Sunday, April 30, 2023

Follow the bouncing ball, back to the beginning. 
Wait, society is Patriarchal?
Always has been
A reasonable hypothesis

evolved (cognitive) sex differences between human males and females explain the universality of patriarchy
Patriarchy and the Original Position 
If politics is the art of the possible, political philosophy is the science of the possible. What kinds of societies could there be, not just for Homo economicus, but for Homo sapiens, a recent product of a long lineage of primate ancestors? One obvious—in political philosophy, often ignored— feature of sapiens is sex. Unlike economicus, humans come in two distinct sexed forms, female and male. And one striking apparently universal feature of past human societies (including at least many contemporary societies), is patriarchy: the dominance of males in political and social decision-making. As the historian Yuval Noah Harari says, it is plausible that some ‘universal biological reason’ accounts for patriarchy. If that is right, then patriarchy may seem inevitable, or at least hard to avoid. The first part of the paper outlines some evidence for Harari’s ‘universal biological reason’. The second part brings the first part to bear on Rawls’s use of the original position, and the subsequent feminist adoption of it by Susan Okin. I will argue that ignorance of one’s sex in the original position fails to deal with the problem of patriarchy, and that the Rawlsian approach should be abandoned.

The best exchange at the time.

You do realize that others may still hold the position that the entire talk was suggestive of inferiority while conceding this point. Also, sometimes someone will say "yeah, okay, thanks" just be done with something. Doesn't mean they accept the response.

Do you yourself, new twitter account holder, accept that “cognitive” doesn’t mean intelligence?

Relevance? Doesn't matter what I think--I'm making a logical point.

The snide response is Brandon Warmke.

Labeled "Transhumanism and Transgender" because misogyny is universal.

"political philosophy is the science of the possible" is the most ridiculous thing I'd read in days, but it takes me back

As I tried to remind Kathleen Stock, the transgender fantasy, like all fantasy, begins in rationalism: the rationalism that says a philosopher is a scientist, or an ethnonationalist a liberal. "I'm a philosopher" "I'm a liberal" "I'm a woman". Men are the new women, iff rationalism is the new empiricism. Sorry, no.

I added this from, to the link above, since she deleted the tweet awhile ago. It makes me laugh. 

"Philosopher" Peter Ludlow: "I gave myself the gold star".

It's a good post, but a long one. I used a trick to add extra tags, but the trick doesn't work anymore so I can't fix a broken link to Ludlow's interview. I fixed it here

Imagine Oxford rescinding an offer to publish Nigel Biggar's Colonialism. That would be funny. Academia vs real politics. I'm just going to shrug.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comment moderation is enabled.