James V. Mead overhears Hegel mansplaining #MeToo.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/140/Hegel_Walks_Into_A_Bar
Hegel Walks Into A Bar…
-
Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22453
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Hegel Walks Into A Bar…
Does the real parable begin, "Jeffrey Epstein, Joel Weinstein, Prince Andrew and Bill Clinton walk into a bar, and sit down to discuss the #metoo movement with Ghislaine Maxwell and her friends"...?
-
Scott Mayers
- Posts: 2446
- Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Re: Hegel Walks Into A Bar…
I didn't quite follow the argument. The 'negations' he uses are not related to one another. The author apparently interprets "negation" as though it were a universal emotional value that doesn't concern itself with what the particular emotion's differences. If something is a 'negative' as interpreted by a woman, then you can't assume that the man's emotional interpretation double negates her. They are not comparable.
As to Hegel, the only essential value one can glean from him is that a contradiction does not necessitate absolute closure, but acts as a binary solution: if contradiction exists, then either (1) the assumption within the particular reasoning is wrong, or (2) another level of logic exists (as a force) that resolves the conflict, especially if the contradiction is a sincere paradox.
If given X, then not-X may be the COMPLEMENT or, it can be outside of the universal class of discourse and requires extending this domain. For example, if given that "I am writing this post", then a negation of this does not mean necessarily that It is NOT the case that "I am writing this post." Rather, if the class of the domain is extended, you can have both true. For this example, it might be that a missing content of the premise like an interval of time: "During my lifetime..." for example permits the domain to include times when you are writing as well as not.
As to the gender arguments, I question why the women have let Hegel buy them drinks? Why, for instance, do some think that it is okay to ACCEPT a beneficial thing, like someone else paying for your drink, but then DENY that it implies one to reciprocate? You can bet that more often than not, the women would go to the bar without a concern to pay for their drinks (a benefit) but think it inappropriate that some guy who does this would dare to think this means the girl is interested in you. A Hegelian solution for the presumed contradiction is to have the women always buy their own drinks if and only if they are not interested in the person offering the benefit.
There is a double standard to assuming, for instance, that a woman SHOULD be considered 'equal' to a man for something where the benefits are involved but ignore the negatives. If you are forced to hire a woman out of 'equal' rights, then the woman should require denouoncing her right to get pregnant without 'equal' consideration for the negative effects it has upon those hiring. Why is it alright for a business to deny employment of some male of equal standing to a woman when the woman has the extended power to NOT be discriminated against for the same reason?
If the women think they have some right to be hired without distinction if such distinction offends them, then they should not accept a distinct status on behaviors they favor, ...like a right, for instance, to wear something that culturally says, "look at my sexy outfit".
The apparent argument to the author is to presume that it is alright to have these discrimination and non-discrimination without addressing how the novel solutions cancel out the prior contradictions. They remain contradictions and so rightfully need to be addressed before being accepted.
Most of the biases against women are actually 'equally' created BY women as well as men. And the present paradigm is to turn Patriarchy into Matriarchy (a contrary) that still KEEPS the abuse in power but just flips which class gets to be the abuser and which the victim. The resolution without contradiction would be to deny both favoritism to men or women who use special privileged standards based upon abusive behaviors.
As to Hegel, the only essential value one can glean from him is that a contradiction does not necessitate absolute closure, but acts as a binary solution: if contradiction exists, then either (1) the assumption within the particular reasoning is wrong, or (2) another level of logic exists (as a force) that resolves the conflict, especially if the contradiction is a sincere paradox.
If given X, then not-X may be the COMPLEMENT or, it can be outside of the universal class of discourse and requires extending this domain. For example, if given that "I am writing this post", then a negation of this does not mean necessarily that It is NOT the case that "I am writing this post." Rather, if the class of the domain is extended, you can have both true. For this example, it might be that a missing content of the premise like an interval of time: "During my lifetime..." for example permits the domain to include times when you are writing as well as not.
As to the gender arguments, I question why the women have let Hegel buy them drinks? Why, for instance, do some think that it is okay to ACCEPT a beneficial thing, like someone else paying for your drink, but then DENY that it implies one to reciprocate? You can bet that more often than not, the women would go to the bar without a concern to pay for their drinks (a benefit) but think it inappropriate that some guy who does this would dare to think this means the girl is interested in you. A Hegelian solution for the presumed contradiction is to have the women always buy their own drinks if and only if they are not interested in the person offering the benefit.
There is a double standard to assuming, for instance, that a woman SHOULD be considered 'equal' to a man for something where the benefits are involved but ignore the negatives. If you are forced to hire a woman out of 'equal' rights, then the woman should require denouoncing her right to get pregnant without 'equal' consideration for the negative effects it has upon those hiring. Why is it alright for a business to deny employment of some male of equal standing to a woman when the woman has the extended power to NOT be discriminated against for the same reason?
If the women think they have some right to be hired without distinction if such distinction offends them, then they should not accept a distinct status on behaviors they favor, ...like a right, for instance, to wear something that culturally says, "look at my sexy outfit".
The apparent argument to the author is to presume that it is alright to have these discrimination and non-discrimination without addressing how the novel solutions cancel out the prior contradictions. They remain contradictions and so rightfully need to be addressed before being accepted.
Most of the biases against women are actually 'equally' created BY women as well as men. And the present paradigm is to turn Patriarchy into Matriarchy (a contrary) that still KEEPS the abuse in power but just flips which class gets to be the abuser and which the victim. The resolution without contradiction would be to deny both favoritism to men or women who use special privileged standards based upon abusive behaviors.
Re: Hegel Walks Into A Bar…
Nice post. So much bo....ks is talked about this stuff.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 8:02 am Most of the biases against women are actually 'equally' created BY women as well as men. And the present paradigm is to turn Patriarchy into Matriarchy (a contrary) that still KEEPS the abuse in power but just flips which class gets to be the abuser and which the victim. The resolution without contradiction would be to deny both favoritism to men or women who use special privileged standards based upon abusive behaviors.