Any Influential, Real Female Philosophers?

Social Forums Non-Philosophical Chat
1

It just occurred to me, there has never been any real, influential leading female philosophers… I’m not talking about third or forth tier thinkers in a already long established school of philosophy, I’m talking about the big guns… women who founded a new philosophy, or were great reformers universally discussed in it, or who were extensively discussed by everyone on point-counterpoints in and outside the school. Real celebrity thinkers, not someone secluded and easily neglected.

In otherwords, I’m not counting professors of philosophy, who don’t actually qualify being a philosopher, besides, most have a ridiculously limited area of influence over society… or authors only women read, usually just in feminist circles… as that is not something that is ever going to be comparable to the influence like Aristotle or Kant or even Marx had… most philosophers won’t read that crap.

Closest we ever came was Hypatia, and I’m uncertain, to be honest how much influence she actually had on intellectual developments, or if men just looked at her like a novelty item flapping her mouth incoherently till she lost her looks and then they stoned her to death for talking too much. My support for this argument… we don’t have extensive fragments or theories from her, just stories of her menstrual rags, and she fucked around with wooden cones. I take it from this people saw her as a oddity and didn’t actually learn from her, so wasn’t influential in the sense of Descartes or Hume.

I also can’t think of a major religion founded by women.

Like, honestly, why can’t women pull off philosophy? Am I overlooking someone obvious?

2

In all fairness for parity here, it will probably and generally take a generation or two with the freedoms females have even now. There will as ever be exceptions, and I think more women have freedom for intellectual pursuits, than ever before.

If I may go by my own experience, the youth of my daughters generation talk much more shit than those of my day. We used to talk politics a lot back then, and some [hippy] philosophy, but I feel its a lot more prevalent today.

…but its ok, we will soon have robots to do all our dishes. :laughing: :blush: :-" :mrgreen:

3

So, we never had aristocratic women who lounged around all day reading and writing letters?

4

Madonna. I hear she’s really into the Judaic Occult.

Besides being a philosopher she can really shake her ass on the stage for her age.

Like a virgin kissed for the very first time baby.

5

Her name is Lyssa on KTS.

She can talk your ear off all day about how hard it is being one of the washed masses and having delusions of grandeur.

There’s also Phoneutria. She’s a real peach.

6

Contra what about your mom?

7

I’ve been thinking about making a similar thread for a few days now but I guess it’d be redundant.

I was enrolling in a philosophy college and about 80-90% of others were female. Considering the fact that most of the well known philosophers are male, I was confused.

My opinion is that males tend to be more extreme and have more analytical minds on average and most females lack the passion for philosophy to do something revolutionary.

Well, they have equal freedom as males so they really have no excuse right now. Though the fact that they were oppressed for so long really does tell us something about their mindset, doesn’t it? I mean, do you think males would let females oppress them for centuries? I think not…

That said, I’d rather read decent female philosophers like J.J. Thomson and female writers overall than crappy male ones, and I think most males today feel like that.

8

Atheris, you claim that males have oppressed females for centuries, and kept females out of philosophy. Can you defend this claim a little bit, tell me, how exactly have males been oppressing women? Can you provide examples of males keeping females out of philosophy, somehow? What does this mean? How can men keep women “out of philosophy”? I mean, is it systematic that men have told young girls for centuries that they cannot or should not do philosophy? Do teachers of young girls discourage their philosophical interests? Do men and women, both, tell young girls that “philosophy is not for you”?

I mean, I’ve never heard of any of this, growing up. Maybe I wasn’t listening carefully enough? I do not recall teachers ever telling young girls or women that they cannot do philosophy. So I wonder what you mean by this male oppression. What is it exactly?

9

Anyone ever think it might have more to do with male/female ego not abilities?

10

Here are some possibilities to consider:

  1. males oppress women and constantly prevent women from becoming “philosophers”.
  2. females oppress women and constantly prevent women from becoming “philosophers”.
  3. both males and females oppress women and constantly prevent women from becoming “philosophers”.
  4. something, nature, instinct, a magical force, god, oppresses women and constantly prevents women from becoming “philosophers”.
  5. all false, nothing is oppressing women, to constantly prevent women from becoming “philosophers”.

So which position are you people taking?

11

You are overlooking something important though not obvious.
I do not think that anyone can explain you in the way that i could.

Remenber my post in which i addressed your nature?

As Aristiole put that rightly (almost), anything that exists must be made of either or mix of four basic ingredients; earth, water, fire and air. These ingredients decide the basic nature. That applies on genders too.

