Thursday week I shall be attending a Guardian-initiated meeting on ‘Everyday Sexism’. The title is Behind the Headlines: What's all the fuss about feminism? and the blurb says: “Why do some women hate feminism? What is the 'fourth wave' of feminism? Who decides what it means to be a feminist? Can men be feminists? And, with the pay gap still widening and sexism prominent across campus and offices, where has it really got anyone?”
Perhaps part of the reason for some women hating them is that some feminists appear to think that the main enemy is not men but other feminists who in their views are not exactly correct in their outlook. This is discussed by Jennifer Simpkins in the Huffington Post under the title "You Can't Sit With Us!" - How Fourth-Wave Feminism Became 'Mean Girls', and the article starts off: “Raise your hand if you have ever felt personally victimised by a feminist.” But since this is Part I, and Part II will come after the meeting, I shall now make a brief survey of the issues as I see them.
Feminism claims to be purely and simply for equality between men and women. However this raises the problem of what constitutes equality. Some would say equal but different, where the differences may or may not be complementary - I understand that the Taliban would say that women are equal but different. And I am sure the Taliban would say their differences were complementary!
We also have the issues equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. At present we must recognise that we have neither, but the question is important for on-going and future strategies. But here there seems to be a danger - both with equality of outcome and subjective inequality - that ‘ought to be able to’ becomes ‘ought to’.
And finally there is the question of objective and subjective equality. Thus when someone says “This degrades women.” one will ask “By whose standard?”
I think we can look at three main issues: objective inequality, gender roles and sexual issues. Subjective inequality lies partly in gender roles and partly in sexual issues.
Objective inequality basically relates to inequality of pay and inequality of career opportunities and various forms of discrimination. A very big challenge is the market. If in practice men support housewives more than women support house-husbands, this increase in needs of roughly 40% will push demand for pay up among men. Likewise employers will be anxious about women having family distractions and this will push supply down. And where supply equals demand this reflects averages, but few individuals will be average: by and large you don’t support half a housewife or house-husband. And if you favour nationalisation this may be a solution, but not totally if you still want to encourage a small-business sector.
Gender-roles: I have spoken about this before. To my mind, all species other than humans have gender-roles, and likewise among human societies, certainly among subsistence communities. This is basically for two reasons: (a) you learn things better at a younger age, (b) gender roles involve an attempt at optimum combinations of tasks.
In general, gender roles are not discussed in these terms, but in terms of supposed differences in ability. And in most communities distinctions of innate and environmental differences are neither made nor understood. Cordelia Fine has written an excellent book on Delusions of Gender: How Our Minds, Society, and Neurosexism Create Difference (2010) in which aptitude tests can be biased by subtle suggestions, say, that women (or men) are not so good at various subjects or tasks. And this may well explain why girls do not do so well at maths and the sciences at co-ed schools as at single-sex schools.
But my own view is that in a post-subsistence society three things show up:
(a) We are in a state of transition from a subsistence society, since housewives’ tasks are in effect part-subsistence. But in fact this is part transition and part retrograde, since housewives represent a recent concept, first upper-class, with servants, and then middle-class, often without.
(b) We are very much in a state of transition from a survival society to a self-fulfilment society. But those of us who grew up say before 1975 can remember when a wife’s ‘self-fulfilment’ was tied in with her husband, upholding the social circle in which they lived. Profoundly confusing for poor Denis Thatcher!
(c) In our society - be it survival or self-fulfilment - risks will crop up, and in general men will be expected to take up roles which take up the risks, while mothers will take up the role of shielding children from such risks.
We should finally, in regard to gender-roles, note the pioneering work of Margaret Mead, not least in Male and Female, where she is one of the earliest to distinguish between innate and socially-conditioned differences. This brings up the issue of gender identity, and this seems often to be opposed by feminists, and I think this in particular to be opposed by many women. Insofar as it is opposed, I believe this creates hostility from other women.
Coming to sexual issues, one could say a little or a lot about these things. But the issues mainly take the form of harassment and objectification, and I am sure I shall hear a lot about this at the meeting. As I have written before, I am suspicious about the concept of objectification when applied to consensual activities. But in fact Page Three is not consensual: you have to take positive action to avoid it, and there are subtle ways in which consensual is not consensual.
Martin Prior
Seekers of Truth - The Philosophers
Philosophers just keep on asking questions. Philosophy is about questioning, not answers. Philosophers never give solid answers. Philosophy is just a theoretical exercise with no real-world application. Right?
Wrong!
