I will
set out here what I believe to be the relationship between sex differences and
the practice of philosophy. I should be quick to point out that by ‘philosophy’
I don't mean ‘academic philosophy’, but, rather, I am using the word in the
traditional and historic sense of ‘the pursuit of wisdom’ - or the pursuit of
absolute truth. That's not to say that an academic philosopher can't be
interested in such matters, but only that if such a person exists then they had
better keep it a close secret if they want to keep their job - or their spouse.
By
‘sex differences’ I mean the psychological differences between the sexes. For purposes here, I am not concerned
with the source of those differences, and to what degree those differences are
due to purely genetic, or cultural factors. Rather, I am primarily concerned with the differences
themselves, and what they mean for the practice or the survival of philosophy.
Some
people maintain that there are no
observed psychological differences between the sexes, and that both sexes have
an equal degree of interest in, or affinity for, all pursuits. I don't know what planet those people
are living on, but it's not the one that I experience, from whatever corner of
the globe I find myself. I can
only tell you of how this world presents itself to me.
In
that regard it should be made clear that this essay is not of only iron-clad,
absolute philosophy, but also draws on empirical experience, and is therefore
open to the uncertainties inherent in all empiric observation. For this reason, I cannot say with
absolute certainty that the behaviour of women, or anyone, is not entirely an
elaborate act, and a deception, and for that matter I also cannot say with
absolute certainty that women even so much as physically exist.
What I
observe is that women, on average,
and across all cultures, tend to gravitate more towards passive, unconscious
ends: emotions, feelings, comfort, friends, immediacy, and (passive) connection
to all that surrounds them. Dave
Sim, the notorious independent comic publisher and self-styled genius, refers
to the feminine mind as ‘The Merged Void’.
To the
degree that a person -- male or female -- exhibits these qualities, I say that
they are ‘feminine’. And the
assignment of this label is regardless of whether the associated behaviour has
a genetic or cultural cause. All men share those same ‘feminine’ qualities to
greater or lesser extent - and for the most part, it must be said, to a very large extent (e.g., the sexual
impulse). However, I observe that men, on average, and across
all cultures, tend to gravitate more towards the active, the conscious, the
abstract, towards cold hard logic, isolation, distinction, difference,
structure, identity over time (rather than momentary), (conscious) relation,
and the absolute. As before, to the degree that a person - male or female -
exhibits these qualities, I say they are ‘masculine’.
My
source data is infinite, but as one tiny, simple, and concrete example of my
everyday experience I can tell you about the subscription rates on YouTube video channels. Around ninety-five percent of the
subscribers to my own philosophy channel are male. Getting away
from philosophy channels, to channels that have a significant component of
abstract and logical content, such as a standard atheist channel, it is not
uncommon for 90% of the subscribers to be male.
It may
be objected that there is little formal scientific evidence establishing these
observed behavioural differences between men and women. I put this down to two reasons: the
first reason is that the differences in question do not lend themselves to be
studied by science. For example, how could researchers identify whether a
person has an attraction to logic if the researchers themselves don't have a
very clear grasp as to what logic is? In this case, which is all too common,
the researchers are not qualified for the particular task.
The
second reason is that any researcher who expresses evidence for any observable psychological differences
between men and women is immediately in danger of losing their job and their
career, since our society is not one that encourages free inquiry. As dissatisfying as these facts might
be, and as much as we would like science to help, it is a limitation we simply
have to accept.
I
realise that no amount of my personal experience will ever be truly convincing,
since different people have different experiences – however, I'm telling you
about my experience, and so we can continue.
Two
things should be noted with regard to my use of the terms ‘masculine’ and
‘feminine’. Firstly, as should already be clear, neither is inherent in either
sex. That is, ‘femininity’ is not
a property of being female, nor ‘masculinity’ of being male. The labels are mere tools of
convenience and can be discarded any time they cease to be useful, such as
might occur if women ever become more masculine than men. Secondly, my use of ‘masculine’ and
‘feminine’ is descriptive only, and not prescriptive. Our
conclusion, then, is that anyone who wants to pursue wisdom should cultivate
the ‘masculine’ aspects of personality, since logic is a requirement of wisdom.
At
this point the question of elitism is often raised. What about those who enjoy
their emotions, who are content with the simple and immediate pleasures of
life, and who don't want to be philosophers? What about those who are feminine? "What about women?"
I am bluntly asked.
I
don't imagine for a moment that all people, and indeed all beings or things,
should become philosophers. The world would be a strange place indeed if all
things were philosophers. Philosophers for breakfast, lunch, and tea? It's
not a sensible idea.
While
philosophers are unquestionably ‘superior’, they are only superior at being philosophers. Yes, philosophers have god-like, seemingly magical
knowledge, but wisdom can never make up the sum total of all existence. At the very least, the things upon which
wisdom depends, such as memory, or logic itself, will forever and necessarily
remain unwise (i.e., without
wisdom) . . . yet the philosopher cannot exist without them. In
this manner the wise and the unwise form a unity; in modern parlance, a team.
Putting
aside all things, should all people become wise
philosophers? Is a person
necessarily inferior if they put handbags, sport, art, or sex, ahead of
philosophy? Does a philosophically naive, sense-centred (feminine) person make
a better nurse for infants than an old and seasoned philosopher, mind sharp as
a razor, and deep as darkest space? I honestly don't know, but one thing I do
know is that one or two philosophers would be a promising start.
Kevin
Solway
For more of Kevin's work visit: http://www.theabsolute.net/
