Debate: Male philosophy

Comments (44) Twitter Share Share

Jupiter Images

Here's a list of great philosophers:
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~worc0337/philosophers.html

It's 99% men, why is that?

About the author

Comments

To comment on this page Sign in or Register.

Philosophical thinking, a male gender thing?

Archive Comments

30 Dec 200818:48

Here's a list of great philosophers:
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~worc0337/philosophers.html

it's 99% men, why is that?

Re: Philosophical thinking, a male gender thing?

Archive Comments

28 Feb 200908:28

Hypatia - Famous Female Philosopher

Hypatia was born in Egypt in the year 370. Her skills in philosophy were so great that she became the head of the Neoplatonist school of philosophy.

Hypatia had great intelligence and charmisma, and her reputation as an incredible teacher grew over the years. In addition to philosophy, Hypatia was also gifted in mathematics and taught on that subject as well.

Unfortunately for Hypatia, much of her learning came in direct conflict with the teachings of the growing power of the Christian church. The local church rulers became incensed with the "non-doctrine" she was teaching and roused the mobs against her. In 391, many famous libraries full of thousands of books were destroyed because of this fanaticism.

Two quotes attributed to Hypatia are:

“Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all”

“To teach superstitions as truth is a most terrible thing,”

Because of the destruction of property, pretty much everything that Hypatia wrote or worked on has been lost. What we have left are the many letters and writings of others of her time, praising her works and her skill.

Hypatia herself was murdered by a mob of Christians in 415. The mob, deliberately goaded into action by the clergy, came across Hypatia while she was riding on her chariot. They grabbed her and scraped all of her flesh off of her body until she died from blood loss.

Re: Philosophical thinking, a male gender thing?

Archive Comments

22 Feb 200908:35

i think regardless as to male female and everyone in between philosophical thinking is just thinking out loud trying to get someone to listen now thats another matter entirely some people enjoy listening just as others enjoy intense conversation that matters and others enjoy 'chit-chat' not that , however i do find conversation highly over-rated at times id rather climb tre's and go rambling then have a serious conversation orspend quality time alone reading daydreaming sleeping and dreaming analyzing my thoughts then maybe let someone help me make sense of it all or write in my diary and draw and chit chat with a cuppa tea when the notion takes me or someone close to me...im a woman and i really like thinking could be i think a lot of rubbish but then ...you never no :-)

Re: Philosophical thinking, a male gender thing?

Archive Comments

02 Feb 200901:18

Men do tend to sit on their laurels more than we females.

Re: Philosophical thinking, a male gender thing?

Archive Comments

04 Feb 200902:53

Men do tend to sit on their laurels more than we females.

I think you'll find that's --------

Re: Philosophical thinking, a male gender thing?

Archive Comments

23 Jan 200922:54

philosophy - an excuse to sit around talking rather than actually do anything.

Re: Philosophical thinking, a male gender thing?

Archive Comments

02 Feb 200900:38

This female tends to think women prefer proof to theory, reality to hypothesis. It takes a little longer for women to put down their tools and ponder the writings of philosophers.

Re: Philosophical thinking, a male gender thing?

Archive Comments

02 Feb 200913:13

This female tends to think women prefer proof to theory, reality to hypothesis. It takes a little longer for women to put down their tools and ponder the writings of philosophers.

May I ask how we can prove the colour blue, or that love exists?

Re: Philosophical thinking, a male gender thing?

Archive Comments

10 Jan 200915:12

What does "philosophy" involve?

(a) Is it a logical development in the form of Quine and Bertrand Russell?

Does it involve infinite quibbling over definitions that eventually leads nowhere?

(b) Is it a wholistic right-brained perception?

My guess is that (a) would be more the provinve of males and (b) more the province of females.

There are notable exceptions.

Re: Philosophical thinking, a male gender thing?

Archive Comments

10 Jan 200918:21

Does it involve infinite quibbling over definitions that eventually leads nowhere?

We wouldn't continue to quote many of them if they didn't make some sense.

There are notable exceptions.

I wonder what produces the exceptions?

Re: Philosophical thinking, a male gender thing?

Archive Comments

12 Jan 200915:02

We wouldn't continue to quote many of them if they didn't make some sense.

I wonder what produces the exceptions?

What I wonder is, what is philosophy FOR? I'm told Richard Rorty has the best answer but I can't seem to find........

Re: Philosophical thinking, a male gender thing?

Archive Comments

17 Jan 200902:22

Q "What is philosophy for?"

How can one answer that before one defines "philosophy"?

Quine and Bertrand Russell are doing philosophy, but the things that they are doing are quite different.

My suspicion is that a definition of "philosophy" will be so general as to be useless.

I have just finished a book (undergraduate survey text) on "Political Philosophy".
It discusses the arguments, pro and con, of various named approaches "Marxism", "Libertarianism", etc. Overall, it seems to be an exercise in weighing values, leading nowhere.

Perhaps "philosophy", in that context, would be "for" contemplating courses of action.

Re: Philosophical thinking, a male gender thing?

Archive Comments

19 Jan 200901:15

I'm not familiar with any female philosophers but I'm thinking that philosophy must be good for something, otherwise we wouldn't continually refer back to comments made by great philosophers.

Re: Philosophical thinking, a male gender thing?

Archive Comments

28 Feb 200908:47

I'm not familiar with any female philosophers but I'm thinking that philosophy must be good for something, otherwise we wouldn't continually refer back to comments made by great philosophers.

Theano (last part of the 6th century BCE) was one of the few women in ancient mathematics and is also thought to have been a physician. The best known interpretation of her life it that her father Pythonax of Crete (an Orphic philosopher and physician) was a great supporter of Pythagoras. She was first a student of Pythagoras, and supposedly became his wife. It is often said that she took over the Pythagorean school after his death. In other traditions she is said to be the daughter of Brontinus - Pythagoras successor, or the daughter of Pythagoras and wife of Brontinus. In the Greek school of philosophy run by Pythagoras there were many women who joined in as teachers and scholars. Those in his school lived in a communal manner and published all their writings under the name of Pythagoras. Today, then, it is difficult to determine who actually did which work.
Hypatia of Alexandria (born between 350 and 370 AD – 415 AD) was a Greek or Egyptian scholar, considered the first notable woman in mathematics, who also taught philosophy and astronomy. She lived in Roman Egypt, and was killed by a Coptic Christian mob who blamed her for religious turmoil. Hailed as a "valiant defender of science against religion", some suggest that her murder marked the end of the Hellenistic Age. Hypatia was Alexandria’s most eminent neo-platonic philosopher and mathematician. She was renowned before the age of 30, in intellectual communities from as far away as Libya and Turkey.
While the Roman Christian government persecuted Jews and Pagans, the government honored Hypatia with an unprecedented, paid, public position as the head of the neo-platonic school of Plotinus. This was all the more significant because the government of Alexandria was Christian and Hypatia was a pagan. She headed the prestigious institution for 15 years as students, both male and female, traveled from afar to study under her. She taught geometry, mathematics, the works of Plato, Aristotle, neo-Platonism, astronomy, and mechanics.
Unfortunately for Hypatia, much of her learning came in direct conflict with the teachings of the growing power of the Christian church. The local church rulers became incensed with the "non-doctrine" she was teaching and roused the mobs against her. In 391, many famous libraries full of thousands of books were destroyed because of this fanaticism.

Two quotes attributed to Hypatia are:

“Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all”

“To teach superstitions as truth is a most terrible thing,”

Re: Philosophical thinking, a male gender thing?

Archive Comments

04 Mar 200916:27

Two quotes attributed to Hypatia are:

“Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all”

“To teach superstitions as truth is a most terrible thing,”

I'm no expert, obviously, but had she been in the kitchen she could have held onto her pelt for a bit longer.

Intellect and wisdom in the same woman at the same time who knows I'm only the idiot male you see in the adverts so much these days.

Are male lions too male for their own good? If those lionesses ever get the vote you'll see some changes on the Savannah.

Oops, nearly forgot to count... ...so that's Hypatia and Theano and Germaine Greer. Gotta be honest that's more than I expected ...well done ladies.

I think for the sake of balance we should consider how many woman and men have used their sexual guile to establish and consolidate their economic value in society.

Who was Theano married to?

Re: Philosophical thinking, a male gender thing?

Archive Comments

06 Mar 200909:08

Theano's husband was Pythagoras born (c. 582-500 B.C.) best known for devising the Pythagorean Thereom Pythagoras was considered the greatest scientist of antiquity by classical Greek scholars.In Croton Pythagoras established a quasi-religious society dedicated to mathematical and philosophical speculations about the nature of the universe. He is reported to have taught purification of the spirit through study and proper diet and to have urged self-control and self-awareness through meditative techniques. However, because the Pythagorean community swore its members to secrecy very little about the society was made public during Pythagoras's lifetime.

There is, however, evidence that Pythagoras's academy accepted men and women on an equal basis. By some accounts there were at least 28 women teachers and students in the school, which is said to have eventually numbered some 300 adherents. Concerned with the quasi-religious, quasi-political study of mathematics and philosophy, the academy's religious ideas tended to be mystical, while its approach to natural philosophy was entirely rational.

I believe theona's husband was a great influence on her work.

Re: Philosophical thinking, a male gender thing?

Archive Comments

06 Mar 200912:17

Theano's husband was Pythagoras...

...I believe theona's husband was a great influence on her work.

He made a very lovely treacle pud I hear and always helped with the dishes, she was never satisfied.

Re: Philosophical thinking, a male gender thing?

Archive Comments

06 Mar 200921:02

He made a very lovely treacle pud I hear and always helped with the dishes, she was never satisfied.

prove it :-)

Re: Philosophical thinking, a male gender thing?

Archive Comments

07 Mar 200902:22

prove it :-)

Its a blimmin tautology init.

OR (2, 4, 1?)(You just want me to say this so I will)

The proofs in the puddin' old son

Re: Philosophical thinking, a male gender thing?

Archive Comments

07 Mar 200911:31

Its a blimmin tautology init.
OR (2, 4, 1?)(You just want me to say this so I will)
The proofs in the puddin' old son

:-) indeed...is all i have to say about that.

Re: Philosophical thinking, a male gender thing?

Archive Comments

21 Jan 200911:56

It has been pointed out before that any attempt to define poetry, in a concise and comprehensive manner, is doomed to failure. It will be easy to demonstrate any such attempted definition to be wrong. Yet most people would have no difficulty distinguishing between poetic language and non-poetic language.

So it is with philosophy. On the other hand, it seems to me, demonstrating what philosophy is for should be much easier. It is perhaps easiest with science. Deciding which scientific investigations are valuable and which are not is an act of philosophy. Considering the morality and ethics of scientific methodology is an act of philosophy. Execution of the investigation and production of the data is an act of pure science. Analysing the results and determining the significance of the results is an act of philosophy.

It might, with some justification, be pointed out that in any science, such a neat separation of the science and the philosophy is practically very difficult to achieve, and in social science in particular, completely impossible. In the case of art, I would suggest that the conception, production and even the exhibiting of any piece of art are all inherently philosophical acts. Politics, of course, is actually just one particular form of philosophy. In fact philosophy permeates every human life all day and every day.

And considering the relationship between philosophy and gender, or even deciding to make a contribution to debate on a forum on any subject – now those are definitely acts of philosophy.

Re: Philosophical thinking, a male gender thing?

Archive Comments

22 Jan 200915:47

I think Ken N's comment boils down to:

"Philosophy to apply and evaluate value judgements."

Re: Philosophical thinking, a male gender thing?

Archive Comments

01 Mar 200921:24

dmwessel originally posted a list of great philosophers and asked "it's 99% men, why is that?". One reason might be that you not only need to have enough philosophers, but also enough people prepared to listen to them. This tends to make an uphill struggle even steeper, but should not apply today. I doubt that philosopher Mary Midgley would be seen dead in this Forums, but she has expressed views elsewhere about what is the purpose of life which I shall attempt to summarise in that thread.

Re: Philosophical thinking, a male gender thing?

Archive Comments

02 Mar 200901:01

dmwessel originally posted a list of great philosophers and asked "it's 99% men, why is that?". One reason might be that you not only need to have enough philosophers, but also enough people prepared to listen to them. This tends to make an uphill struggle even steeper, but should not apply today. I doubt that philosopher Mary Midgley would be seen dead in this Forums, but she has expressed views elsewhere about what is the purpose of life which I shall attempt to summarise in that thread.

MM the ""foremost scourge of scientific pretension" in the United Kingdom"? [Grauniad] (sic)

Re: Philosophical thinking, a male gender thing?

Archive Comments

23 Jan 200912:40

Nice demonstration of the point about any attempted concise and comprehensive definition being easy to prove wrong. There may be elements of value judgements involved, but I do not see that contributing to a forum debate is only about value judgements. There may be an element of value judgements in the exhibition of art, but I see much more than value judgements in the conception and production of art. Undoubtedly, evaluations and applications of value judgements are inherently philosophical. But we both understand that philosophy is much more than just that.

