I do believe that Bacon's linguistic choices affected the way that science as a discipline is represented and thought about, but there is more to it. Descartes established a philosophy that completely (and falsely) separated mind from matter, res cogitans, “thinking thing” from res extensa, “extended thing."
This split between thought (rational, of course ;) and the eminent matter was expanded upon by existentialists and the realm that women were exclusively relegated to became of less and less assigned importance. Many feminist thinkers were influenced by De Beauvoir's work, "The Second Sex" which accepted in full existential valuations of the divergent spheres of human activity, the mundane (female) and the transcendent (male).
It could be as easily reconfigured in the following way: Because man experiences himself as alien, outside of and apart from nature, as a function of his bodily sexual and reproductive functions, he developed an intense need to create a purpose for his existence. All actions toward "transcendence" are essentially pointless since no creative work has value beyond the life of the maker unless there is someone there to recognize and value it.
Because women have historically spent their entire energies on reproduction, and since women experience themselves bodily as being necessary to and a part of nature, women have not felt a need to construct a meaning beyond the obvious one given to them by nature. DeBeauvoir argues that the lot of women is more degrading than that of man because her cooking is meaningless unless her husband and children are there to validate it and give it meaning.
I would counter that all of man's theories, technologies, creative and philosophical accomplishments are meaningless unless woman does the work of creating and raising new conscious beings to value and appreciate man's work. Furthermore, is we persist with Bacon's approach to nature and we literally fuck her to death then we will essentially, in the search for transcendent meaning, destroy the possibility of meaning existing at all.
@WomenAreDivine This is a really great set of comments, and I really appreciate your contribution to this video. I've done a bunch of others on feminism and science but haven't touched on these ideas. Good stuff
I finally found your video that Professor Anton (Corey) and Professor Peterson (Valerie) were talking about. I asked them to post a link to this...
I'll take a look at the link to feminist epistemology you have in the description.
I just have to add the pointless factoid that very often now the default personal pronoun used in science writing is as likely to be the feminine she or her as the masculine he or his...
Your reference to In Our Time and Francis Bacon was really interesting...
just toying, but another aspect could be the usual association of sexual arousal with vision in the case of males and touch in the case of females, the one eye-detached the other skin-direct, well, shall we live the lights on?
well really u cant say truth is completely based on sex cuz its not. But the truth is still relative to the person to some degree. Like i cant say i have a period cuz im a dude so it wouldnt be true but if a girl said it would be. And u cant deny the difference in general perspective between male and female. I think it would be very helpful to get a new view point while doing testing or a new understanding behind it.
Saying that science is an inquiry is an odd metaphor. Inquiries are handeled by courts as far as I know. Most sciences are not based on asking people questions.
All that feminist criticisms of science and epistemology demonstrate is that we are prone to confuse our interests with truth; which is hardly news. At the height of the feminist critique of knowledge craze in the late 80s and early 90s, this rather boring truism was sometimes dressed up for marketing reasons in such a way as to suggest that the radical, and indefensibly irrational, claim that truth is entirely relative to sex and gender was being made.
However, once the popularity of the *feminist criticism of* fad waned, and tenure once again became dependent upon the quality rather than the popularity of ones published works, the feminist truth radicals became somewhat more reticent and precise in their claims.
like lsd the guy that came up with it, discoved it by mistake. He wasnt trying to make a drug but it happened and when it did he learned first and tested second. And really couldnt have tested cuz he needed to feel it and take a lesser stance of control. True he didnt mean to but that is still the reason lsd is still around today. If he had test it on an animal chances are it would have never been tried by humans or even looked into any deeper. Less control but more understanding. Crazy shit
damn man thats crazy i never really thought about it but it kinda makes sense. Think about it, as males we are constantly looking to be in a possition of control. And most of the time submitting something to our will, at least thats how we treat science. We look to control it then understand it. If u took a female perspective on the issue they might let it work with less control and see how different stuff interacts. then try to understand It. Like learn then test, instead of test then learn.
yes, these metaphors abound, and gender scholars are eager to spot them everywhere they seem to be implicated, especially in the language in which the given phenomena is expressed (this is a poststructuralist heritage), I think the idea of abstractness and more importantly a central authority that is fix, erect, unchanging, and has a subordinating "gaze" also contributes to this contention, in its being tied to the idea of transcendence, explanation, the closure of mysterious openings
I do believe that Bacon's linguistic choices affected the way that science as a discipline is represented and thought about, but there is more to it. Descartes established a philosophy that completely (and falsely) separated mind from matter, res cogitans, “thinking thing” from res extensa, “extended thing."
WomenAreDivine 1 year ago
This split between thought (rational, of course ;) and the eminent matter was expanded upon by existentialists and the realm that women were exclusively relegated to became of less and less assigned importance. Many feminist thinkers were influenced by De Beauvoir's work, "The Second Sex" which accepted in full existential valuations of the divergent spheres of human activity, the mundane (female) and the transcendent (male).
WomenAreDivine 1 year ago
It could be as easily reconfigured in the following way: Because man experiences himself as alien, outside of and apart from nature, as a function of his bodily sexual and reproductive functions, he developed an intense need to create a purpose for his existence. All actions toward "transcendence" are essentially pointless since no creative work has value beyond the life of the maker unless there is someone there to recognize and value it.
WomenAreDivine 1 year ago
Because women have historically spent their entire energies on reproduction, and since women experience themselves bodily as being necessary to and a part of nature, women have not felt a need to construct a meaning beyond the obvious one given to them by nature. DeBeauvoir argues that the lot of women is more degrading than that of man because her cooking is meaningless unless her husband and children are there to validate it and give it meaning.
WomenAreDivine 1 year ago
I would counter that all of man's theories, technologies, creative and philosophical accomplishments are meaningless unless woman does the work of creating and raising new conscious beings to value and appreciate man's work. Furthermore, is we persist with Bacon's approach to nature and we literally fuck her to death then we will essentially, in the search for transcendent meaning, destroy the possibility of meaning existing at all.
WomenAreDivine 1 year ago
@WomenAreDivine This is a really great set of comments, and I really appreciate your contribution to this video. I've done a bunch of others on feminism and science but haven't touched on these ideas. Good stuff
conferencereport 1 year ago
Came over via Prof Anton reference. Interesting talks you have here.
ICharmaine 2 years ago
I finally found your video that Professor Anton (Corey) and Professor Peterson (Valerie) were talking about. I asked them to post a link to this...
I'll take a look at the link to feminist epistemology you have in the description.
I just have to add the pointless factoid that very often now the default personal pronoun used in science writing is as likely to be the feminine she or her as the masculine he or his...
Your reference to In Our Time and Francis Bacon was really interesting...
2bsirius 2 years ago
just toying, but another aspect could be the usual association of sexual arousal with vision in the case of males and touch in the case of females, the one eye-detached the other skin-direct, well, shall we live the lights on?
almafarag 2 years ago
well really u cant say truth is completely based on sex cuz its not. But the truth is still relative to the person to some degree. Like i cant say i have a period cuz im a dude so it wouldnt be true but if a girl said it would be. And u cant deny the difference in general perspective between male and female. I think it would be very helpful to get a new view point while doing testing or a new understanding behind it.
milkeddowncocobrown 2 years ago
Saying that science is an inquiry is an odd metaphor. Inquiries are handeled by courts as far as I know. Most sciences are not based on asking people questions.
theosophers 2 years ago
All that feminist criticisms of science and epistemology demonstrate is that we are prone to confuse our interests with truth; which is hardly news. At the height of the feminist critique of knowledge craze in the late 80s and early 90s, this rather boring truism was sometimes dressed up for marketing reasons in such a way as to suggest that the radical, and indefensibly irrational, claim that truth is entirely relative to sex and gender was being made.
leawardseif 2 years ago
However, once the popularity of the *feminist criticism of* fad waned, and tenure once again became dependent upon the quality rather than the popularity of ones published works, the feminist truth radicals became somewhat more reticent and precise in their claims.
leawardseif 2 years ago
So that's why they're called the "hard" sciences.
SpiritualAtheist 2 years ago
like lsd the guy that came up with it, discoved it by mistake. He wasnt trying to make a drug but it happened and when it did he learned first and tested second. And really couldnt have tested cuz he needed to feel it and take a lesser stance of control. True he didnt mean to but that is still the reason lsd is still around today. If he had test it on an animal chances are it would have never been tried by humans or even looked into any deeper. Less control but more understanding. Crazy shit
milkeddowncocobrown 2 years ago
damn man thats crazy i never really thought about it but it kinda makes sense. Think about it, as males we are constantly looking to be in a possition of control. And most of the time submitting something to our will, at least thats how we treat science. We look to control it then understand it. If u took a female perspective on the issue they might let it work with less control and see how different stuff interacts. then try to understand It. Like learn then test, instead of test then learn.
milkeddowncocobrown 2 years ago
yes, these metaphors abound, and gender scholars are eager to spot them everywhere they seem to be implicated, especially in the language in which the given phenomena is expressed (this is a poststructuralist heritage), I think the idea of abstractness and more importantly a central authority that is fix, erect, unchanging, and has a subordinating "gaze" also contributes to this contention, in its being tied to the idea of transcendence, explanation, the closure of mysterious openings
almafarag 2 years ago