Silly hypothesis, meet snarky retort.

In case those readers trained in analytic philosophy managed to miss it, this comment at A Philosophy Job Market Blog gave me the giggles while striking me as an entirely appropriate response (given the audience) to a lazy reliance on speculative evolutionary psychology to justify the status quo (in this case, the lopsided gender split of folks pursuing philosophy in their studies and as a career). The italicized portion is quoted from the earlier (ev-psych-loving) commenter:

Maybe, just maybe, philosophy is something “inherently more valuable” to men qua hunters
Because chasing down those non-existent unicorns painted to look like zebras in fake barn country required the ability to discern whether one was a brain in the vat before throwing a spear?

Anonymous commenter, I think I love you.

facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinmail
Posted in Passing thoughts, Philosophy.

3 Comments

  1. My default assumption is that when some highly underdetermined speculative analysis just happens to indicate that the status quo of gender or race privilege is, like, totally a consequence of, like, biology and stuff, it ain’t likely to be a coincidence.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *