Quoting Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxx>:
Walter O. wrote:
"Continuing the discussion of 'paradigms' of the philosophical life
and philosophical work and analysis, could anyone presently in
attendance explain how philosophy is transformed when 'natality and
the female body that births are placed at the centre of our thinking'?
Dundee is a wonderful little town - much like St. John's actually,
both geographically and socially - but I hesitate to make the journey
without some assurance that the topics to be addressed are cogent
ones."
I find this stuff fascinating as an object lesson in how not to do
philosophy. I wonder if there are conferences about how philosophy
might be transformed when the female body that cannot birth is placed
at the centre of our thinking. Or the female body that births once
but can't birth anymore. Or the female body that births once but
never again because it's hell on the body and makes things sag.
I am all for putting the female body at the centre of our thinking, I
just don't think this has anything to do with philosophy.
Of course, Dundee might be wonderful enough of a town to make the trip
worth the nonsense that will inevitably be spouted at the conference.
And, yes, that is nonsense in the Wittgensteinian sense.
Sincerely,
Phil Enns
Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Interesting. But before voicing my own opinion on whether we are dealing with
"nonsense" and perhaps "nonsense on stilts" (who said that, anyway?) I
patiently await responses from those in our pub who believe the dignity and
autonomy of the female of the species is often besmirched and, indeed,
disrespected, by males (and perhaps hermaphrodites?) who are alleged to
privilege illegitimately their own sex and/or gender over all other ones in
matters pertaining to intellectual achievement and respect for the moral
equality of personhood. (LIfe is really a beach: Claims made, accusations
launched, are ultimately opne to critical interrogation. Such are the
foundations of rationality, morality, education and constitutional democracy.
A final focussing thought: Is it that the transcendental is gendered? Or
classed? Or raced? And could it be the case that an affirmative answer to these
questions signals egregious gender-bias, or class-bias? Could such an answer be
legitimately charged with racism?
Walter Okshevsky
Middle Priest of Matters Political, not Metaphysical
Office for the Promotion of Local Cosmopolitanism
Security Council
United Nations 85351
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
