The Educational Philosophy Thread
It seems to me than many users here are lacking in their knowledge of different philosophical schools and concepts. I thought it would be beneficial and convenient to have a thread that provides those who are new to philosophy a chance to learn about the basics oh philosophy. Here's your chance to ask questions about philosophy, request information about different schools of philosophy. There are many users here that are knowledgeable about the field of philosophy.
Feel free to ask questions requesting information about philosophy. Feel free to provide information about philosophy here to those in need.
Feel free to ask questions requesting information about philosophy. Feel free to provide information about philosophy here to those in need.
Comments (126)
Can someone please explain to me what Banno means by the subject/object distinction?
In surveying the possible contrasts or complements of object, we have thus far emphasized the intuitive grouping of items into categories like object (substance, individual, particular, etc.) on the one hand and property (or attribute, universal, feature, etc.) on the other. These are standard metaphysical categories, and they suggest that the proper contrast or complement of object includes properties or other property-like items.
But there is another compelling usage (both in and out of philosophy) of the English word ‘object’ and its cognates that suggests a rather different kind of contrast. Here, the divide is between object and subject. Each object is, roughly, an ‘it’, and each subject is a ‘you’. On this usage, it is items like us that stand in contrast to objects. We are subjects; trees, universals, colleges, colors, and—well, all things not like us in relevant respects—are objects.
--- SEP[/i]
We are subjects; trees, universals, colleges, colors, and—well, all things not like us in relevant respects—are objects.
Seems legit.
You seem to think that the study and the gaining of knowledge about philosophy requires knowledge of different philosophical 'schools'; are you able to justify this?
http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/
I would only caution that children and other newbies do not learn to talk by consuming dictionaries, but by being immersed in a language. This is because meaning is use, as Wittgenstein discovered. Thus if we use 'terrific' and 'awesome' to mean the same as 'fabulous' and 'fantastic', then they mean the same, despite technical historical differences. Also, the terms that philosophers have real difficulty with, are the little ones, like 'I' and 'thing' and 'mean' - terms which are too familiar and useful to be constrained by a definition.
I tend to refer people who get hung up on definitions to a favourite book that constitutes a reductio ad absurdum__ The Meaning of 'meaning', by Ogden and Richards. 400 pages of analysis of the technical philosophical meaning of one word may seem like cruel and unusual punishment, but it is an infallible cure for definitionism.
Let me try to answer.. The speculative aspect is perhaps what is missing in regular "Realism". But, I thought that Realism is really just the idea that what is "out there" is what exists. What is "in here" is simply another form of what is "out there" (i.e. materialism, material monism of some sort). So, I guess Speculative Realism is more "speculative" in that it posits an ontology or metaphysics to the "out there" which is often looked on with suspicion by (more tradition?) realists who might not go beyond the materials we can gather with our senses and empirical scientific methods. So, perhaps there is an underlying claim that traditional Realists are only focusing on epistemology and not on metaphysics. This is where Speculative Realists step in and try to regain a place for metaphysics in Realism.
My take on it:
Post phenomenological realism; a return to emphasising scientific content rather than human discourse. Nature philosophy done by appropriating the material and thinking styles of modern natural science and mathematics (contra strict constructionisms) rather than historical a-priori ratiocination (contra the German idealisms and discourse analysis). Social philosophy done through the lens of modern social science (contra discourse analysis) that leverages neuroscience+psychology (or psychoanalysis) to link it to the part of nature which is us (contra linking discourse to the subject through phenomenology).
({Speculative realism} is to {the various post-Kantian threads}) as ({models of the generative conditions of phenomena} are to {conditions of possibility of their conceptualisation-articulation}). Generativity vs Conceptual possibility.
Where thinkers in the movement I'm somewhat familiar with fit in:
Badiou: return to truth, mathematics as ontology. Linking human life to that ontology through norm-generative/norm-destructive events through psychoanalytic insights. Importantly not a naturalist (natural science is part of a truth procedure rather than ontologically primitive, it reveals the reality of things but only informs what's made of the discoveries)
Bryant: emphasises the autonomy (generativity) of objects; still very sympathetic to Heidegger (invert the canonical example of hammering, the hammer bends the arm in the striking). Stresses the importance of "flat" ontologies (contra anthropocentrism and superveniance style reductionism)
Brassier; nihilism as a speculative opportunity; we're always already dead (contra centralising discourse and human significance in philosophical projects). Truth as "optimally justified assertibility".