Philosophy may seem fruitless compared to more "results-based" disciplines. Philosophy may seem "airy" compared to things which give people money-tokens for doing it. But this is only because the task of the philosopher is the largest and hardest to quantify. With the theologian, the buck stops at God. With the scientist the buck stops at empirical evidence. With the politician, the buck stops at how well they can twist reality. But with the philosopher the stakes are larger and the buck stops nowhere - truth is by far the greatest category of them all. Philosophy has to wrestle not only with its problems but also with itself - what is the buck?
Just because philosophers have the greatest scope - the field of 'truth' is a big-un - that does not mean all they do is raise questions. Hegel thought he solved philosophy, predicting the inevitable end of history. Wittgenstein thought he had language all wrapped up, until he saw a Neopolitan insult someone with a hand-gesture. Leibniz had it all worked out with his monads (those tiny little soul-things), and Spinoza wrote a book about...well, everything, including the most ethical way to live. Prolific Plato wrote about every aspect of human existence, and wanted his own City-State ruled by philosopher-kings. Countless philosophers have tried their best to find truth and to influence the world with their ideas (and we might all hope, they will continue to do so into the future).
But for all its greatness, philosophy does not have the megalithic influence of a political institution - it cannot mindwash poorly educated citizens with rhetoric, or mass religion - it cannot make legions of superstitious people worship fetish-idols, or science - it cannot define itself supreme and laugh down any other form of looking at the world (insert Richard Dawkins reference here). But if philosophy could do these things, that would make it an authority, and philosophy should be an exercise against authority.
Philosophy should not triumph by its 'weight', or because people have mysticized it. Philosophy should not triumph by making people feel stupid, or inferior to its thinkers. Philosophy should triumph because people freely accept the conclusions that philosophers come to for themselves. Or, more productively, because people add to and improve existing ideas and find the methods of the philosophers the most inviting.
What is the use of it all? Philosophy is the great 'stepping back', challenging assumptions. That is one place philosophy will always be relevant - it can monitor other fields: history, science, politics, everything, revealing the assumptions and refining the goals of these disciplines.
But as a pure discipline philosophy is even more powerful. The quest for Truth is irresistible and valid beyond measure, and can transform humanity. Can you imagine post-war civilization, when all of Man adheres to a reasonable, flexible, ever-expanding method of deciding who is right and who is wrong? It is a quest too important not to undertake.
Philosophers do not all agree, and are definitely not saying the same thing. But maybe by the very pursuit of truth they are all in a kind of tacit agreement. In short, their means may be different, but their ends all the same: opening up minds to enlightenment through their intellectual contest; undertaking this epic quest which no one else truly can.
Selim Talat
Wrong!
Philosophy may seem fruitless compared to more "results-based" disciplines. Philosophy may seem "airy" compared to things which give people money-tokens for doing it. But this is only because the task of the philosopher is the largest and hardest to quantify. With the theologian, the buck stops at God. With the scientist the buck stops at empirical evidence. With the politician, the buck stops at how well they can twist reality. But with the philosopher the stakes are larger and the buck stops nowhere - truth is by far the greatest category of them all. Philosophy has to wrestle not only with its problems but also with itself - what is the buck?
Just because philosophers have the greatest scope - the field of 'truth' is a big-un - that does not mean all they do is raise questions. Hegel thought he solved philosophy, predicting the inevitable end of history. Wittgenstein thought he had language all wrapped up, until he saw a Neopolitan insult someone with a hand-gesture. Leibniz had it all worked out with his monads (those tiny little soul-things), and Spinoza wrote a book about...well, everything, including the most ethical way to live. Prolific Plato wrote about every aspect of human existence, and wanted his own City-State ruled by philosopher-kings. Countless philosophers have tried their best to find truth and to influence the world with their ideas (and we might all hope, they will continue to do so into the future).
But for all its greatness, philosophy does not have the megalithic influence of a political institution - it cannot mindwash poorly educated citizens with rhetoric, or mass religion - it cannot make legions of superstitious people worship fetish-idols, or science - it cannot define itself supreme and laugh down any other form of looking at the world (insert Richard Dawkins reference here). But if philosophy could do these things, that would make it an authority, and philosophy should be an exercise against authority.
Philosophy should not triumph by its 'weight', or because people have mysticized it. Philosophy should not triumph by making people feel stupid, or inferior to its thinkers. Philosophy should triumph because people freely accept the conclusions that philosophers come to for themselves. Or, more productively, because people add to and improve existing ideas and find the methods of the philosophers the most inviting.
What is the use of it all? Philosophy is the great 'stepping back', challenging assumptions. That is one place philosophy will always be relevant - it can monitor other fields: history, science, politics, everything, revealing the assumptions and refining the goals of these disciplines.
But as a pure discipline philosophy is even more powerful. The quest for Truth is irresistible and valid beyond measure, and can transform humanity. Can you imagine post-war civilization, when all of Man adheres to a reasonable, flexible, ever-expanding method of deciding who is right and who is wrong? It is a quest too important not to undertake.
Philosophers do not all agree, and are definitely not saying the same thing. But maybe by the very pursuit of truth they are all in a kind of tacit agreement. In short, their means may be different, but their ends all the same: opening up minds to enlightenment through their intellectual contest; undertaking this epic quest which no one else truly can.
Selim Talat
Omnipotent, yes, omniscient, yes, but omnicognizant?
It is often asked: (a) how can our almighty, all-loving and good God permit tragedies such as the holocaust and/or one’s own marriage break-up? (b) how can such a complex universe come into being without being designed by an intelligence at least as great as that of a human?
Now as far as I can tell from the Bible, the deity has infinite force at its disposal, and has knowledge of everything, at least in the present, and presumably in the past. But as long as humans have free will, not the future. Thus the deity had to destroy all humanity except Noah and his family, for being unexpectedly evil.
This leads to another issue: can the deity change the laws of logic and mathematics? To my mind, if a deity ‘wishes’ to ordain that two plus two makes five, all it can do is persuade humanity to name 2+2 as ‘five’, or something like Indo-European*phenchwe. Even then humans have the free will to take up the idea and the free will to make *phenchwe evolve into five, fünf, punch, etc. Otherwise, if the deity has the ability to change the laws of logic and mathematics, perhaps in ways incongruous and impossible, then the laws of logic attempted in this article are as of nought.
And would the deity get a First in Social Sciences? Even if it set the paper itself. Such involves summing up free-will activities in a way that is primarily of use to humans. A deity cannot know the GDP of a country at midnight of the accounting period, since even if it has knowledge of all the relevant activities, judgment of what constitutes what is a matter of free will.
Mathematicians will note that some problems can only be solved by simulation: using a machine that goes through an algorithm that simulates reality and perhaps uses trial-and-error. Perhaps the deity uses humans as such machines. If so, how can we say that the world could only be created by an intelligent being? Rather if there is an intelligent being, all it can do is give the world a shove and see what happens, which is really the opposite of what the intelligent being advocates are arguing.
So coming back to the first two questions: maybe the best answer is that perhaps being almighty isn’t as mighty as all that.
Martin Prior
Now as far as I can tell from the Bible, the deity has infinite force at its disposal, and has knowledge of everything, at least in the present, and presumably in the past. But as long as humans have free will, not the future. Thus the deity had to destroy all humanity except Noah and his family, for being unexpectedly evil.
This leads to another issue: can the deity change the laws of logic and mathematics? To my mind, if a deity ‘wishes’ to ordain that two plus two makes five, all it can do is persuade humanity to name 2+2 as ‘five’, or something like Indo-European*phenchwe. Even then humans have the free will to take up the idea and the free will to make *phenchwe evolve into five, fünf, punch, etc. Otherwise, if the deity has the ability to change the laws of logic and mathematics, perhaps in ways incongruous and impossible, then the laws of logic attempted in this article are as of nought.
And would the deity get a First in Social Sciences? Even if it set the paper itself. Such involves summing up free-will activities in a way that is primarily of use to humans. A deity cannot know the GDP of a country at midnight of the accounting period, since even if it has knowledge of all the relevant activities, judgment of what constitutes what is a matter of free will.
Mathematicians will note that some problems can only be solved by simulation: using a machine that goes through an algorithm that simulates reality and perhaps uses trial-and-error. Perhaps the deity uses humans as such machines. If so, how can we say that the world could only be created by an intelligent being? Rather if there is an intelligent being, all it can do is give the world a shove and see what happens, which is really the opposite of what the intelligent being advocates are arguing.
So coming back to the first two questions: maybe the best answer is that perhaps being almighty isn’t as mighty as all that.
Martin Prior
What does Plato tell us about liberal democracy?
The ideas of Plato most widely discussed are found in the Republic. This is not surprising, as it is one of his most compelling works and is sometimes considered a centrepiece of his philosophy. The studies in political theory developed in this text have concluded and elucidated hiss thought towards democracy. Therefore, this article is based upon this specific text.
Plato´s vision of an ideal ruling system is different from our present system not only in its expression but at its core. Plato polarizes the problem of collectivism and individualism by not considering the existence of an altruistic individualism. Plato´s ideal system tries to create a community where the common good is a priority. To do so, ‘every single member of the community, from the other ranks as well as any of the guardians, has to dedicate himself to the single job for which he is naturally suited, because this specialization of function will ensure that every person is not a plurality but an unity, and thus that the community as a whole develops as a unity, not a plurality’. This concept is defined as ‘collectivism‘ by political-philosopher Karl Popper.
Plato’s sole function of the political art, properly conceived, is to make people as good as possible. He looks for a way in which it is possible to access the ‘virtuous life’, a ‘ life objectively worthwhile’ which intends to be the search of the truth, the good, and the beautiful (a completely coherent idea with his theory of forms). Plato says that these things can not be achieved in a democracy, because the democratic man will be distracted in achieving an equality of pleasures rather than seeking a 'virtuous life'. Plato takes it to the level of describing these individuals as ‘cattle’ and continues to use an analogy: ‘they spend their lives grazing, with their eyes turned down and heads bowed towards the ground and their tables. Food and sex are their only concerns, and their insatiable greed for more and more drives them to kick and butt one another to death with their horns and hoofs of iron, killing one another because they are seeking satisfaction in unreal things...'
Therefore, Platonic thought is sceptical about the possibility that a system such as democracy can achieve virtuosity in Man and rather misleads them to an existence away from transcendence: ‘Plato thinks that democracy prizes freedom far too much and knowledge far too little’, as pointed out by Santas.
This concerns him because the majority do not have a holistic understanding of the political demagogy, and risk the well being of the society as a whole. For Plato, this is really troubling because the demagogy practised by sophists is not part of a higher truth. According to Plato, at best the sophist intends to reach truth but ends up pursuing, personal interests or desires which are corrupted, and cannot reach transcendental truth, which relies on the Form of the Good (using right reasoning to understand what is good and what is not in objective terms).
We can see Plato's criticism at work in the modern world as demagogy is an essential dynamic in contemporary politics. A clear example is the way in which the polarization of politics leads to a race of popularity rather than an actual discussion of the issues.
Political concerns are not discussed but thrust into a war zone where there is hardly any agreement, nor at least an intention to overcome the problem that is presented. At the same time, the exponential rise of communications leads to a higher stage of the cult of personality. Image is not only shaping the concept of politics itself, and creating a void of meaning in political argumentation, but it is taking it to a new level where the personal life of each political leader is a more salient source rather than the actual political debate. Charisma and likeability are primary in comparison to the political aims and orientations of the politician. The formula for success lies with the ones who have ‘no skeletons in the closet, and for whom an attractive media image can be fashioned...’ (Pakulski & Higley, 2008).
This phenomenon of using the rhetorical power in politics is addressed, but not strongly considered by Calhoun who claims: ‘Politics has involved the cultivation of rhetorical powers of persuasion, and over the course of the past century, with the advent first of television and then of the internet, the importance of visual images has superseded that of the ideas of the men and women who vie for the votes of the populace.’ (2007, p. 65)
The society suggested in the Republic purports to solve the failures of democracy, but is not a realizable society or even a probable society. Plato’s theory relies on the existence of a Philosopher king, which is a troubling idea. The difficulty lies in determining which person is capable for this task, and the sheer complexity of the human being means we are not entirely rational beings. This certainly was not a discussed idea in the academic paradigm of ancient Greek philosophy.
Plato intends to use the human nature to describe the failures of the democratic system. Nevertheless, The natural lottery that is a key concept to back up Plato`s ideas, is a reductionist perspective of human nature and behaviour. The existence of a human being such as the Philosopher king is not only improbable but also dangerous.
First of all, because of the complexity of human behaviour it is impossible to determine the way in which a human being will continue to follow the virtues that Plato desired. At the same time, it is a mistake to rely on a single perspective of any kind of reality. Historically this has not only led to different types of tyrannical regime who use the excuse of the ‘noble’ lie in order to sustain their own opinions, but it is also part of an epistemological misconception by Plato`s considerations, in suggesting that objective knowledge is even possible.
Nevertheless, this improbability of Plato's political purposes are addressed not only by his critics but by the author itself. So, seeing as we cannot attain Plato's utopia, what is the use of such political critiques? As demonstrated before, the critique fits perfectly with the current use of liberal democracy. It aims for the basic principles of liberal democracy that are constantly taken for granted and are still present on the contemporary, continuing to be a serious threat to the correct development of politics.
Therefore, Plato`s consideration are not only right but are also relevant to the contemporary age of western civilisation that is too blindfolded to understand its situation.
Julian Santamaria
Plato´s vision of an ideal ruling system is different from our present system not only in its expression but at its core. Plato polarizes the problem of collectivism and individualism by not considering the existence of an altruistic individualism. Plato´s ideal system tries to create a community where the common good is a priority. To do so, ‘every single member of the community, from the other ranks as well as any of the guardians, has to dedicate himself to the single job for which he is naturally suited, because this specialization of function will ensure that every person is not a plurality but an unity, and thus that the community as a whole develops as a unity, not a plurality’. This concept is defined as ‘collectivism‘ by political-philosopher Karl Popper.
Plato’s sole function of the political art, properly conceived, is to make people as good as possible. He looks for a way in which it is possible to access the ‘virtuous life’, a ‘ life objectively worthwhile’ which intends to be the search of the truth, the good, and the beautiful (a completely coherent idea with his theory of forms). Plato says that these things can not be achieved in a democracy, because the democratic man will be distracted in achieving an equality of pleasures rather than seeking a 'virtuous life'. Plato takes it to the level of describing these individuals as ‘cattle’ and continues to use an analogy: ‘they spend their lives grazing, with their eyes turned down and heads bowed towards the ground and their tables. Food and sex are their only concerns, and their insatiable greed for more and more drives them to kick and butt one another to death with their horns and hoofs of iron, killing one another because they are seeking satisfaction in unreal things...'
Therefore, Platonic thought is sceptical about the possibility that a system such as democracy can achieve virtuosity in Man and rather misleads them to an existence away from transcendence: ‘Plato thinks that democracy prizes freedom far too much and knowledge far too little’, as pointed out by Santas.
This concerns him because the majority do not have a holistic understanding of the political demagogy, and risk the well being of the society as a whole. For Plato, this is really troubling because the demagogy practised by sophists is not part of a higher truth. According to Plato, at best the sophist intends to reach truth but ends up pursuing, personal interests or desires which are corrupted, and cannot reach transcendental truth, which relies on the Form of the Good (using right reasoning to understand what is good and what is not in objective terms).
We can see Plato's criticism at work in the modern world as demagogy is an essential dynamic in contemporary politics. A clear example is the way in which the polarization of politics leads to a race of popularity rather than an actual discussion of the issues.
Political concerns are not discussed but thrust into a war zone where there is hardly any agreement, nor at least an intention to overcome the problem that is presented. At the same time, the exponential rise of communications leads to a higher stage of the cult of personality. Image is not only shaping the concept of politics itself, and creating a void of meaning in political argumentation, but it is taking it to a new level where the personal life of each political leader is a more salient source rather than the actual political debate. Charisma and likeability are primary in comparison to the political aims and orientations of the politician. The formula for success lies with the ones who have ‘no skeletons in the closet, and for whom an attractive media image can be fashioned...’ (Pakulski & Higley, 2008).
This phenomenon of using the rhetorical power in politics is addressed, but not strongly considered by Calhoun who claims: ‘Politics has involved the cultivation of rhetorical powers of persuasion, and over the course of the past century, with the advent first of television and then of the internet, the importance of visual images has superseded that of the ideas of the men and women who vie for the votes of the populace.’ (2007, p. 65)
The society suggested in the Republic purports to solve the failures of democracy, but is not a realizable society or even a probable society. Plato’s theory relies on the existence of a Philosopher king, which is a troubling idea. The difficulty lies in determining which person is capable for this task, and the sheer complexity of the human being means we are not entirely rational beings. This certainly was not a discussed idea in the academic paradigm of ancient Greek philosophy.
Plato intends to use the human nature to describe the failures of the democratic system. Nevertheless, The natural lottery that is a key concept to back up Plato`s ideas, is a reductionist perspective of human nature and behaviour. The existence of a human being such as the Philosopher king is not only improbable but also dangerous.
First of all, because of the complexity of human behaviour it is impossible to determine the way in which a human being will continue to follow the virtues that Plato desired. At the same time, it is a mistake to rely on a single perspective of any kind of reality. Historically this has not only led to different types of tyrannical regime who use the excuse of the ‘noble’ lie in order to sustain their own opinions, but it is also part of an epistemological misconception by Plato`s considerations, in suggesting that objective knowledge is even possible.
Nevertheless, this improbability of Plato's political purposes are addressed not only by his critics but by the author itself. So, seeing as we cannot attain Plato's utopia, what is the use of such political critiques? As demonstrated before, the critique fits perfectly with the current use of liberal democracy. It aims for the basic principles of liberal democracy that are constantly taken for granted and are still present on the contemporary, continuing to be a serious threat to the correct development of politics.
Therefore, Plato`s consideration are not only right but are also relevant to the contemporary age of western civilisation that is too blindfolded to understand its situation.
Julian Santamaria
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
