As a careful observer often able to overcome his own preconceptions, Aristotle may well have known intelligent and articulate Athenian women, and accurately observed that they could indeed reason as well as men. His analysis of (citizen) gender difference, since he is not disposed to challenge the status quo but only to describe it, must therefore rest on something other than natural ability. To the extent that the state of affairs in which men seldom took women seriously seemed natural or inevitable to him, "women's reason lacks authority" seemed to settle the question of what the difference was.
We can surely fault Aristotle for not seeing this state of affairs as something demanding reform rather than complacent description. But we can also, reading charitably, be impressed that he had the character to admit that women can reason, and we can see that the error might stem less from active misogyny (ALL Greek men were at least passive misogynists, after all) than from an epistemic risk embedded in all empirical inquiries.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
A brief comment related to your post can be found on my blog
-Corey Sloane
I think that this is what men, women in society should aspire to be. Having the character to actively do something that combats the state of things is very important. For example, it would be important for a person of Caucasian decent to recognize that they have the advantage of advancing in society professionally and socially. Being Caucasian has many advantages from birth to adulthood and unfortunately this also sheds light on the state of others who are not at an advantage to advance in society early on.
Post a Comment