Here are the respective natures of these four basic ingredients-

Earth - stability, capable of bearing hard impacts, lazyness, always moving downwards and looking for settle
Warer - fluidness, adaptability to circumstances, coolness, soothing, very good absorbent, always moving downwords and looking for settle
Fire - heat, anxiety, destruction, always moving upwards and not looking for settle
Air - extremely egile and uncontrolable, unstable, always moving upwards and not looking for settle

As a thumb rule, earth and water are dominant in women while fire and air in men. And, that refelects in their nature too.

Science and philosophy requires innovation and innovation cannot be done by remaining in the boundries. One has to challenge the preset limits and that is precisely the nature air and fire. Earth and water never challenge the boundries but respect the circumstanses and adjust themselves accordingly. They alwyas look for the lowest spot to settle. On the other hand, fire and air always move upwards and lok for new horizens.

That is why women are more adjustable while men are more innovative.

But remember, both qualities are equally important. Actually, adjustability is more importand and useful than inovability. One can live without innovation but not without adjustment. Secondly, air and fire must have control of water and earth. Otherwise, it may lead to problem itself instead of solving those.

Nietzsche is the prime example of that. His excessive air elemant never let him allowd him and his thoughts to be rationalized. He was innovative but unorganized. On the other hand, innovators like Einstein and Aristotle are the examples of prfect mix of ingredients.

Men can do wonders if they have control and guide their extra energy. And, in the same way, women can also be great if they add a little courage to their patience and adjustability.

with love,
sanjay

12

Ayn Rand, so like, 1 so far.

Never heard of JJ Thomas. Is she just a professor, or an actual philosopher?

13

Sanjay, you do realize that typography is not just Aristotle, but the joint effort of Aristotle and Theophrastus, and it was the beginnings of the western tradition of Alchemy. They took substances and heated them up to see how they react, mineral, plant, and flesh, grading them via genus via a hierarchy of life… informing them how intelligence and the soul operated.

Its highly subjective, and holds to forms of judgment similar to 20th century behaviorists, while incidentally applying several mistaken conclusions of theory of mind a behaviorist wouldn’t make… such as applying a state of mind to boiling water.

I don’t mind, even encourage infact, exploration of archaic typologies. This one holds to later traditions found in Stoic, Peripatetic writers of the Greek and Roman empires, had a influence in the middle ages, also a deep influence on Upanisadic compilers.

Problem is, its a psychological projection of the observer on the observed. You see those two elements predominate in me because that is what is flashy in how you orient to me.

This typography us inherently bounded to its flaws, and is more suggestive of how we project upon others, be that other animate or inanimate. It reveals the state of mind of the psychologists more than the patient. Yet, knowing this makes us better thinkers. Inherent in it is a Diagnostic Logic inherent in all forms of systematic diagnosis… be it medicine (Galen or modern) or Engineering, Spying or Judiciary government.

Hence why I won’t knock its use. Just be aware it reveals how bias is natural and conceptually networked, based on empiricism and logic… and can still miss alot, and be laughably backwards in approach. The rational mind is remarkable plastic.

A thinker of the nature of Earth and Water would naturally observe this, correct? Or what did you claim me to be? Oh yes, the opposite. Well, whatever… so be it. They didn’t exactly invent the premise.

14

Ayn Rand isn’t a philosopher.

15

Women are such an oppressed group! My God!

Plays a violin in the background

16

Typical.

Without fail women will lean on that dead cunt.

17

Exactly. She was cunt. A professional hustler. Nothing more.

18

Is very much a philosopher, and her Randian Objectivists have a pretty well put together school out here in the Pittsburgh area. I won’t deny Nietzsche, Marx, Hegel, or Max Stirner were philosophers just because I look down on them and have little use for them. It’s a pretty backwards and pathetic approach to take to rejecting a philosopher… she was very active debating and work several works, novels, and screenplays… by ancient greek standards, she was well.rounded as a thinker. Don’t have much use personally for her though… but definitely 10 times the philosopher you are, Smears.

19

Rand was a professional political tool. Nothing more.

She is the ideological idol of those that have brought western civilization to its knees also.

20

Aristotle could be described as the same, if not worst Joker… biggest fucking tool ever, and his butt to nut student, Alexander, did a good job at bringing the world down around him.

So this poorly disqualifies Rand. Is she of his caliber, no. But sge is sold on the same shelves as Aristotle in most English philosophy section bookstores. Definitely in the mix.