Can you provide the context of this? If it is a return, what was the original (I'm thinking Logical Positivism?). If it was a breaking away, then what started it and why? I'm thinking late Wittgenstein and social based philosophers?
Quoting fdrake
As an aside, how is the subject/phenomenology not a "part of nature"? I think this is where my characterization might come in handy:
Quoting schopenhauer1.
But then here it just goes back to the usual questions of Philosophy of Mind and things like the hard question of consciousness. How can you divorce the phenomenology of the subject from the equation? How is "that" a complete view? Then we just go to our usual philosophies of Eliminative Materialism, panpsychism, etc.
Quoting fdrake
Yes, I think it is something going beyond the conditions of how our mind sees the world, and seeing the world as understood through direct analysis of the given conditions as found in our empirical studies of it. One assumes an idealism of the mind to form the reality, the other affirms an "out there" reality that the mind can comprehend to some extent, in and of itself.
However, it seems like Speculative Realism might be based on a non-existent problem.. It is aimed at certain idealist philosophers as most people take the "out there" as something that can be directly understood, and is not just how we perceive the world through our minds. It's kind of a straw man enemy created for a certain kind of Continental philosopher perhaps, to then knock down. Who besides these small contingent of post-Kantian philosophers are they addressing it for then? Not realists who already deal with realist assumptions off the bat.
Those who are new to philosophy certainly feel enlightened by your response, their ignorance of different philosophical schools and of the basics of philosophy has now vanished.
God only knows how that answer would look like if the title of the thread was Philosophical circlejerk instead of The Educational Philosophy Thread.
For what they're reacting against; nature is claimed to be construed as nature-under-the-aspect-of-the-norms-of-scientific-discourse, with the critical injunction that its concepts are more social construction than true. The conceptions of nature that transcendentally ground scientific discourse are emphasised as a "for us", never approximately true of an "in itself".
Quoting schopenhauer1
The "return" is against the heritage of Kant, severing us from the "in itself" despite inhabiting it. The "speculative" part is a return to using what is established scientifically as a fuel for philosophical thought. If you imagine a particularly staunch Wittgensteinian who would see something like "F=ma" and claim that it holds only within a language game rather than approximately reflecting reality under certain contexts, it's close I think. What is "empirically real" is transformed into an "empirically real for us".
Quoting schopenhauer1
Quoting sucking lollipops
Thank you!
Kant's critical project was to split perception from nature. Things like space and time become part of perception rather than principally parts of the natural world.
Post-Kantian means those who are inspired by Kant and take his themes seriously. Phenomenology, the study of our perceptions and experiences, was inspired in the canon by a reaction to Kant. If you're severed from the reality of the world by the transparent cage of your perceptions, you still have your perceptions to analyze for patterns.
Heidegger fits into that narrative as someone who took the analysis of perceptions and related it to an idea of environment/world. Language use plays a crucial role in constructing the interpretive texture of the world.
After that, there's people who take the interpretive texture of the world very seriously and analyse "discourse", norms of interpretation, principally. Talking about how knowledge is created (Foucault) and how worldviews are generated within the confines of language use. If you're gonna interpret the world in some way, you're going to reach for how you already know to interpret it.
Somewhere along the way, contextualising scientific claims as just statements of norms of interpretation of the world engendered a neglect for scientific content. Science was interpreted as a human affair rather than an investigation into reality (as well as a human affair).
That leads to a kind of skepticism through re-interpretation, something like "The universe is 13.8 billion years old" becomes transformed to "The universe is 13.8 billion years old for our current scientific discourse", the statement is no longer about the reality of nature it's about the reality of our norms of interpretation of it.
That injunction to interpret statements about nature instead as statements about our norms of interpreting nature is an injunction against using statements about nature in the first sense. Thou shalt not speculate, especially philosophically, beyond the boundaries of current discourse.
Hence the "speculative" part. People in the movement affirm some truths and work with them to output statements about reality without worrying about all that "we're really talking about the norms of interpretation" stuff.
One interesting way of doing that, now that you're gonna speculate anyway, is to follow how models of reality work and be inspired by them; those models are now interpreted as being approximately true of the objects they concern. This invites talking about models of reality as well as models of humanity's behaviour and thoughts.
That invites a certain egalitarianism in ontology; removing the implicit "it's about us" from the human norm centered interpretation of the models invites seeing objects as pattern generative; they do stuff in a structured way, there are models of the structure, they can be used to form perspectives on related stuff. Now you can do ontology about patterns in that context, human and inhuman - that's what I think speculative realism is.
I dunno how accurate the story is historically. I just tried to take the shared themes and put them in a narrative.
Thank you!
Much better. Although, if that's your best, I would still not let you anywhere near a novice.
I don't know how user friendly a description of speculative realism can be. I don't even really think it's a thing; it's more of a perspective that "science and scientific thinking styles are OK now, and we're gonna use them for ontology and other stuff!" than any doctrine. It's also more of a reaction of otherwise tenuously related philosophers to the excesses of some parts of continental philosophy - and that means describing what positive content there is after the reaction, why the reaction is taken, and what the reaction is to.
In <500 words that's hard.
Interesting, but things like the Arche-fossil and such seem like it goes to straight Kantianism, not social constructivists. Constructivists don't necessarily take on a Kantian view of time as only existing "in one's head". They may not be mutually exclusive and there may be some overlap, but certainly not entailed.
Quoting fdrake
Yes, sounds like we are on the same page there on how to characterize late Wittgenstein's influence contra ideas of Speculative Realism or the "in itself". I guess my main question then is what functionally, do we gain or not gain from Speculative Realism vs. Kantianism? The scientific method works the same under both assumptions. The conclusions are the same. It is definitely a metaphysical claim of sorts, I get that. But I also don't really get the notion "Science is giving us metaphysical truths" vs. "Science is giving us human truths" other than one thinks the truths are "really real" and the other essentially assigns a mystery question mark in what is "really real". I guess what are the implications?
Quoting fdrake
Isn't this just normal social sciences, neurosciences, evolutionary biology and the like?
Quoting fdrake
I just think this is normal discourse on "emergence" and such that you see all over now.. Information theories, and all that stuff. It's essentially constructing theories on scientific research. I guess it is just an attitude towards the subject at hand. What it pretty much seems to always go back to is philosophy of mind usually. I know that sounds weird that I am reducing these problems to specifically that field, but this is where all that comes to a head really. Things like ideas about panpsychism and eliminative materialism is where this pretty much plays out. I am guessing that is why the so-called Speculative Realists gravitate towards one or the other as far as I see.
How friendly it will be depends on the person that does the description. In other words, it depends on the words, the grammar and the syntax the explainer will choose. When novices are introduced to new ideas, the style of writing should not mess with their effort to understand the ideas. Writing 1000 easy words is easier than writing 500 not so easy words or writing 200 difficult words. It's also easier to read and understand the 1000 easy words. If it has become easier for someone to write in jargon or if someone finds it difficult to use proper grammar, then maybe explaining ideas to novices is not their forte. Maybe they should stick to discussing these ideas with other advanced enthusiasts, at least until they have unlearned the habits of the advanced.
You're right, it does. I think it's more apt to characterise speculative realism by what questions its philosophers ask and how they ask them. I'm under no illusions that scientists in general actually give a damn about this kind of thing unless it's at the margins or very interdisciplinary anyway.
The "how" is characterised by asking questions about how stuff works in the broadest sense and describing abstract structures and commonalities, then speculating about what ties them together/generates 'em. The "what" is about anything as with any philosophy, though they seem interested with inhuman stuff, or seeing humans in more general ways.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Quoting schopenhauer1
There's a synthetic flavour to it though; an eclectic mix of references dealing with a common theme, taking cues/inspiration from scientific ideas (and probably doing it badly) and philosophical ones (and probably doing it slightly better) together. They use the ideas for philosophical purposes; asking different types of question from the springboard they've bricolaged together.
I'm not certain that speculative realism or speculative materialism is actually a thing. It's probably more an attitude of frustration and a loose collection of similar methodologies/styles.
Fair. Depends on the intended audience.
Q: In Asia in the 1970s, many countries had strong population control programmes that provided family planning services. Didn’t women in these countries receive better care than women in countries where contraception was not supported by the government?
A: While contraception was an essential and desired service, too little attention was given to service quality because the goal was to promote acceptance of contraceptives. In India, for example, a lot of intrauterine devices (IUDs) inserted during periodic “camps” were not fitted properly and led to unwanted pregnancies. The women involved often ended up having unsafe abortions because abortions were rarely available in health-care facilities, especially in rural areas, even though it had been legalized in 1972 for pregnancies up to 10 weeks. This is still the case in rural areas. Although abortion services are now more widely available in urban areas, especially from private, for-profit providers, low-income urban women must still resort to unsafe procedures. IUDs remain unpopular in India. Other contraceptive choices were very limited and services then, as now, were often poor, yet women were blamed for not wanting to use them. In Indonesia, contraceptive services were often delivered to villages by the military. Women were given no choice in contraception-related matters; they were not offered support or information on dealing with its side-effects or guidance in choosing alternative methods. Again, the drive to increase acceptors trumped interest in service quality.
https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/90/2/12-040212/en/
If I recall correctly, female infants were abandoned in the woods.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_abandonment
@Brett
Great!
Here's my two questions.
Due to the language, American and British philosophy are usually linked together (especially when people talk about the Anglosphere). And Analytic School is given as an example (although this school has beached to other countries too).
Yet are there differences between British and US schools of philosophy?
Is (was) for example pragmatism a solely American endeavor?
:up:
That series will change how you see the world.
Pretense of knowledge :chin:
It already did. :wink:
:blush:
Wiki
Also:
Philosophy for beginners.
Who makes the decision of it what someone thinks is worth saving for centuries?
Might philosophy have been different if women had not been closed out?
Men? :chin:
Intellectuals.
This is a practice that has occurred in many cultures for millennia. Apparently, in India they were (are?) drowned in milk. In Arabia they used to bury them in the sand, etc.
Interesting thread though. We all tend to use words in different ways. And I agree that formal philosophy has its own language that would take at least a couple of months if not years to learn to any practical extent and then you run the risk of discovering (1) that different philosophical systems or schools use different terminologies and (2) that non-philosophers have no idea what you are talking about.
Philosophy was not easy even in the days of Plato and Aristotle. And philosophical language has become hopelessly complex and it is impossible for any one philosopher to exhaustively define and explain every single concept on which his system is constructed. That's why a Hegel or Spinoza can be interpreted in many different and even diametrically opposed ways.
Wheatley,
You posted very interesting videos. However, no one has responded to them. To me, this is seriously problematic, because the discussion is not happening.
Your single words are not helpful because I have no idea why you think they are important? I am a firm believer in capitalism because of Sparta the first military/socialist state, and Athens, where our philosophy, science, and democracy begins and the government provided opportunity but not a welfare state.
Liberty without education has no value.
Quoting Apollodorus
What do you mean by those words? I sure do not consider myself to be a trained philosopher, and I am not sure I care that much about formal philosophy? I sure don't like many of the male philosophies, and deeply regret that women were closed out of the discussion.
Wheatley, your reply that men are responsible for philosophy is meaningless without identifying which men. Cornel West made it very clear the voices of some are heard, but these are not the voices of the people. Understanding that and why that is true is very important.
Maybe both of you will see my response to Apollodorus and my last comment to Wheatley are related? Why do some people impact our lives for centuries while most live and die with no effect? Can this be changed? Doesn't a democracy mean a different order, where the many have more power than the few?
It wasn’t serious. :rofl:
In all seriousness, @Athena, I agree with you. :100:
I don't care too much about formal philosophy, either, and for the stated reasons.
Just recently, I had a discussion with a group of intelligent and educated people (male and female) who had some difficulty in wrapping their minds around the concept of "subject" as the agent in an act of perception, for example.
Depending on people's occupation and interests, if they associate the term "subject" with "subject-matter" or "x is subject to y", etc., then you will be surprised how easily misunderstandings can occur.
But I don't think women were excluded from philosophy, certainly not in Greek culture. Don’t forget Socrates’ teacher Diotima of Mantinea, and there were many others into the Christian era and the Middle Ages:
Theano of Croton (6th century BC)
Aristoclea of Delphi (6th century BC)
Aspasia of Miletus (ca 470–400 BC)
Arete of Cyrene (4th century BC)
Hipparchia of Maroneia (4th century BC)
Nicarete of Megara (ca 300 BC)
Ptolemais of Cyrene (3rd century BC)
Aesara of Lucania (3rd century BC)
Catherine of Alexandria (282–305)
Sosipatra of Ephesus (4th century CE)
Hypatia of Alexandria (c. 360–415 CE)
Aedesia of Alexandria (5th century CE)
Theodora of Emesa (5th-6th century CE)
Women philosophers – Wikipedia
I had read that Pythagoras gave women equality. Interestingly to me, is writing about music and math is not equal to writing about morality and social order, but I now see an opening for women who write of a subject that interests men and does not challenge their position and importance. Would you happen to know if any of these women wrote about the importance of family and childcare and community? :lol: I so want to go to the coast and focus on this subject and do workshops. Perhaps after having a hip replaced I will do that. I don't know, I have to think on it, but the possibilities give me so much reason to live. I did not expect this at this time in my life when life seemed behind me and not in front of me.
Why do we speak of male philosophers and not female philosophers? Who is concerned with educating the children? Why Nietzche's Superman and not the Superwoman? When we go to war, who keeps the children alive and tends to all the things a society needs to function, while the men are consumed with war? That was truly a Spartan question. How should the children be educated?
I believe that it would have been difficult if not impossible to exclude Greek women from anything that was of importance in society.
If you read the story of Diotima as told by Plato in the Symposium, you will notice than no one is surprised to hear that Socrates received instruction into the highest mysteries of philosophy from a woman.
The job of Greek men, especially the upper classes, was to engage in military training and warfare. But they also had the duty to found a family.
To found a family they needed women. As they had little knowledge of women, it was women’s job to instruct young upper-class men in the art of love. And from there to being instructed in a highly evolved philosophy of love isn’t very far. I think it is entirely proper for Plato to have chosen a woman for his theory of love.
I will go with Aristotle who stood in favor of the traditional family unit. The child is valued by the parent as proof of what the father and mother can achieve. If our children do well we get social status and if they do poorly, we do not get social status. Only those who care about that will invest in their sons and daughters. Institutions can not replace the good of a parent. There is an important difference in the quality of relationships, and therefore a difference in values.
In the animal world, of which I believe humans are a part, few animals adopt the young of another. There are exceptions to this but the point I want to make is humans are not just naturally good parents, and they tend to feel differently about their own children than they feel about someone else's child. For biological reasons, we are limited in the number of people we can have intimate relationships with. Those relationships require a lot of energy and our energy is limited. I am stressing the difference between parents raising children and children growing up in an institution. So if there is not a father and mother raising the children, but a nanny raising the children, the result is different.
The writer who I believe may be useful for you to read is Simon Weil. I understand that she wrote about social concerns, oppression, liberty, love, and incorporate ideas from both Marxism and theology. She was writing in the first half of the twentieth century and died very young. I have only read small excerpts of her writing, but will try to do so, and she is on my long, reading list; there are just so many important authors and not enough days and hours to give each the attention which they truly deserve.
I like the idea of Simon Weil writing of both Marx and theology points of view. I have always thought communism is Christian values. Sort of a put your money where your mouth is thing. And I should say, I think capitalism is a good thing but like a board game, it needs to be regulated. Economic decisions need a much larger point of view than any one corporation can have. For example, we love plastics but they are damaging our planet and this problem should not be ignored. On the other hand, I can not think why that problem should be the focus of the industry? So the greater decisions must be made by a body that benefits from both the plastic and the care of the planet. In nature, an animal that comes up with a better survival stratagy will succeed and could outcompete others but if its relationship with others is not kept in balance, the result can be damaging and ultimately lead to extinction.
Our first teacher is nature. :grin:
Awfully expensive way to drown someone. What's wrong with water?
If I'm not mistaken, they only submerge the head in a bowl of milk so it doesn't take a huge quantity for a new-born to drown.
Unfortunately, I don't remember the exact explanation as I didn't pay much attention to it at the time. But I think it had to do with milk resembling the food of the gods or something to do with the afterlife and heaven.
There was a movie about it, Matrubhoomi: A Nation Without Women, named one of the best movies of 2003 by Time magazine.
Apparently, there is huge gap in the gender ratio caused by the killing of thousands of girls which has given rise to a system of bride-buying and trafficking, etc.
India's missing girls: fears grow over rising levels of foeticide - The Guardian
Edit. It looks like buckets of milk also are used for the purpose, but there are some other methods:
India femicide: Where girl infants face ‘pre-meditated’ murder - WNN
Well, Athena, the goddess of the Athenian city-state, was certainly the goddess of wisdom, but she was also the goddess of heroes.
Men are physically stronger than women, so when armed conflict is a fact of life, men would have more authority and power in public life, whilst women would focus on child-bearing and raising a family.
But I'm sure women had ways of exerting some influence on the men. In any case, the family was important in ancient Greek culture, and I fully agree that the family unit is important. I don't believe in social engineering and in trying to "improve" too much what nature has given us.
Monogamy certainly exists in nature, apparently among turtle doves, swans, etc.
Even when not long term, it does occur at least for one or several mating seasons.
Monogamy in animals - Wikipedia
Alternatives include situations where a single alpha male dominates a group of females, such as among gorillas, cattle or horses. Would you prefer that?
Anyway, some theories insist that monogamy is better suited for the human species:
Are humans naturally monogamous or polygamous? - The Irish Times
My personal impression is that human populations where monogamy is prevalent tend to be more successful than others. Otherwise, the world would be dominated by polygamous cultures which does not seem to be the case.
So, perhaps, the ideal society is one where monogamy prevails but some exceptions are allowed. For example, religious, political, and military leaders could be allowed more than one partner.
But, whatever system we choose, I believe it would need to be beneficial to a population and it should be chosen democratically.
Quoting Garth Kemerling
We are adamant that the parents are responsible for preparing children to be civil creatures and this should not be the responsibility of teachers. Personally, I think that is a terrible belief and that Plato is right about the state taking the responsibility for preparing the young for citizenship and that was the priority of education in the US until 1958. I have the old textbooks that show how this was done.
Why should the state be responsible for preparing the young for good citizenship? The dominating people of the US came from Europe and did not have experience with democracy. They did not understand our institutions and the Bible does not explain democratic institutions and our relationship to them and we should not take our culture for granted. What is happening today is proof of that.
The poor have a completely different experience of life than the middle class and education for technology is not enough to prepare them for a middle-class life. If we ignore the reality of children growing up in poverty and focus education on technology, we condemn them to existing on the margins of mainstream society. So I agree with Plato.
However, we are emotional beings and for emotional reasons, we need good families. That is something institutions can not nourish in a child. A teacher might be very caring and do an excellent job of helping a child feel good about him/herself, but that is a temporary relationship. The other children are friends but not as sisters and brothers who are bonded. My old textbooks are very much about family. Unfortunately not every child has good role models or families with good life skills. As I said above they can be condemned to misfortune but, there is a chance families can be very supportive in a way institutions can not. So here I will disagree with Plato. I will argue family life is very important to being human beings and I stress this because while some women have always done well within the male standard, it is the voice of the woman who is domestic, a stay at home and care for everyone else human, that needs to be heard, and was not heard and is not heard in our technological society where equality means being as a man.
I am very worried for society as mothers leave the home to be equal to males.
Yes, this seems to be the trend in modern society. "Equality" is a very appealing concept, but as the experience of communist societies has shown, it is not a goal that is easily achievable. Not only that, but the attempt to artificially impose equality can result in new forms of inequality and other problems.
I suppose the original idea was to get women out of the house in order to join the army of factory workers that supported first capitalist and later communist production. But this led to fewer children being born and raised, and to population stagnation and decline.
The next problem that emerged was people's loss of interest in marriage. But without commitment to marriage and long-term relationships, this has resulted in a rising number of single mothers, and this in turn has given rise to new problems.
One aspect of the current cultural situation is that our heroes and role models are "celebrities" from pop to movie to social media stars who often live chaotic, dysfunctional lives, and whose own relationships are often dysfunctional and/or temporary. The majority presumably still see some form of longer-lasting relationship as the ideal, but whether this is actually achieved, or achievable, is another question.
So it looks like, ultimately, no changes to this trend are realistic unless and until the culture we live in changes. And for this to happen, we need substantial changes to the education system.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-intensional/
https://www.britannica.com/science/set-theory/Axiomatic-set-theory
Well, the family unit was regarded as absolutely central to Ancient Greek society, and women philosophers were no exception.
“The central images in Diotima’s teachings on love are pregnancy and birth. She tells us, according to Socrates, that love is a longing for immortality and that this longing is expressed through a desire to pro create. Those whose desire to procreate is of the body take a woman as the object of their love and raise a family to gain immortality.”
Among women engaged in philosophy, it appears that most were married.
“That women actually participated in philosophic activity comes as a surprise to many. But Gilles Menage (1984, 3) in the eighteenth century names sixty-five women philosophers in the Hellenistic age alone.”
In “Women Philosophers in the Ancient Greek World: Donning the Mantle,” Kathleen Wider “examines women philosophers in the Greek world primarily from the sixth through the third centuries B.C., with a focus on women philosophers during the late pre-Classical period of Greek history (sixth century), the Classical period (fifth-fourth centuries), and during the early stages of the Hellenistic world (late fourth-third centuries).”
“Although precise dates for the women Pythagoreans are unknown, we do know that some of them flourished in the sixth and early fifth centuries B.C. These include Theano, believed to be the wife of Pythagoras and the most famous of these women, as well as Myia, Damo, and Arignote who were probably daughters of Theano and Pythagoras.
Arete was the head of the Cyrenaic school of philosophy after her father Aristippus died in 350. Hipparchia flourished around 328 and is known for the fact that she abandoned a life of wealth and ease to marry Crates and live the simple life of a Cynic. Little is known about Pamphile except that she was a disciple of Theophrastus who headed the Lyceum after Aristotle.”
“The Pythagoreans saw the family as well as the city as a microcosm of the universe and the order and harmony of the universe was to be reflected in the city and family. Women were given an important place in Pythagorean thought and society because they were an important part of the family and were a necessary component in achieving order and harmony within it. Each person within the family was to perform her/his role well and keep her/his place assign ed by nature. The place of woman turns out to be the traditional one of wife and mother, subordinate to and submissive to her husband, but a woman can perform this role well only if her intelligence is developed.”
“Plato had women disciples and Socrates refers to his women teachers … The Stoic Diodorus Cronus who was active about 315-284 had five daughters who were logicians: Menexene, Argeia, Theognis, Artemisia, and Pantacleia.”
Women Philosophers in the Ancient Greek World: Donning the Mantle - JSTOR
Maybe it wouldn't be too bad an idea to start a thread on the subject?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_culture#:~:text=Drug%20cultures%20are%20examples%20of,drug%2C%20or%20endorse%20polydrug%20use.
https://youtu.be/KmtzQCSh6xk
Dork
Explosion
also, I know we can't know much about what earlier people thought or believed because nothing was written down, but aren't historians pretty sure that ancient peoples also did philosophy? or is philosophy something that originated with the greek people? If so, why them and not the egyptians or sumerians or chinese or something?
I guess what I mean is what is the difference between philosophy's answers and methods and other answers and methods? what makes it philosophy instead of myth or religion or something?
Not sure that all makes sense but thanks.
Police State