The opinion was expressed on Wednesday that all religions are crazy and that they are all crazy to congruent degrees of craziness. I would like to address this claim, but I shall treat it as two separate claims and thus respond to them in that manner. As a preface, I consider myself an atheistic agnostic.
"All religions are crazy."
This is an un-nuanced understanding of religion. I would proffer that such a view is strictly incorrect but I shall refrain from doing so until some terms are clarified. It seems that the term 'crazy' requires some elucidation by means of definition. Furthermore, was the intent to ascribe craziness to all religions themselves or the institutionalized forms thereof? My objections to this view will be applicable to both religions themselves and the institutions. In what manner are religions crazy? The most obvious answer would be that maybe they, the adherents thereof, believe in something for which there is inadequate evidence? I, for one, do not contend that this is sufficient to call someone crazy. Seeking a supernatural answer to questions for which science is thus far insufficient is not, I think, necessarily crazy. The tenets of Christianity, the teachings of Christ, for example, are mostly very sane.
"All religions are equally crazy."
Equally nuanced. There is much sense in comparing the relative sanity, while we're still using that term, of religions. There is a marked difference between the sensibility of reformed Judaism compared to some orthodox, conservative protestant sects. Scientology, for instance, strikes me as significantly more inane than many other religions.
------
Disagreeing with the ontological position of people of faith does not afford us the privilege to categorically dismiss them as insane. It is insulting and demeans us as much as it does them.
Friday, March 9, 2012
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Questions on Beauvoir
While reading this latest section, I had a few minor (not deserving of a slap) questions on Beauvoir, her practices, and her beliefs.
1.) I have been assuming that the use of the gender specificity, which predominates this work, has been, to some degree, and artifact of the translation. It has become apparent, though, that she does sometimes use the pronoun to speak of, as would be expected of such a work and its topic, the male sex generally. There are also sentences that would seem to hint that the use of 'men' in that particular instance is intended to refer to all of humanity. Now, should I be reading the pronouns and noun very specifically, that is, that she is using 'he' and 'his' and 'men' only when referring to men? Or, is there some alternative way of reading Beauvoir that will afford me the luxury of knowing when she is speaking of men and when of people in general? This is not a criticism; I find, though, the answer to this is essential for understanding.
2.) Beauvoir, in the first chapter of section three, mentions the 'genesis myth'. I am left wondering what her religious views are. Does she believe in god? If so, does she identify with a particular religion? If so, which one? I know she is a dominant figure of existentialism, and despite some charges to the contrary, I do not believe that entails an ontological view of god. This one is less essential for understanding but a curiosity nonetheless.
1.) I have been assuming that the use of the gender specificity, which predominates this work, has been, to some degree, and artifact of the translation. It has become apparent, though, that she does sometimes use the pronoun to speak of, as would be expected of such a work and its topic, the male sex generally. There are also sentences that would seem to hint that the use of 'men' in that particular instance is intended to refer to all of humanity. Now, should I be reading the pronouns and noun very specifically, that is, that she is using 'he' and 'his' and 'men' only when referring to men? Or, is there some alternative way of reading Beauvoir that will afford me the luxury of knowing when she is speaking of men and when of people in general? This is not a criticism; I find, though, the answer to this is essential for understanding.
2.) Beauvoir, in the first chapter of section three, mentions the 'genesis myth'. I am left wondering what her religious views are. Does she believe in god? If so, does she identify with a particular religion? If so, which one? I know she is a dominant figure of existentialism, and despite some charges to the contrary, I do not believe that entails an ontological view of god. This one is less essential for understanding but a curiosity nonetheless.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
The Other
Beauvoir speaks much on the conceptualization of Woman as 'other'. I am struggling with exactly what is meant by this moniker, but with some thoughts of mine on a previous post and a contribution by Alexandra, I want to try to work through but one facet thereof.
I think that a feeling of alterity can be extremely healthy especially when paired with a comprehensive understanding of similarities as well. It is important to understand how we are different from those around us; it is through such comprehension that tolerance and empathy is begotten. What is concerning is that alterity seems to be applied to women only which is patently false. In a nigh tautological fashion, if women are other, then so too must men. If we have two letters A and B, we cannot claim that B is the other letter without also noting that A is also an other letter from B.
While alterity and difference are important, it is more important to note the bi-directionality of otherness.
I think that a feeling of alterity can be extremely healthy especially when paired with a comprehensive understanding of similarities as well. It is important to understand how we are different from those around us; it is through such comprehension that tolerance and empathy is begotten. What is concerning is that alterity seems to be applied to women only which is patently false. In a nigh tautological fashion, if women are other, then so too must men. If we have two letters A and B, we cannot claim that B is the other letter without also noting that A is also an other letter from B.
While alterity and difference are important, it is more important to note the bi-directionality of otherness.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Female Identity
De Beauvoir makes the point that the first thing she cognizes when she thinks of herself is that she is a woman. She is also right that males do not do this: my first thought is, though maybe slightly revealing here, is that I am intelligent. (This is no claim of pomp and arrogance; I am no genius) I am left wondering why the discrepancy? Also, is this healthy for women to do, or should we, as a society attempt to move to a place where gender is more irrelevant?
Knowing little enough about this, I am assuming that it is actually the oppression of women that begot this tendency for Beauvoir to think of herself as such. It would not be as irrelevant if men did not spend so much of history attempting to subjugate them.
I do not know if it is healthy though. I want to arrive at a place where gender is both irrelevant and yet there are some important differences between men and women. As long as women can give birth and men cannot, gender will never be irrelevant.
Knowing little enough about this, I am assuming that it is actually the oppression of women that begot this tendency for Beauvoir to think of herself as such. It would not be as irrelevant if men did not spend so much of history attempting to subjugate them.
I do not know if it is healthy though. I want to arrive at a place where gender is both irrelevant and yet there are some important differences between men and women. As long as women can give birth and men cannot, gender will never be irrelevant.
Friday, February 10, 2012
Rawls and Religion
As we discussed in class there does seem to be, as identified by Okin, a conflict between the freedom of religion and the equality of genders. If we were to accept the fundamentalist sexism as child abuse, the state would be forced, morally, to intervene. Rawls' toleration goes slightly too far.
What I find fascinating is the possibility of considering dogmatic insistence on poorly formed epistemologies as potentially damaging psychological phenomena. I am tempted to think that it is. If we were to accept this, then the state would be forced to intervene in the teaching of religions, at least those that preach the existence of a god.
Is it too far fetched to consider the inculcation of children into religions sects child abuse?
What I find fascinating is the possibility of considering dogmatic insistence on poorly formed epistemologies as potentially damaging psychological phenomena. I am tempted to think that it is. If we were to accept this, then the state would be forced to intervene in the teaching of religions, at least those that preach the existence of a god.
Is it too far fetched to consider the inculcation of children into religions sects child abuse?
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Pateman on Rawls
Matt offered a better reading of Pateman's seemingly incorrect interpretation of Rawls that I had not considered. He suggested that she was not indicating that Rawls had smuggled in gender by the mention of descendants and heads of households, as much as she was possibly critiquing him for not mentioning gender as the fact that females bear children would be a relevant fact to consider while choosing the principles of fairness.
This is true; women bear children and this fact is relevant to building a fair society. But I assume that this fact would be subsumed under how the world works, information that Rawls' participants do have. By denying the participant's knowledge of their own gender, Rawls attempts to beget decisions not swayed by personal gain. By being genderless, the participants can build a society that treats women fairly, considering all of the relevant facts, for after all, each participant might end up being female.
Rawls, perhaps, would have benefited from being a little more explicit, but I do think he adequately covers the issue.
This is true; women bear children and this fact is relevant to building a fair society. But I assume that this fact would be subsumed under how the world works, information that Rawls' participants do have. By denying the participant's knowledge of their own gender, Rawls attempts to beget decisions not swayed by personal gain. By being genderless, the participants can build a society that treats women fairly, considering all of the relevant facts, for after all, each participant might end up being female.
Rawls, perhaps, would have benefited from being a little more explicit, but I do think he adequately covers the issue.
Feminism
I have referred to my ignorance on this issue in comments on blogs and in class. The term 'feminism' has been used quite frequently (so too the passive voice apparently) and rightly so; the class is, after all, women and philosophy. I would like some clarification as to the proper use of the term. The term is deliberately misused by some, especially in the media, and accidentally by others, myself included I am sure.
Matt began the semester by asking us if we 1) recognized that women were people and 2) believed that women were systematically disadvantaged by society (or something to that effect, I cannot, alas, remeber verbatim). He suggested then, that these were the key foundations to being a feminist. I am wondering if these are sufficient. Would there need to also be a belief that this oppression and disadvantage is unwarrented and needs changing? While I think that should obviously follow, I guarentee there are people who do not.
From my understanding and what I have been told, there are many different types of feminism, so what are the conditions that are common to them all, the essence of feminism?
Matt began the semester by asking us if we 1) recognized that women were people and 2) believed that women were systematically disadvantaged by society (or something to that effect, I cannot, alas, remeber verbatim). He suggested then, that these were the key foundations to being a feminist. I am wondering if these are sufficient. Would there need to also be a belief that this oppression and disadvantage is unwarrented and needs changing? While I think that should obviously follow, I guarentee there are people who do not.
From my understanding and what I have been told, there are many different types of feminism, so what are the conditions that are common to them all, the essence of feminism?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)