Female Philosophy?

Anything to do with gender and the status of women and men.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

uwot
Posts: 3432
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Female Philosophy?

Post by uwot » Mon Jul 04, 2016 3:20 pm

I didn't think much of it until now, but of the eight modules I have sat at UCL, four have been taught by women. Take it from me, women can do philosophy at the very highest level.

User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 3866
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Female Philosophy?

Post by Harbal » Mon Jul 04, 2016 5:29 pm

Mortalsfool wrote: However, I will defend my original position on female philosophers; 'they' are far and few between;
It should be "few and far between", a woman would have known that.

Mortalsfool
Posts: 41
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 10:34 pm

Re: Female Philosophy?

Post by Mortalsfool » Mon Jul 04, 2016 7:01 pm

Harbal wrote:
Mortalsfool wrote: However, I will defend my original position on female philosophers; 'they' are far and few between;
It should be "few and far between", a woman would have known that.
Wow, you are so correct; I stand duly humbled in my male ignorance! Oops wait, is a typo ignorance? I'm confused.

User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 3866
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Female Philosophy?

Post by Harbal » Mon Jul 04, 2016 7:06 pm

Mortalsfool wrote: wait, is a typo ignorance?
That was not a typo. Putting words in the wrong order is not a typo.
I'm confused.
That's what happens when you try to perform above your level.

Mortalsfool
Posts: 41
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 10:34 pm

Re: Female Philosophy?

Post by Mortalsfool » Mon Jul 04, 2016 7:38 pm

Harbal wrote:
Mortalsfool wrote: wait, is a typo ignorance?
That was not a typo. Putting words in the wrong order is not a typo.
I'm confused.
That's what happens when you try to perform above your level.
Damn! I new that would be picked up; just as I hit the submit button. Double damn!

Skip
Posts: 2261
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: Female Philosophy?

Post by Skip » Mon Jul 04, 2016 10:52 pm

The little pencil icon in the box above and to the right is for corrections, eg. new/knew.

User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 3866
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Female Philosophy?

Post by Harbal » Mon Jul 04, 2016 11:01 pm

Skip wrote: eg. new/knew.
Mortalsfool wrote:That was another typo, damn you. It was a typo, I tell you. It was a typo, it was a typo, it was a typo.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 10935
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Female Philosophy?

Post by Arising_uk » Mon Jul 04, 2016 11:26 pm

He speaks English pretty well if he is an Indian.

My take mortal is that what you describe is your experience of India?

Mortalsfool
Posts: 41
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 10:34 pm

Re: Female Philosophy?

Post by Mortalsfool » Mon Jul 04, 2016 11:28 pm

Harbal wrote:
Skip wrote: eg. new/knew.
Mortalsfool wrote:That was another typo, damn you. It was a typo, I tell you. It was a typo, it was a typo, it was a typo.
Who is it that misquotes me? That is not what I typed, it was what I thought.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 3213
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Female Philosophy?

Post by Greta » Mon Jul 04, 2016 11:37 pm

Mortalsfool wrote:However, I will defend my original position on female philosophers; 'they' are far and few between; and I will concede that 'almost the same can be said of men.
in other words

1. few people are interested in philosophy

2. historically more men than women were engaged in philosophy because the latter were too busy being dominated and constricted and the effects of less enlightened social dynamics remain.

Studies have shown time and again that there is a much greater difference cognitively within genders than between them, so Veggie, Marjoram, artistic, me (others?) contribute in a similar way to male contributors (well, not everyone .... *cough* *Bob n' Bill* *cough* *cough*).

Mortalsfool
Posts: 41
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 10:34 pm

Re: Female Philosophy?

Post by Mortalsfool » Tue Jul 05, 2016 12:04 am

Arising_uk wrote:He speaks English pretty well if he is an Indian.

My take mortal is that what you describe is your experience of India?
Absolutely not, I wish I had been to India. When I 'learned' of the Namaste greeting, I thought to myself there is no finer and respectful greeting that I've ever heard. It serves two purposes; first, it acknowledges your acceptance of a 'power' above your own; second, you are revering the "God within him" as 'equal' with your own God. This of course only addresses 'the greeting', not the next words to come.

The words you speak after the 'greeting', determines whether it was a sincere offering of acceptance/Brotherhood, or, if you are insincere, in your heart you really could see him and his false God killed.

So Namaste!

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 10935
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Female Philosophy?

Post by Arising_uk » Tue Jul 05, 2016 1:36 am

I take it back, you have to be American.

sthitapragya
Posts: 1106
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 2:55 pm

Re: Female Philosophy?

Post by sthitapragya » Tue Jul 05, 2016 7:43 am

Mortalsfool wrote:
Arising_uk wrote:He speaks English pretty well if he is an Indian.

My take mortal is that what you describe is your experience of India?
Absolutely not, I wish I had been to India. When I 'learned' of the Namaste greeting, I thought to myself there is no finer and respectful greeting that I've ever heard. It serves two purposes; first, it acknowledges your acceptance of a 'power' above your own; second, you are revering the "God within him" as 'equal' with your own God. This of course only addresses 'the greeting', not the next words to come.

The words you speak after the 'greeting', determines whether it was a sincere offering of acceptance/Brotherhood, or, if you are insincere, in your heart you really could see him and his false God killed.

So Namaste!
Sorry, but namaste simply means, I bow to you. There is no God involved here. Each bows to the other without actually bowing (probably because the Japanese had dibs on that) signifying respect for the other. That is it.I don't know where you got the rest of the stuff.

Mortalsfool
Posts: 41
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 10:34 pm

Re: Female Philosophy?

Post by Mortalsfool » Tue Jul 05, 2016 10:37 am

sthitapragya wrote:
Mortalsfool wrote:
Arising_uk wrote:He speaks English pretty well if he is an Indian.

My take mortal is that what you describe is your experience of India?
Absolutely not, I wish I had been to India. When I 'learned' of the Namaste greeting, I thought to myself there is no finer and respectful greeting that I've ever heard. It serves two purposes; first, it acknowledges your acceptance of a 'power' above your own; second, you are revering the "God within him" as 'equal' with your own God. This of course only addresses 'the greeting', not the next words to come.

The words you speak after the 'greeting', determines whether it was a sincere offering of acceptance/Brotherhood, or, if you are insincere, in your heart you really could see him and his false God killed.

So Namaste!
Sorry, but namaste simply means, I bow to you. There is no God involved here. Each bows to the other without actually bowing (probably because the Japanese had dibs on that) signifying respect for the other. That is it.I don't know where you got the rest of the stuff.
I highly recommend that you should read more on the subject [Namaste], before you 'correct' others on its 'meaning'. That is of course, if my use of the word 'God', which is my name for my god, doesn't throw you off your thinking. I'm wrong, only if the word GOD does not in fact, represent the same meaning as "divine", or "divine spark", or "bowing to the divine in you", or "The greeting of namaskar is when the Soul in one person acknowledges and pays obeisance to the Soul in another", or " why we do namaste has a deeper spiritual significance. It recognizes the belief that the life force, the divinity, the Self or the God in me is the same in all. Acknowledging this oneness with the meeting of the palms, we honor the god in the person we meet".

I don't want to do all of your research for you, but those quoted 'definitions' are the one's used to describe the real meaning of the word; unless all of them are wrong. Since your name appears as possibly Indian, I'm faced with the dilemma of either accepting your opinion, which runs contrary to quite a volume of information, or see if learning it from Mom and Dad counts more. I know I can't count of what I was 'taught' to guide me.

So almost Namaste, the God in me salutes the less informed God in you.

Too harsh?
jack

sthitapragya
Posts: 1106
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 2:55 pm

Re: Female Philosophy?

Post by sthitapragya » Tue Jul 05, 2016 12:01 pm

Mortalsfool wrote: I highly recommend that you should read more on the subject [Namaste], before you 'correct' others on its 'meaning'. That is of course, if my use of the word 'God', which is my name for my god, doesn't throw you off your thinking. I'm wrong, only if the word GOD does not in fact, represent the same meaning as "divine", or "divine spark", or "bowing to the divine in you", or "The greeting of namaskar is when the Soul in one person acknowledges and pays obeisance to the Soul in another", or " why we do namaste has a deeper spiritual significance. It recognizes the belief that the life force, the divinity, the Self or the God in me is the same in all. Acknowledging this oneness with the meeting of the palms, we honor the god in the person we meet".

I don't want to do all of your research for you, but those quoted 'definitions' are the one's used to describe the real meaning of the word; unless all of them are wrong. Since your name appears as possibly Indian, I'm faced with the dilemma of either accepting your opinion, which runs contrary to quite a volume of information, or see if learning it from Mom and Dad counts more. I know I can't count of what I was 'taught' to guide me.

So almost Namaste, the God in me salutes the less informed God in you.

Too harsh?
jack
Namaste. Namaha te. namaha means to bow. te means to you. Namaste= I bow to you. That is the literal meaning. Now if some "spiritual" guru has managed to twist it into something else, well you are welcome to the crap you have been fed. I live in India. I Studied sanskrit in school. So please get off your high horse.

And also, you don't do namaste. We do. Routinely.

P. S. : Not everything we Indians do has deep meaning. We crap just like you ordinary folk.

P. S. S. :I feel like Arthur Dent right now. I reeled and then I reeled some more. You are a dumb fuck who has never been to India. Yet you believe you understand my country better than I do, that you understand the culture better than I do. I have met people who claim that their God is better but you are the first guy I know who claims to know my religion better than I do. I think I will go and reel some more at your astonishingly ignorantly arrogant dumb fuckery.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest