I hope that what I have written or will write is not discouraging anyone. I
simply have trouble with certain words that pass under the affix "ism", and
there is an excellent website devoted to understanding what can be passed as an
"ism" (e.g., movements, doctrines, etc - which is really an excellent
contribution to the web for philosophy and word users, see
http://www.openthought.org/ismbook/ ). Well, feminism is one of those words
that I don't clearly understand, and I would resist the temptation for a
response to vent from it. But I don't like this word (and I smile, too), even
though what it represents inspires me, invigorates me, and yet I would never
use the word "feminism" for a gender "blanket theory" of truth. I hear it and
it becomes part of my experience and it just doesn't make sense, so to speak.
So, I should argue, as a realist, or relativist (these two theories of truth
being difficult to separate; all "ist" words being presumed as theories of
truth, or simply particular movements of reasonable pluralism) that gender
supervenes in/on/to epistemology, and/or metaphysics, and this is kind of too
complicated. Simplification is a logical virtue of philosophy. Yes, indeed,
this interests me, but not only me, and possibly not all list members. Some
lists are much smaller, with an audience who may have never even heard of
Foucalt or Delueze (neither of whom have much in common at all, it seems, and
this "seemingness" doesn't even reach the point of any conclusion). Well, I
don't mean to exhaust the posts, here, with only my thoughts. These are not
barbarous times, rather, possibly or potentially barbarous reminders, that
reality is relativistically understood. I don't want to give up on realism (nor
will I), especially moral realism. So, I am not here to interrupt, but curious
for philosophical explanations.
Here's my new principle in living: don't waste paper. The use of computers to
write and the web for research is really convenient in that it conforms with
that principle, even though nearly any computer is attached to a printer of
some sort. I still enjoy books, however, and there is an apparent love of them
that make new editions every year under the presumption that we must have books
(and new editions of them every year, phone books, and so on). Professional
specialization in philosophy is a difficult thing to achieve, and Foucalt
helped me to understand that. I don't want to be a rhetorical trailblazer to
make a living, I suppose that answers why I am writing. Stop me with a good
argument if I am not helping out, here.
-Peter
ahhh, no, I won't change my name
Pia Kate wrote:
> There are a number of bookstores both in America, England and France
> (that's all I know about) that have websites and send books to a number
> countries.
>
> I know many people on the net and on this list are not American. I am one
> of them. Rebecca did not ask for information only from one country and so I
> gave her what I knew.
>
> Pia Jakobsson Staunstrup
simply have trouble with certain words that pass under the affix "ism", and
there is an excellent website devoted to understanding what can be passed as an
"ism" (e.g., movements, doctrines, etc - which is really an excellent
contribution to the web for philosophy and word users, see
http://www.openthought.org/ismbook/ ). Well, feminism is one of those words
that I don't clearly understand, and I would resist the temptation for a
response to vent from it. But I don't like this word (and I smile, too), even
though what it represents inspires me, invigorates me, and yet I would never
use the word "feminism" for a gender "blanket theory" of truth. I hear it and
it becomes part of my experience and it just doesn't make sense, so to speak.
So, I should argue, as a realist, or relativist (these two theories of truth
being difficult to separate; all "ist" words being presumed as theories of
truth, or simply particular movements of reasonable pluralism) that gender
supervenes in/on/to epistemology, and/or metaphysics, and this is kind of too
complicated. Simplification is a logical virtue of philosophy. Yes, indeed,
this interests me, but not only me, and possibly not all list members. Some
lists are much smaller, with an audience who may have never even heard of
Foucalt or Delueze (neither of whom have much in common at all, it seems, and
this "seemingness" doesn't even reach the point of any conclusion). Well, I
don't mean to exhaust the posts, here, with only my thoughts. These are not
barbarous times, rather, possibly or potentially barbarous reminders, that
reality is relativistically understood. I don't want to give up on realism (nor
will I), especially moral realism. So, I am not here to interrupt, but curious
for philosophical explanations.
Here's my new principle in living: don't waste paper. The use of computers to
write and the web for research is really convenient in that it conforms with
that principle, even though nearly any computer is attached to a printer of
some sort. I still enjoy books, however, and there is an apparent love of them
that make new editions every year under the presumption that we must have books
(and new editions of them every year, phone books, and so on). Professional
specialization in philosophy is a difficult thing to achieve, and Foucalt
helped me to understand that. I don't want to be a rhetorical trailblazer to
make a living, I suppose that answers why I am writing. Stop me with a good
argument if I am not helping out, here.
-Peter
ahhh, no, I won't change my name
Pia Kate wrote:
> There are a number of bookstores both in America, England and France
> (that's all I know about) that have websites and send books to a number
> countries.
>
> I know many people on the net and on this list are not American. I am one
> of them. Rebecca did not ask for information only from one country and so I
> gave her what I knew.
>
> Pia Jakobsson Staunstrup