What is entirely about value judgement is the assertion that a high percentage of great philosophers are male. Who decided the criteria for great philosopher? I’ll bet Jane Austen isn’t on the list. I might assert that she should be. And while that might itself be a value judgement, her art is far more than value judgements, but I do see it as deeply philosophical.

Re: Philosophical thinking, a male gender thing?

Archive Comments

23 Jan 200917:47

I seek a definition of "philosophy" as a first step.

Perhaps "the making and evaluation of relative value jusdgements" might be a definition?

Re: Philosophical thinking, a male gender thing?

Archive Comments

12 Jan 200905:54

[only the interesting comments are quoted]

I wonder what produces the exceptions?

That is a very good question!

My first guess would be genetics and random chance.

But, it might reflect training in childhood.

Perhaps a study of some biographies might help.

Do we have biographies of good female philosophers? If so, which?

Re: Philosophical thinking, a male gender thing?

Archive Comments

05 Jan 200916:57

Here's a list of great philosophers:
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~worc0337/philosophers.html

it's 99% men, why is that?

One explanation is that women were not given the opportunity originally , consider plato, aristotle they lived in a patriarchal society, and i am a great beliver in that which exists initially becomes part of the continuum. therfore it was the thing for men to be philosophers, that said i cannot readily think of any contemporary female philosphers, ?
I do think that women are more than capable of engaging in this, as all the women i know are highly intelligent[ well most of the!]
regards ian.

Re: Philosophical thinking, a male gender thing?

Archive Comments

22 Feb 200917:06

One explanation is that women were not given the opportunity originally , consider plato, aristotle they lived in a patriarchal society, and i am a great beliver in that which exists initially becomes part of the continuum. therfore it was the thing for men to be philosophers, that said i cannot readily think of any contemporary female philosphers, ?

 I do think that women are more than capable of engaging in this, as all the women i know are highly intelligent[ well most of the!]

 regards ian.

women are certainly as capable as men, but perhaps it's that philosophizing takes a great deal of 'time'. Nowadays there is opportunity for women but no one (males included) have the time to ponder the deeper questions.

Re: Philosophical thinking, a male gender thing?

Archive Comments

24 Feb 200900:41

women are certainly as capable as men, but perhaps it's that philosophizing takes a great deal of 'time'. Nowadays there is  opportunity for women but no one (males included) have the time to ponder the deeper questions.

WARNING INCOMING OPINION FROM ONE NOT USED TO SHARING and please excuse the spelling..

i agree through the ages women have been practicly non-existant in the areas of art philosophy politics and religion the one thing women in those times women had was plenty of time not allowed to work sitting in their mansions nanny's to look after their children maids to cook clean their main role to satisfy their husband when present and to accompany him as practically an ornament speak only when spoken to at the opposite end of the spectrum there were the very very poor...anyhow i imagine these women had more than enough time to think and would of, could of and probably did contribute to many different roles within art literature science philosophy etc just opposed and therefore not allowed to be recognised as credible by religion, husbands and politics...whos to say a lot of the paintings hung in the louvre signed by men werent actually originally done by a women authors of particular literature published as written by a man perhaps actually having been wrote by a women with the coercive/persuasion tecniques required to be able to complete their work anonymosly able to gage from behind the scenes persay the true opinions of the work because their work was so important personally to them they did not look for the recognition just the satisfying knowledge that they were and still are... just as capable if not more capable of contributing one way or another...no matter what...i wonder just how much work by women many years ago was 'lost' or 'destroted' that today would be looked upon as masterpieces... in the past women philosophised definatley as we do today were might those writings/plays be sometimes what you are looking for is right in front of you...i disagree now adays though i beleive we have the time its just what we do with it that matters...free will gives us choice over how we live our lives that is our and no-one elses choice every waking moment we philosophize wether conciously or subconciously our outward actions reflect this in my opinion time shouldnt be a consideration if you are so passionate about something 'that' passionate that you will make the time - no matter what...im unmarried through choice i have no significant other no children and i am a full time carer for family members and a friend some say i think to much i say nothing and write type and spend quality time with those closest to me i am by nature a daydreamer introvert and people tell me me quite intense/serious doctors tell me im depressed with social phobia isnt it odd how others peoples perceptions can matter so much and effect the emotional/phycological state?..

Re: Philosophical thinking, a male gender thing?

Archive Comments

24 Feb 200901:05

WARNING INCOMING OPINION FROM ONE NOT USED TO SHARING and please excuse the spelling..

Great Thinkers, Philosophy & Ethics that's all this has to offer if you're lucky and it might be that you're looking for more?

Be careful of your feelings not being seen as just part of the thread.

What gets posted is seen as being fair game for the crushing and is not personal just part of the debate.

If you're depressed and want a safe place to express yourself a philosophy thread is a possible risk to you. If you don't get crushed you could just be ignored maybe?

But if you're painting a target on yourself and wandering onto a firing range on purpose ...have fun.

Re: Philosophical thinking, a male gender thing?

Archive Comments

25 Feb 200904:42

Great Thinkers, Philosophy & Ethics that's all this has to offer if you're lucky and it might be that you're looking for more?

Be careful of your feelings not being seen as just part of the thread.

What gets posted is seen as being fair game for the crushing and is not personal just part of the debate.

If you're depressed and want a safe place to express yourself a philosophy thread is a possible risk to you. If you don't get crushed you could just be ignored maybe?

But if you're painting a target on yourself and wandering onto a firing range on purpose ...have fun.

i am in no way depressed i shall have you know nor am i engaging in painting a target on my forehead and wandering around a firing range although i appreciate your concern people can ignore me if they wish people can try to crush me if they wish but i will continue to post from now on keeping personal issues out naturally i shall however sit back and ponder whats been wrote previously a little more intensely first.

Re: Philosophical thinking, a male gender thing?

Archive Comments

24 Feb 200912:57

It's obvious why there aren't as many female philosophers. For starters, in past women weren't allowed to publish fiction, let alone philosophy! I'm not talking of distant past either, just a few centuries ago. And I'm not an expert on history, so I don't really know why, but when women actually started writing books, they were despised for that. Maybe it had something to do with how men saw women's role in society and maybe women who wrote books seemed manly.

Last but not least, those women who had love for philosophy would have to be unknown, since nobody would take them seriously enough to listen to them :) And I think it's true for modern society, too, no matter what people say about success of feminism. Women are still considered worse than men in all aspects: strength, brain, reaction, etc, you can see it everywhere in modern culture.

The second reason is, I think, that women as a result of their common past are very down-to-earth and focused on practical matters. Philosophy on another hand, is a rather useless thing. It has no goal or purpose, it's for those who have a lot of free time on their hands and like to think without direction or result. It's a slight exaggeration because some men's ideas managed to influence reality, but in general and for the majority of people (who won't influence reality) it's not far from truth.

Re: Philosophical thinking, a male gender thing?

Archive Comments

25 Feb 200902:52

I don't think its fair that you self distruct so soon.

with all the finesse of Oswald Mosley at a bris.

Re: Philosophical thinking, a male gender thing?

Archive Comments

23 Feb 200914:18

women are certainly as capable as men, ...

at what? (shooting a sparrow with a bow and arrow?)

based on what?

evidence?

"yes I can, yes I can, yes I can..."

Re: Philosophical thinking, a male gender thing?

Archive Comments

27 Feb 200920:51

Obviously women have got better things to do with their time. Sam

Re: Philosophical thinking, a male gender thing?

Archive Comments

28 Feb 200901:14

Obviously women have got better things to do with their time. Sam

exactly, why bother to think if you don't have to? Run a bank or buy shoes or practice self interest ...talk to your mum for an hour, subjugate masculinity to a footnote , eat more chocolate, prepare the microwave for dinner, regret dealing one ex too soon, you might have had a Cayenne by now?

Re: Philosophical thinking, a male gender thing?

Archive Comments

01 Mar 200909:25

exactly, why bother to think if you don't have to? Run a bank or buy shoes or practice self interest ...talk to your mum for an hour, subjugate masculinity to a footnote , eat more chocolate, prepare the microwave for dinner, regret dealing one ex too soon, you might have had a Cayenne by now?

It is said we look for in other people those glitches we ourselves are indeed guilty of ;unregistered; it seems to me you might be looking an easy target otherwise you would have the strength of your convictions to register your name with your opinions so ; why bother to think if you dont have to?...because you can! and can want to... the choice is entirely up to you yourself motivation the influences and factors in your life and how you choose to manage them to make the best and most of your existance whilst enhancing as many lives of those around you as possible contributing and observing then taking action taking not just yourself into consideration but those around you as well.

ps [Unregistered] one hour + spent with loved and indeed not so loved ones both male and female with a cuppa hot chocolate a sprinkle of cheyenne and a dollop of cream can indeed be very not to mention tasty, indeed inspiriational,rewarding, fulfilling, thought provoking for all involved and remarkably productive to the concepts of the thought patterns ideas conciousness and awareness etc of yourself and those involved and those they in turn; turn to once those moments have dispersed : evolving the mind of yourself and others at the same time .Quality not quantity TIME spent whilst the inclusion of work, keeping home and cooking is an extremely productive way of multi-tasking and both balancing and indulging ours and the lives emotions, wants and needs of those around us positively this requires a maintenance of concious effort either consistantly or inconsintantly or indeed consistently inconsistant we are all capable both male and female the resulting harmony and equilibrium achievable through this i beleive :worth it: making us stronger more capable of perceiving and understanding the harsh times in life by allowing us to see them in a different perspective we are free to live not just survive contribute more to society in a productive way nowadays either gender.
Samantha

Re: Philosophical thinking, a male gender thing?

Archive Comments

02 Mar 200900:54

Why judge a book by its cover?

Prejudice is a foible suffered by many.

All that is relevant in a debate is the content and its delivery.

A lot of posts are based on prejudices that the author fails to consider or question. They often react defensively or indignantly when not revered and hasten to project (with a j) themselves.

When a post lacks integrity the message is diminished and the integrity of the thread is diminished.

There are many posts that are very edifying on both sides of an issue.

I find it extremely stimulating and challenging to question on fact or assumption any post which is offered for consumption but it is poor form to interrupt a virtuous thread to make mischief (see "comments on belief").

I find it pernicious to defend an idiot from the truth and morally abhorant... ...as dishonest as any censorship.

I applaud an inclusive invitation for contribution that fights against intellectual snobbery for any "expert" deserving the title should be able to cope with and embrace being proded by an "idiot" as part of a reciprocating exchange.

Nannie modulation is like shooting crows to save the snails to eat your garden (very green if you don't count the crows and the flowers).

It might be better if all posts are delivered without ego and avoid "personalities"?

Criticism might be received more objectively than abjectly?

Perhaps its naive to want the stimulation of a hearty, earnest exchange, between strangers, found over a pint or two of Irish stout (even if I don't drink)?

"Obviously women have got better things to do with their time. Sam" -how can this be taken as either highly amusing, in a tongue in cheek style or ridiculous whomsoever says it (the icons are there to help decide).

Cayenne (with a capital c) like Polo (with a capital p) like other names of car models tastes terrible with a dollop of cream ...trust me.

Re: Philosophical thinking, a male gender thing?

Archive Comments

10 Apr 200921:21

Why judge a book by its cover?
Because it summarises whats inside and saves you reading a lot of dross before coming to a decision. The rest of your post, which I deleted for the common good, is a case in point.

Re: Philosophical thinking, a male gender thing?

Archive Comments

12 Apr 200920:39

it appears to me that most of the time no-one likes someone whom 'appears' to be a smartarse of either gender in the same way no-one likes to converse with someone who 'appears' to have nothing of educated interest to say male or female the way in which a person is raised and in what type of environment is going to colour their beliefs on subjects contrary to gender making some predisposed to react a certain way to particular statements situations people etc something i think which should to be taken into consideration when answering this question. who knows a hundred years from now women could completely outnumber men on this subject in literary excellence,,,maybe not either way our perception of how we percieve it to be is unique to each and every one of us individually wether it is heard and slated by one or a thousand or heard and loved by one or a thousand the quality of variables taken in a broader range in the study of philosophers makes for a very interesting analysis and comprehension of philosophy

Re: Philosophical thinking, a male gender thing?

Archive Comments

13 Apr 200902:57

... the study of philosophers makes for a very interesting analysis and comprehension of philosophy

philosophy is a sad and lonely subject that helps sad, lonely men pass the time.

Re: Philosophical thinking, a male gender thing?

Archive Comments

06 Jul 200923:40

...sad, lonely men...

do you mean married men?

Re: Philosophical thinking, a male gender thing?

Archive Comments

04 Mar 200913:40

Why judge a book by its cover?

Prejudice is a foible suffered by many.

All that is relevant in a debate is the content and its delivery.

