Fenchurch wrote:
You asked for significant female philosophers, not giants. The "anyone who knows what they're doing in the field of philosophy will know this name" test is a damn good heuristic for gauging that. I myself think half the people on my list are full of it, but I think the same thing (to varying degrees) about the writings of Plato, Aquinas, Descartes, Kant, Hegel, and Wittgenstein. And let's not forget that many of their arguments have been shown to be problematic. I don't suppose that means none of those men were significant, does it?

I'd also like to take this opportunity to deride your pathetic lack of knowledge regarding the women you dismissed above. We'll start with Mary Midgley. First, she has made many contributions outside of ethics, including the history of philosophy and the philosophy of science. And when it comes to The Selfish Gene, the only thing anyone (other than yourself, apparently) has accused her of being misinformed about is Dawkins' intentions. Leaving aside the reductionism debate (which Midgley's side is winning these days), those who took Dawkins' side in the Selfish Gene debate typically praised her grasp of the science, but argued she had misinterpreted what Dawkins was trying to say. But of course, this is a ubiquitous problem for Dawkins -- who I like, by the way -- and something he admits quite candidly. It's his primary defense, after all, to say he has been misinterpreted. And almost all changes between the original and revised version of The Selfish Gene can be traced to Midgley's criticisms. So Dawkins must admit (though he doesn't do it in so many words) that his writings are simply unclear (at least the original version of The Selfish Gene).

And speaking of a lack of clarity, that's the primary objection Sokal raises against Kristeva. But Sokal is an amazing hypocrite when it comes to his attack on postmodernism. For one thing, he conflates postmodernism at large -- which is a large field that cannot be said to have any single definitive essence other than, perhaps, questioning the conventions of modernism -- with its part and precursor, poststructuralism. He also ignores the difference between an academic tradition that has a long and complicated history, complete with a specialized technical vocabulary that one is assumed to know before going into certain papers, with being sloppy about words. Kristeva uses the terminology she does because she is an expert on Lacan (one of the only experts on Lacan in the world, by the way) and she can't help but use Lacan's terminology when talking about Lacan and Lacanianism. Or do you propose that we all start writing books about Greek ethics without mentioning eudaimonia, dikaiosune), or doxa (all of which are complicated words)? Or perhaps we should teach Sartre without using the words "bad faith" and Heidegger without the word "dasein?" The objection here might be, "we have to define these words." But all of the words used by Kristeva are defined in her work -- just not in the parts Sokal cites. He also fails to take note of the explicit declarations in both Lacan and Kristeva's work where it is said that various concepts, including every single one that Sokal picks out as being used incorrectly, are being used metaphorically. The metaphors are also explained. In short, his critique exposes him as a fraud, not her. It's just hard to see because Sokal appeals to our prejudices -- a technique that has clearly worked on you.

And of course, this anti-postmodern bias is what's behind your blanket dismissal of the feminists and literary critics on my list. We can disagree over whether or not literary criticism is philosophy. But it's worth mentioning that even Searle, our recent visitor, has recently declared his major vision for the future to be doing exactly what continental philosophers and literary critics have been doing for the past century -- namely, investigating language as a natural phenomenon. The parallel is almost certainly unwitting, and I doubt he'll see the connection. Yet it has already started getting him into some of the same issues. So yeah, even analytic philosophy has come round to the postmodernists' side (though the postmodernists have had to come around to the analytics' side, too; the collapse of the analytic/continental dichotomy in contemporary philosophy has led to a nice big academic orgy).

The last woman I'd like to specifically defend is Catharine MacKinnon. Now there are a lot of things that she and I disagree on. Those disputes can be summed up as "I'm a sex-positive feminist, while she is a sex-negative feminist." But those issues, important as they are, constitute only one part of her work. One of her most abiding contributions comes from her work on equality, specifically her attack on the Aristotelian notion thereof that permeates so much of the modern legal and social structure. Her argument concerns the extent to which Aristotelian "equality" generates a self-perpetuating cycle of inequality, where environmental differences are treated like natural differences and opportunities to demonstrate otherwise are suppressed. Oddly enough, this is a critique that can be found in the writings of the American Founders, as well, but has largely gone to the wayside since the early days of the US. So tell me, was Thomas Jefferson also a "post-mod feminist loon?"

antoinette wrote:


and, is Richard Dawkins the pricky guy who wrote "god is not great" ? creepy reductionist tone throughout, most serious flaw is general smug tone.

antoinette wrote:
Julia Kristeva haven't read (suggestions?)

and, is Richard Dawkins the pricky guy who wrote "god is not great" ? creepy reductionist tone throughout, most serious flaw is general smug tone.

hanuma wrote:
...Having said that I'm still interested in his evolutionary extremism.

antoinette wrote:
is this poster resident genius?