There have been many great female scientists, novelists, artists, etc. But which female philosophers should replace Plato, Aristotle, Erasmus, Descartes, Hobbes, Locke, Hume, Kant, Mill, Nietzsche, Habermas, or Singer? Serious suggestions welcome.https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2018/03/14/oxford-university-set-feminise-curriculum-requesting-inclusion/ …
-
-
It's not that the true accomplishments as they exist beyond human evaluation are somehow more tied to history. It's just that there's a natural kind of fake scholarship and lauding that humans do, which in its unrestrained form is classic religion.
-
Objective verification of talent is a different phenomenon, trying to pump against the natural high-entropy state. This pumping force is triumphant in math, weaker in science, weaker yet in literature, and absent in religion or continental philosophy.
-
Ok, only now getting that you’re focussing on talent verification. Do you think that verification of talent is a useful metric when thinking about what to learn (particularly for ideas that have been around a long time)?
-
I'm just framing it that way because of the original question about great female philosophers. If you can't verify greatness then it's little wonder if men win the status game before 1950.
-
Makes sense. And this conversation has lead me to wonder about the framing. What is this quality of greatness that we associate with thinkers and philosophers, and why do I care about it? And if ‘greatness’ is a flawed focus, is the gender balance of greatness important?
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.