fiction novelhow about the part where dante and beatrice discuss whether the moon has dark spots because its made of colby cheese or because demons are casting shadows on it
>>25313855Go look at her GitHub contributions to that project lol>>25313077No, if anything they are greatly exaggerated. The key (but not only) intellectual failing of women is a far lower incidence of autistic obsession for truth and exactness.
>>25313963You can certainly debunk illogical arguments regardless of what they're arguing for or against.
>>25313965That's at least 95% of the userbase kek
I've heard many arguments in favor of this idea, but the examples that get trotted out of 'stifled geniuses' are just so unimpressive that the whole argument feels flat.It's all one big cope.
>>25313855The insistence on giving laurels to women for unimpressive/adequate work is so tiresome. Have you considered that this whinging attitude you share with someone many of your contemporaries makes it impossible to take any of you seriously?
>moidthese retards seriously can't create anything on their own kek its all just copy-pasted slang and behaviour
>>25314339Of course, they were made to be our helpmates
>>25314065A philosophy gf would be an obese blue haired feminist that snorts on reflex when hearing the word "man"
>>25314380The problem is not feminism but Western liberal feminism. Arab feminists still respect and follow their conservative culture.
>>25314388>musloid postsWorse than foidposts
Ayn Rand solved philosophy and only serious philosophers know that.
>>25313084That's the best example you have? Grim
>>25314401>DON'T GIVE MONEY TO DUH GOYS, YEW STOOPID GOY!!! GIVE IT TO WEALTH CREATORS LIKE ME AND THIS STUDENT WHO'S REARRANGING MY MENOPAUSAL WOMB!!!as much of a solution to philosophy as pesticides in an airtight room
>>25313855Lmao 7/10 b8
>>25313077yes... intentionally
>>25313084>shoutout to The Blazing World, first science fiction novelFalse. Kepler's "Somnium" predates it by over 30 years.
>>25314388No they don't LOL my arab-born-and-raised ex used to wear her great grandmother's bedouin veil when she dressed as a whore for me
>>25313084>>25314504i think you'll find the bible was the first science fiction novel
philosophy is sitting around on your own thinking about retarded shit nobody cares about. Foids are for socializing and getting fucked
>>25313077What a retarded take. Trannies invaded that website a year ago, now it's only good for weird celebrity porn, they can't even pretend to be women correctly.This weird fascination with philosophy is only present in men. Considering that philosophy started and ended in greece, with basically every question and possible answer already being given before Christ was born, makes every development of it completely redundant. The only way for people to produce more philosophy is to make up a completely new world and introduce whatever they want to continue discussing philosophy (that's why a lot of them are esoterics).I'd say that what really is needed to be a philosopher, in the current day, is not really studying every possible obscure text, but rather learn how to think.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ik7_ANXszuEThe sense that philosophy is some kind of discovery, some kind of achievement, is rooted in the understanding of the ego. Women lack such a strong sense of it: they don't seek a personal realisation, an achievement that they can ascribe to themselves. https://youtube.com/shorts/v_X4Gkl4MeIWomen are social creatures, they are part of the hivemind, they are those who push for a rhizomatic form of philosophy: feminism is postmodernist for a reason.This idea that there is a causa prima to whatever is not something a woman would say. There is really no female winner in this race, because women don't compete: this is why they aren't remembered in the first place. They instead do some "self-discovery", some "affirmation", some "accept and love yourself for who you trully are".Which is, if you think about it, the only true form of philosophy there is. If anything, men strayed from it in Greece, at least those who recorded what the philosophers were saying to each other, so now we think of philosophy as some kind of cultural baggage, rather than an experience. So, to conclude, why would somebody disinterested in the true form of philosophy know anything of it?>Inb4 that's a bunch of copeTruth be told, I don't care a single shit about philosophy. It is, at the end of the day, an alternative to collecting pokemon cards, but for autists who really like awful prose.
>>25314312The book thread is still fucking hilarious if you know anything about romance. Everyone makes mistakes that only men would do and no one points them out lmao.Shit is insane. The "Half His Age" post has less replies than the "the history of hentai manga: an expressionist examination of eromanga" post TOPKEK.
>>25314098>>25314108People to this day unironically insist on there being such a thing as a "soul" or a non-physical part of the mind. Anyone who insists on this must provide an account of how it interacts with the brain.
>>25314675if you think everything is physical then why wouldn't you just say "the purely mental doesn't exist because everything is physical" instead of "only physical things can affect physical things, and the mind affects the body, so the mind cannot be purely mental". it is obvious that you believe the former so why say the pedantic nerd shit of the latter?
>>25314675To add to my post, it matters because such an interaction has never been sufficiently provided, and is thereby one of the few successful refutations of a position in philosophy (dualism). Negroes have pointed out that physicalism has its own problems, and while this is true, dualism is untenable
>>25314680 I can also say that, but this discussion is framed from a position of talking to someone who insists on a dualism or a non physicalism. Maybe it exists, but the point is that it doesnt matter if it does or doesnt, insofar as the mind is concerned
>>25314691so your hypothetical is a person believes;>the mental is separate from the physical>the physical can only be interacted with by the physical>physical evidence must be provided to show the mental interacting with the physical in order to believe the mental can interact with the physicalbut>physical evidence doesn't have to be provided to show the mental existing separate from the physicalin short, your hypothetical set of beliefs are insanely incoherent and also, as you admit, not yours anyway
>>25314733Well, theres no such interaction within the brain, but im not excluding the possibility it's the case somewhere else
>>25314746that's a complete non sequitur. why does evidence have to be provided for interaction between the physical and the mental, but not for the existence of the mental?
>>25313077Marguerite Porete is a wonderful addition. She is the author of The Mirror of Simple Souls.
>>25314753Oh and Deirdre Carabine and her work on apopathic reasoning. The Unknown God is a great book.
>>25314623>Truth be told, I don't care a single shit about philosophy. It is, at the end of the day, an alternative to collecting pokemon cards, but for autists who really like awful prose.Yeah we could tell by your retarded characterization of philosophy, cannot imagine how stupid one has to be to think philosophy ended in greece.
>>25314769>philosophy ended in greeceYes, philosophy ended when the discourse transformed into mnemonics.Plato killed Socrates when he wrote about him. Socrates killed philosophy when he asked to learn from a wise man.If you aren't thinking, you are not doing philosophy. (You) are not thinking. (You) are trying to show me all the rare pokemons you collected in your lifetime.>Nooo, don't philosophize, you should quote some old pedarast instead!!Lmao. NPCs have no personality of their own, so they collect and skinwalk others instead, basing its value on some retarded notion of authority. Philosophy has become a dress up contest for soulless hylics. And when did it turn into this farce? Greece.
>it's time for another woman hate thread!When did this place turn into r9k?
>>25314860>i don't think women's contributions to philosophy have been overlooked>OH SO YOU HATE WOMEN, DO YOU!!!!the endless, bitter mediocrity of the foid
>>25314733>>25314747To be clear and zoom out a little bit, there are people who assert the existence of the mental/non-physical (not me). The exact point of the interaction problem is to show an absurdity falls out when someone posits the existence of the mental/non-physical. In argument form:1. If you assert existence of a separate mental/non-physical, then you must show how it interacts with the physical2. The interaction of the mental/non-physical and physical is not showntherefore, you can't assert the existence of the mental/non-physicalpeople will still assert it anyway, but they're wrong to do so, which is what i think you're picking up on.
>>25314860Around 2015, I figure, but its only gotten worse over time
>>25314911>If you assert existence of a separate mental/non-physical, then you must show how it interacts with the physicalwell that's just a truism-you're saying that the non-physical does not exist because there is no physical evidence for the non-physical! you clearly don't believe that the non-physical can exist, so the way this argument is phrased makes no sense-you shouldn't say the existence of the non-physical is unassertable because there is no physical evidence for the non-physical and the physical interacting!
>>25313077philosophy is fucking gay so women should be aces at it
>>25314940that's the point, that's why dualism is pretty rigorously defeated. where is anyone going to get non-physical evidence? you have to show physical evidence because there's no other kind of evidence, and if you think there is, it just takes us right back to the point
>>25314862Fpbp>If you assert existence of a separate mental/non-physical, then you must show how it interacts with the physicalNo lol, not how science works
>>25315041It isn't defeated, it's unaddressable from within your belief system. You, a zealot, take this as evidence that it doesn't exist. I, an intellectual, take it as evidence that your belief system is incomplete. You're the same as the people who censored Galileo.
>>25315048as an intellectual, you should maybe consider thinking up a way dualism is addressable instead of throwing around ad homs. fitting that in a thread about the failures of women, you resort to acting like one
>>25315070>You have an obligation to conform to my belief system Exactly what was said to Galileo lmao. Truth does not care about your near superstitious reverence for empiricism. Read "epistemological anarchism". And nothing that I said was an ad hominem, calling you retarded or whatever was decoration at most and totally unrelated to my actual argument. If you can't emotionally handle being called names I suggest you stop using this site.
>>25315077Sorry, fucked up the name of the book I recommended: It's "Against Method" not "Epistemological Anarchism"
>>25314747Otherwise how does one think?
>>25314979Yet the only gay person here is you, and I bet you huff your dads cock on the regular
>>25315106Who knows? That question doesn't have to be answered for us to notice that thinking occurs. Most thinking is physical thoughbeit in my humbly honest opinion. The soul is what is non material, not the brain.
>>25313077Women don't have deep thoughts and one wonders if they are even capable.
>>25315117Here >>25314753 and>>25314759. >>25314860Retards on this board dont even read, even when presented with evidence, they'd rather whine, ignore and carry on. Its over. >inb4 the usual chimp outRead more
>>25315041NTA but you can get non-physical phenomenological evidence very clearly, it's mental observation. Dualism is retarded though.
>>25313855A true pioneer in her field.
>>25315041>where is anyone going to get non-physical evidence?the way you're phrasing this is implying that you think that the non-physical can exist, but non-physical evidence can't exist. you're just phrasing everything you say in an ambiguous way that implies that you think the non-physical can exist, when you clearly don't. just make the argument that the non-physical cannot exist because everything is physical, don't imply this stuff you obviously don't believe
>>25315106that has nothing to do with my post
>>25313084>Duchess of NewcastleOof, can't take her seriously anymore now that I know she had that horrible accent
>>25313084>The Blazing World, first science fiction novelWtf, I thought Mary Shelley invented sci fi genre?!
>>25315077>>25315079Whatever ghost of a position you're projecting onto me is kind of funny. I get the sense in which you think i'm some sort of science worshipper, but that's just totally wrong. If you can believe it, i'm already familiar with what Feyerabend had to say. Do you think his position applies to what I'm saying? I'm not sure you appreciate how wide of a claim talking about interactions and the physical really is. That there is a world and that things need to interact with it in order to be considered part of it, whatever interaction, world and part mean, is about as basic as it gets - these are necessary for any "belief system" to get off the ground. If you posit a perfectly parallel pluralism, minimally you'd need to provide how your positing is possible, which you can't do without claiming some sort of interaction. >>25315219you can say this, but you'd have to show how it's not physical. this isn't in any way self-evident, since mental observation is still located in time and space. i'm aware that it's not fully clear how it's physical either, however.
>>25314691>>25314911it just is if that answer is unsatisfactory, tell me why as a physicalist you believe the future will be like the past
Gillian Rose has been the greatest female philosopher of the 20th century, and has been overshadowed by dumb pedo feminists like Beauvoir
>>25315531>Do you think his position applies to what I'm saying? It applies to any human belief system that includes the scientific method. I might be reading too much of my own ideas into his, but I'm correct regardless.>I'm not sure you appreciate how wide of a claim talking about interactions and the physical really is. I think I do, it covers everything that the common man considers knowledge.>That there is a world and that things need to interact with it in order to be considered part of it, whatever interaction, world and part mean, is about as basic as it gets - these are necessary for any "belief system" to get off the ground. These are anthropocentric ideas and as such each man constitutes his own instances of them. Experientially each of these worlds continuously make war upon and with one another, shatter, and reform. The existence of a shared platonic reality can only be axiomatic and is only ever modeled from the bits and pieces of collided man-worlds that match each other. What lays beyond what we construct we cannot say, negatively or positively—ever.>If you posit a perfectly parallel pluralism, minimally you'd need to provide how your positing is possible, which you can't do without claiming some sort of interaction.The law of excluded middle is more of a suggestion.
>>25316045>Gillian Rosepornstar name
>>25313077Maybe.
