Oxford's Philosophy Dept. has Caved into Gender PC

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I'm sure I could have googled 'female philosophers' too. I prefer to decide for myself who is a 'philosopher' anyway.

[Walker]

- I think you have ignored what I said here:
- Except the 'Easy Tiger' bit.
- Frankly, I think it helps to be aware of the political bias of any source. As I was saying to Nick_A, facts are meaningless, it is how we are persuaded to respond to them that should be cautioned against. For instance, it seems to me that the term 'PC' is frequently used as a derogatory term that some people on the right apply to any story containing facts they wish to ignore. If that is what you call PC, so be it.

That was specified with the segue, “in that vein …”

Smugness is also annoying as hell, as an advance tip.

You can get all pious with the self-serving frankness, sure, but it stinks.
The search for political bias to the extent of ignoring facts and baseless dismissal of news sources is what’s going on, and what has prompted the request for the list of PC acceptable sources.

But that's let go, since no one has the gumption for other than snark.

Regarding actual content:

If a woman philosopher measures up to philosophical specs, no problem.

If anything trumps excellence as the measure, then what’s happening is an offshoot of vanity press riding on the school’s reputation.

So, who’s the inspector to judge if the woman philosopher measures up to specs?

If the inspector can't be named, then perhaps this is evidence of philosophy being a soft science?

[Nick_A]

Walker

If a woman philosopher measures up to philosophical specs, no problem.

I'm not being critical but just curious. My gut feeling is that academic philosophy has devolved into expressions of meaningless ingenuity which raises the question of what philosophy actually is and what it means to measure up to philosophical specs. I know the love of wisdom no longer seems to be the purpose of philosophy that has devolved into arguing meaningless details. Simone Weil lived her philosophy. Does such an attitude further philosophy or just get in the way of arguing details? Consider:

http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2 ... mone-weil/

All this is to say that Simone Weil is an extremely complex figure, who serves as both inspiration and warning. Undoubtedly, she deserves to be read more widely and studied more thoroughly. Eight years after starting An Encounter with Simone Weil, she continues to be my most reliable and nourishing intellectual companion. My humble hope is the film will make her that to more of us, despite her complicated relationship to feminism.

Clara Fischer of the Irish Feminist Network puts it well:

“I think that the issue of Simone Weil’s feminism is a tricky one…her rejection of traditional gender roles makes her a feminist in many people’s eyes. She led a remarkable life – a life that was unconventional, a life of the mind, of political activism, and of mysticism. This in itself, and her subversion of the feminine it entails, could be viewed as being broadly in line with feminism, as could her concern with social justice. Some commentators have remarked that had she lived a bit longer, she probably would have developed a more explicitly feminist position. While that is of course speculative, I’d also like to think so.”

Simone had this annoying quality that would invite a person to think out of the box or curse her out. She cannot be classified which is the most annoying thing for an academic. For example can she simultaneously be a Christian mystic and a feminist? She invites us to question what the hell we are talking about. The insult of all insults to an academic.

So IYO what measures up to philosophical specs?

[Arising_uk]

I'm sure I could have googled 'female philosophers' too. I prefer to decide for myself who is a 'philosopher' anyway.

I'm sure you could and no doubt that is how you got your first choices but these are ones I have read.

[Arising_uk]

...

So, who’s the inspector to judge if the woman philosopher measures up to specs?

Who's the one who judges the men?

If the inspector can't be named, then perhaps this is evidence of philosophy being a soft science?

By an' large its never claimed to be a science as it's Philosophy.

[Walker]

So IYO what measures up to philosophical specs?

Thank's for asking.

In the quote, Weil is described as both philosopher and mystic.

The mystic sees directly.

The philosopher is locked into duality by intellectualism.

The intellectual detachment required for clear, objective philosophy would be contaminated by the mystic’s direct knowledge.
By already knowing the truth, the mystic can only use philosophy to illustrate and explain truth already known.

The duality of intellectualism enables discovery of truth not previously known via rationality, reasoning, logic, thought, and so on.
All the dualistic mental activities.

The nature of mysticism is to be unbound by such linear distinctions, however at Oxford, better to have the intellectual than the mystic.
They’re more suited for teaching how to use thought to discover truth not known.
I don’t think mysticism is a university discipline. Is it?

Others more familiar with hallowed ivy halls likely have different angles of perspective.

[Walker]

Who's the one who judges the men?

The questioner

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cV0tCphFMr8

[uwot]

So, who’s the inspector to judge if the woman philosopher measures up to specs?

A reading list will generally include a core text or two and a few references to traditional responses. The bulk of the list though, is often recent academic papers. To make it onto that list, a paper almost always has to have been written by someone with a high level of post graduate research, at a university that everyone has heard of, and published in a peer reviewed journal that is taken seriously by people who tick all the above boxes. So, there isn't one inspector, there are thousands.

If the inspector can't be named, then perhaps this is evidence of philosophy being a soft science?

There is a bit of overlap between science and philosophy, but when you pull them apart, hard science is the observation, measurement and mathematical analysis of demonstrable and repeatable phenomena. Hard philosophy is the rigorous application of logic to the data discovered by hard science, to draw out valid conclusions, which are then tested by hard science to discover whether they are sound i.e. 'true'. In practise though, things are rarely that clear.

[Nick_A]

So IYO what measures up to philosophical specs?

Thank's for asking.

In the quote, Weil is described as both philosopher and mystic.

The mystic sees directly.

The philosopher is locked into duality by intellectualism.

The intellectual detachment required for clear, objective philosophy would be contaminated by the mystic’s direct knowledge.
By already knowing the truth, the mystic can only use philosophy to illustrate and explain truth already known.

The duality of intellectualism enables discovery of truth not previously known via rationality, reasoning, logic, thought, and so on.
All the dualistic mental activities.

The nature of mysticism is to be unbound by such linear distinctions, however at Oxford, better to have the intellectual than the mystic.
They’re more suited for teaching how to use thought to discover truth not known.
I don’t think mysticism is a university discipline. Is it?

Others more familiar with hallowed ivy halls likely have different angles of perspective.

Would you say that once a philosopher has a direct experience of what could be called gnosis, they can no longer be considered a philosopher? What would you say is the difference between a philosopher and an intellectual BS artist?

[-1-]

Science Fan:

In philosophy, an argument is supposed to be evaluated based on its own merits, and not on the gender of the person making the argument. This means that Oxford's Philosophy Dept., one of the greatest in the world, has now abandoned one of the major principles of philosophy in order to be PC when it comes to gender.

I have mixed feelings about this. It seems heavy handed but there are many women philosophers who remain unknown and I think that should be remedied. If one is to judge them on their merit they must first be read.

This, with all due respect, is a completely useless arguement on the support of the PC-sexist bias by the Oxford philosophy dept.

The argument presented is that there are many women philosophers who remain unknown.

The counter-argument is that there are many male philosophers who remain unknown.

How many philosophers remain unknown, male or female, is not something that can be counted: unknowns can't be counted. We can't prove even the existence of one unknown; to know it exists, we must know or know of, him or her. That erases the quality of being unknown.

So the argument tries to make the reader believe that there are many valuable unknown female philosophers, which is a completely fabricated assumption, and it at the same time ignores the other equally valid fabricated assumption, that there are many valuable unknown male philosophers.

This is a sexist bias.

I presented this argument to the Philosophy department of the University of Western Ontario, upon my admission process, and upon receiveing and reading my opinions, they barred me from the school. I hate that university now. I wish someone would burn it down.

Just out of curiosity, or rather, out of disdain for this argument (and not disdain for you, Phooloso4), can't you see that presenting your argument and believing that it is valid, you subscribe to refuting the validity of Russell's "teapot" argument with regard to God? Now you say that something unknown is countable, and has qualities. Same as god which is countable, and has qualities; therefore you are on the side that Russell's argument fails, because those things that are fantasy, (unknown) but are countable and have qualities, are real (such as god and/ or also UNKNOWN female philosophers.)

[-1-]

The only female 'philosophers' I can think of are Ayn Rand and Simone Weil, and they are both dreadful.

Well, that's impoverished thinking. It has been pointed out that there are many unknown female philosophers.

I can think of millions -- nay, billions and quatrillions of UNKNOWN female philosophers. In fact, the number of unknown female philosophers is only limited by imagination.

And apparently the only requirement to count female philosophers in existence is their quality to be unknown.

[-1-]

...[a republican-type accusation of PC bias] I suspect, is because they will interpret it as Oxford caving in, rather than a harmless effort to raise the profile of women philosophers.

Well, not quite, uwot. What you wrote is misleading. They are not intent on increasing the efforts to raise the profile of women philosophers; they are intent on raising the profile of UNKNOWN female philosophers.

Big difference.

Because now the UNKNOWN male philosophers can go fuck themselves, basically.

This new policy is not a harmless effort; it is sexual bias, of any kind.

[Walker]

Would you say that once a philosopher has a direct experience of what could be called gnosis, they can no longer be considered a philosopher? What would you say is the difference between a philosopher and an intellectual BS artist?

No, I wouldn’t say that.

A BS artist extrapolates and reasons from a smaller data base of historical knowledge, than an intellectual philosopher.

The question from this is: how significant is knowledge of the past in apprehending truth of the present?

What say you?

[Nick_A]

Would you say that once a philosopher has a direct experience of what could be called gnosis, they can no longer be considered a philosopher? What would you say is the difference between a philosopher and an intellectual BS artist?

No, I wouldn’t say that.

A BS artist extrapolates and reasons from a smaller data base of historical knowledge, than an intellectual philosopher.

What say you?

I would say that a philosopher who had experienced gnosis or satori has accomplished the goal of philosophy. They have experienced what is necessary for wisdom.

Satori or Enlightenment in Zen Buddhism is simply a return to the original, natural condition of the human mind.

So if Socrates experienced anamnesis it doesn't mean he is no longer a philosopher but instead he has now acquired the qualifications to teach it rather than BS about it which is what normally happens

[Walker]

Well, consider the distinction between an arhat you describe, and a Buddha.

An arhat simply is, with no intent other than flowing in the stream of being, and pointed by the currents of wu wei.

A Buddha is a bodhisattva with the intent to liberate all from ignorance, which is somewhat akin to the holy grail ideal of Oxford, although their interests are less ambitiously focused on only the paying students, even if someone else pays for them.

I'd say the significant qualification at the university level is not so much enlightenment, as knowledge.

*

And, the cross-posted question from above:

The question from this is:

how much knowledge is required to apprehend truth?

How much to eat until full, and then empty?