Oxford's Philosophy Dept. has Caved into Gender PC

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Nick_A
Posts: 4246
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Oxford's Philosophy Dept. has Caved into Gender PC

Post by Nick_A » Wed Mar 28, 2018 8:40 pm

Walker, what do you mean by enlightenment. This isn’t a trick question. But if the purpose of enlightenment is to prevent rebirth what is it and why were we born in the first place. Do you agree with the linked short article?

Of course I agree with you as to the necessity for detachment but it seems to me that the need for meaning is more than detachment. So as to better understand what you mean by enlightenment, do you agree with the article?

http://www.matthieuricard.org/en/blog/p ... ightenment

Once, a man asked the Buddha some questions about cosmology. In reply, he picked up a handful of leaves and asked: ‟Are there more leaves in my hands, or in the forest?” ‟There are more in the forest, of course,” replied the man. The Buddha went on: ‟Well, the leaves in my hand represent the knowledge which leads to the end of suffering”. In this way, the Buddha showed that certain questions are superfluous. The world has limitless fields of study, as numerous as the leaves of the forest. But if what we want more than anything else is Enlightenment, then it is better to concentrate entirely on that aim and gather together only the knowledge that is directly relevant to our quest.

Walker
Posts: 6836
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Oxford's Philosophy Dept. has Caved into Gender PC

Post by Walker » Wed Mar 28, 2018 9:49 pm

Nick_A wrote:
Wed Mar 28, 2018 8:40 pm
Walker, what do you mean by enlightenment. This isn’t a trick question. But if the purpose of enlightenment is to prevent rebirth what is it and why were we born in the first place. Do you agree with the linked short article?

Of course I agree with you as to the necessity for detachment but it seems to me that the need for meaning is more than detachment. So as to better understand what you mean by enlightenment, do you agree with the article?

http://www.matthieuricard.org/en/blog/p ... ightenment

Once, a man asked the Buddha some questions about cosmology. In reply, he picked up a handful of leaves and asked: ‟Are there more leaves in my hands, or in the forest?” ‟There are more in the forest, of course,” replied the man. The Buddha went on: ‟Well, the leaves in my hand represent the knowledge which leads to the end of suffering”. In this way, the Buddha showed that certain questions are superfluous. The world has limitless fields of study, as numerous as the leaves of the forest. But if what we want more than anything else is Enlightenment, then it is better to concentrate entirely on that aim and gather together only the knowledge that is directly relevant to our quest.
I agree with it.

Also consider that enlightenment is awareness perpetually abiding in, or as, ubiquitous turiya consciousness, resulting in a wu wei lifestyle.

*

Karma is action.
Wu-wei is non-action (or, action without action.)

No action, no karma.
No karma, no reincarnation.

Enlightenment subtracts what obscures the natural mind.
It doesn't clutter.

Philosophy organizes the clutter, rather than subtract it.

To set things in order is to invite the grace of enlightenment.

Nick_A
Posts: 4246
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Oxford's Philosophy Dept. has Caved into Gender PC

Post by Nick_A » Thu Mar 29, 2018 3:56 am

Walker wrote:
Wed Mar 28, 2018 9:49 pm
Nick_A wrote:
Wed Mar 28, 2018 8:40 pm
Walker, what do you mean by enlightenment. This isn’t a trick question. But if the purpose of enlightenment is to prevent rebirth what is it and why were we born in the first place. Do you agree with the linked short article?

Of course I agree with you as to the necessity for detachment but it seems to me that the need for meaning is more than detachment. So as to better understand what you mean by enlightenment, do you agree with the article?

http://www.matthieuricard.org/en/blog/p ... ightenment

Once, a man asked the Buddha some questions about cosmology. In reply, he picked up a handful of leaves and asked: ‟Are there more leaves in my hands, or in the forest?” ‟There are more in the forest, of course,” replied the man. The Buddha went on: ‟Well, the leaves in my hand represent the knowledge which leads to the end of suffering”. In this way, the Buddha showed that certain questions are superfluous. The world has limitless fields of study, as numerous as the leaves of the forest. But if what we want more than anything else is Enlightenment, then it is better to concentrate entirely on that aim and gather together only the knowledge that is directly relevant to our quest.
I agree with it.

Also consider that enlightenment is awareness perpetually abiding in, or as, ubiquitous turiya consciousness, resulting in a wu wei lifestyle.

*

Karma is action.
Wu-wei is non-action (or, action without action.)

No action, no karma.
No karma, no reincarnation.

Enlightenment subtracts what obscures the natural mind.
It doesn't clutter.

Philosophy organizes the clutter, rather than subtract it.

To set things in order is to invite the grace of enlightenment.


"Attachment is the great fabricator of illusions; reality can be attained only by someone who is detached." - Simone Weil
We agree that without detachment our attachments keep us as we are and slaves to imagination. However, is there any way that Simone Weil’s observation on Christianity and the Buddhist conception of suffering can be reconciled? She wrote:
“The supernatural greatness of Christianity lies in the fact that it does not seek a supernatural remedy for suffering but a supernatural use for it.”

Walker
Posts: 6836
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Oxford's Philosophy Dept. has Caved into Gender PC

Post by Walker » Thu Mar 29, 2018 6:32 am

Interesting that she used that vague word, supernatural.
She must have written more to further explain it.

Supernatural is a subjective description of reality that expresses the lack of understanding of what’s perceived, or experienced.

To this lack of understanding is added memory’s selective blur.

The selective memories of a partial reality that are referenced to understand what is perceived in the present, and is being called supernatural, compare a past experience to make the present explicable, and what doesn’t fit is called super.

You probably won't find many children using the word.
They don't have enough experiences to compare to the present, to so label what they've never encountered.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Oxford's Philosophy Dept. has Caved into Gender PC

Post by Greta » Thu Mar 29, 2018 7:21 am

I hope at least some of these female philosophers move beyond gender issues, which is something I at least grant Rand and Weil, despite their issues. It's only when women philosophers make progress with broader issues (that can be inclusive of gender-related issues but not exclusively focused on them) that they will gain broader respect as is happening in fields like astronomy, history, archaeology, chemistry and biology.

I admit bias, though. "Gender issues" bore me - those tussles over societal rules of engagement and scrambles for the moral high ground, gender based and otherwise. Give me the cosmos, life, consciousness, art and technology any day, as opposed to organisational hassles in hominid societies!

Whatever, I don't much care about internal policies in organisations just as I don't much care what rules that you laid down for your children. It's not my business.

Walker
Posts: 6836
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Oxford's Philosophy Dept. has Caved into Gender PC

Post by Walker » Thu Mar 29, 2018 7:47 am

By the time a woman reaches Oxford, in print or body, she is not a child.

An interesting aside, I recently listened to video that takes a closer look at women’s earnings.
Turns out women earn as much as men, all things considered.

Point being, this is typical of how facts get distorted by those driven by an agenda.

I think it was by that Canadian clinical psychologist, Peterson, who got into the details of the feminist stats about the earnings.

*

"I admit bias, though. "Gender issues" bore me - those tussles over societal rules of engagement and scrambles for the moral high ground, gender based and otherwise. Give me the cosmos, life, consciousness, art and technology any day, as opposed to organisational hassles in hominid societies!"

That ain't nobody's business either, but thanks for sharing such a sweeping vision.

Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Oxford's Philosophy Dept. has Caved into Gender PC

Post by Science Fan » Thu Mar 29, 2018 4:39 pm

Walker: I think there is a slight gender gap in pay, but not as large as many feminists claim. We also know that there are differences in the fields that men and women go into, which is actually based in part on biological differences between the sexes. Women, in general, prefer occupations dealing with people, and men, in general, prefer occupations that deal with objects. This difference can even be seen when close monkey relatives of ours have the male monkeys preferring to play with fire trucks and the female monkeys prefer to play with dolls, just like human children. But, if we mention any biological differences between the sexes, including differences in brain anatomy, then one is likely to be labeled as a sexist, racist, fascist, etc. It's unfortunate that political ideologies these days distort philosophy, history, literature, as well as the sciences, especially biology.

Walker
Posts: 6836
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Oxford's Philosophy Dept. has Caved into Gender PC

Post by Walker » Thu Mar 29, 2018 7:50 pm

Science Fan wrote:
Thu Mar 29, 2018 4:39 pm
Walker: I think there is a slight gender gap in pay, but not as large as many feminists claim. We also know that there are differences in the fields that men and women go into, which is actually based in part on biological differences between the sexes. Women, in general, prefer occupations dealing with people, and men, in general, prefer occupations that deal with objects. This difference can even be seen when close monkey relatives of ours have the male monkeys preferring to play with fire trucks and the female monkeys prefer to play with dolls, just like human children. But, if we mention any biological differences between the sexes, including differences in brain anatomy, then one is likely to be labeled as a sexist, racist, fascist, etc. It's unfortunate that political ideologies these days distort philosophy, history, literature, as well as the sciences, especially biology.
I think the crux is that these days, men and women in the same jobs make the same money, with minor exceptions.

More women than men are enrolled in universities.

More women than men at Oxford.

More attention paid to women in the schools when they’re young.
More praise, more approval for developing self-concept.

Boys being boys too much get drugged by the state, way more than girls, all on the up-and-up, with scientific justification.

Metrosexuality is encouraged as an ideal in the little tykes, along with an alphabet of identities.
(Soft, sensitive voice and no shouting gets teacher's tacit approval.)

Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Oxford's Philosophy Dept. has Caved into Gender PC

Post by Science Fan » Thu Mar 29, 2018 10:18 pm

Walker: There is certainly a backlash against boys in the USA. The initial idea was good --- get girls caught up with the boys. But, government officials can never seem to do the common sense thing, and instead, they focused on girls, at the exclusion of boys, so now we have the problem of boys falling behind girls.

Still, men largely make up such disciplines like engineering, and this is at least partially explained by biology.

Walker
Posts: 6836
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Oxford's Philosophy Dept. has Caved into Gender PC

Post by Walker » Thu Mar 29, 2018 11:03 pm

It’s an indication that women don’t need preferential quota treatment in academia.

There’s plenty of opportunity for philosophers to emerge as thought, rather than just to fill a space.

Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Oxford's Philosophy Dept. has Caved into Gender PC

Post by Science Fan » Fri Mar 30, 2018 5:38 pm

Walker: I agree with you. I wouldn't give any favorable treatment to women to enlarge their presence in philosophy. In fact, I went so far as to state that in doing so, philosophers are betraying the most basic principles of their own discipline.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 8164
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Oxford's Philosophy Dept. has Caved into Gender PC

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Fri Mar 30, 2018 8:16 pm

Walker wrote:
Thu Mar 29, 2018 6:32 am


Supernatural is a subjective description of reality that expresses the lack of understanding of what’s perceived, or experienced.

That's not what it means at all.

Walker
Posts: 6836
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Oxford's Philosophy Dept. has Caved into Gender PC

Post by Walker » Sat Mar 31, 2018 5:50 am

Why for you say theese?

Melchior
Posts: 839
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 3:20 pm

Re: Oxford's Philosophy Dept. has Caved into Gender PC

Post by Melchior » Tue Apr 03, 2018 2:14 am

Well, nothing surprises me anymore. Women philosophers? Do they mean academics? My experience with women philosophers is that they are capable of reciting chapter and verse of some famous philosopher, but are incapable of digesting it. Having a mastery of minutiae does not make one a philosopher.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests