Sorry, perhaps I mis-read somewhat.
Based upon the predicate of genetic dominance, veiled behind years of ego attachment to my penis, and taking into consideration the long, slender architecture of the chipset I would say … 128 MB.
Well my RAM is maxed out at like 700+, so there.
Feminists have been saying this for years. It’s bullshit, there are no inherently male or female ideas therefore to call a collection of and discourse about ideas phallocentric is absurd…
If you believe that the Patriarchy begins with Aristotle, yeah, I could see some historical evidence for this argument, given A’s view on women.
Plato was far more open minded about gender and its role in Philosophy.
As an aside (but not out of the area of discourse) Marie/Arendt was, in my humble opinion, the best Logician at ILP, and whatever flaws she might have exhibited in her arguments, said flaws were the result of her lack of reading on a particular subject, and never, as far as I can remember, due to faulty reasoning.
However, if I were spiteful, I could list quite a few names of males at ILP (many of whom fancy themselves as Philosophers) whose arguments are made primarily through force of will, and are as faulty as the day is long.
The idea that Philosophy, as an academic field, is Phalo-centric may, in fact, be true. The unstated assumption that goes along with this facade, that rational thinking is a properly male exercise, is completely fabricated.
Academic philosophy isn’t phallocentric, it is male dominated.
Doors are cunt-shaped ergo every room in the world is implicitly a vagina and a symbol of matriarchy
This sort of crap is easy to invent, I could rewrite the whole of history to demonstrate that it is, in fact, matriarchal but I don’t see any point in doing that…
Essentially, utterly, apodictically true. History is very clear that the “archway” door of old was intended to represent the womb of woman.
Also true that a system of logical discourse is gender neutral, up to the point of execution of the system by a dominant group. It’s ludicrous to insist penis shaped thought, but I’d rather find it bemusing to be privy to someone attempting such.
Is that why your house gets musty if you don’t open it up once in awhile?
LMAO. What a magnificent bastard. Such irreverence.
Indeed!
Academic philosophy isn’t the only philosophy in town and males are often feminine (particularly philosophers - Sartre is a feminine thinker, though I grant you that Kant is a masculine thinker). Nietzsche would be great example of a both masculine and feminine thinker who was never an academic philosopher but was nonetheless the greatest intellectual writer of his century (screw Darwin, grumble, grumble)…
Sarte is a feminine thinker?
Nietzche is a masculine thinker?
How exactly does one come to these determinations of applying gender specific roles to patterns of logic?
Expound for me please.