A lot of posts are based on prejudices that the author fails to consider or question. They often react defensively or indignantly when not revered and hasten to project (with a j) themselves.

When a post lacks integrity the message is diminished and the integrity of the thread is diminished.

There are many posts that are very edifying on both sides of an issue.

I find it pernicious to defend an idiot from the truth and morally abhorant... ...as dishonest as any censorship.

Nannie modulation is like shooting crows to save the snails to eat your garden (very green if you don't count the crows and the flowers).

It might be better if all posts are delivered without ego and avoid "personalities"?

Criticism might be received more objectively than abjectly?

Perhaps its naive to want the stimulation of a hearty, earnest exchange, between strangers, found over a pint or two of Irish stout (even if I don't drink)?

Cayenne (with a capital c) like Polo (with a capital p) like other names of car models tastes terrible with a dollop of cream ...trust me.

Why judge a book by its cover?
because perhaps of the apprehension of finding inside something so inconceivable as to change our entire belief system on a matter we have stubbornly clung to as correct fear of the unknown is an unfortunate part of human nature...something education, learning the sharing of opinions and you are correct in saying "objectively" taking on board the opinions of others can help erase i am learning.

It might be better if all posts are delivered without ego and avoid "personalities"?
Is it not our ego's and personalities that help us to form our opinions and thoughts is that not what contributes to making us feeling creatures with ideas we feel the need to put accross granted the mannerisms with which we put our points across should be taken into account as politeness is also part of our nature we sometimes forget to make use of as you said earlier if we feel quite indignant about a statement it can be quite difficult to not react defensively or indignantly...diminishing the integrity of the thread.

I find it pernicious to defend an idiot from the truth and morally abhorant...as dishonest as any censorship.
To find it harmful insidious corrupting or undermining to defend a person of profound mental retardation or a foolish or stupid person from the truth morally abhorrent(with two r's)or detestable obscene or repulsive...as dishonest as any censorship i disagree i am pro-censorship on this matter.

Perhaps its naive to want the stimulation of a hearty, earnest exchange, between strangers, found over a pint or two of Irish stout (even if I don't drink)?
Perhaps it is niave to believe it niave to want the stimulation of a hearty, earnest exchange between people in general? after all arent strangers only people we have yet to share what we believe in earnest in our hearts with in any case?

Cayenne (with a capital c) like Polo (with a capital p) like other names of car models tastes terrible with a dollop of cream ...trust me.
Pardon my ignorance on this one im as uneducated in cars as i am interested in shoes hence my referral to Ceyenne the pepper so i trust you on this one :-).

Nannie modulation is like shooting crows to save the snails to eat your garden (very green if you don't count the crows and the flowers).
Why not count the crows and the flowers let nature be? let the snail feast most only have a lifespan of ten years anyway...unless their french then they've no chance...

Samantha...

Publication details

Originally published: Tuesday, 30th December 2008
Last updated on: Tuesday, 30th December 2008

Copyright information

Body text - Copyrighted: The Open University
Image 'A bronze of Rodin's The Thinker' - Copyrighted: Jupiter Images

Tags, Ratings and Social Bookmarking

About the author

Other pages You might like

Try: Exploring Greek vases

Try: Imagination: The missing mystery of...

Study: Exploring philosophy

Try: David Hume: 18th Century Philosopher

Try: Emotion: An introductory picture

Try: World Archaeology

Try: Philosophy: The nature of persons

Try: Changing approaches to heritage

Try: Introducing philosophy

Try: Art history: early modern

Try: Making sense of art history

Try: Art history: modern and contemporary

More by The OpenLearn team

Explore: OU on TV and radio this week

Explore: Keeping Britain Alive: The NHS in a Day - Episode 8

Explore: OU on TV and radio this week - 04-05-13 to 16-05-13

Explore: The Rest is Noise: Britten's Centenary

Explore: Keeping Britain Alive: The NHS in a Day - Episode 6

Explore: OU on TV and radio this week - 27-04-13 to 03-05-13

Comments

Copyright & revisions

Publication details

Copyright information

Feeds

Tags, Ratings and Social Bookmarking

Page Tags

Ratings

Share

About this site

Study with the OU

Editor's choice

OU TV & Radio

Most popular

Views

Votes

Comments

Tags

The Open University

+44 (0) 845 300 60 90 Email us

+44 (0) 845 300 60 90
Email us