The editorial "On Women and Philosophy" [March 26] claims that women are not as philosophical as men. What is interesting is that this statement is based on an arbitrary definition of the "philosophical intellectuals," defined as "those attempting to discover the meaning of life." Considering that philosophy can be categorized into various branches -- of God, morality, math, music, knowledge, etc. -- one cannot collectively group them into a single pursuit of such a meaning.
In fact, further reading of the editorial reveals that by "philosophy" the author really means "existentialism"--a relatively contemporary literature of philosophy that seeks the essence of existence in existence itself. Instead of resorting to the metaphysical or institutions as an objective entity that precedes human existence, existentialists treat the subjectivity, or intrinsic freedom, of their existence as the primacy of their philosophy.
This confusion of the two terms is manifest when the author ridicules Plato -- who is indisputably one of the greatest philosophers ever -- and praises other thinkers such as Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, and Sartre, all of whom are generally considered existentialists.
The easiest attack against the author of "On Women and Philosophy," as discussed in the several critiques of the editorial, is that mothers have plenty of time to contemplate as philosophers. This is certainly true, as shown by the increasing number of female philosophers, many with children, who have attained prominence in the discipline. However, according to the author, existentialism necessitates subjective freedom, which he thinks is mutually exclusive with any form of dependence, including pregnancy and childcare. He thus makes the incredible claim that only existentialists, and thus men, are "attempting to discover the meaning of life."
Then the essential question is: Why does the author believe that existentialism is so overwhelmingly an important branch of philosophy that he feels justified in substituting it with "philosophy?" The answer stems from moral relativism, the dominant intellectual doctrine of today, which seems to have affected the author, as well. To understand what relativism has done to human thought, one must examine the impetus behind the birth of existentialism.
Many of the existentialists address "alienation," a sentiment most often discussed by postmodernists that describes the state of mind torn by the contradiction between the individual and the universal. Rousseau, for example, feels that by cultivating their rational capacity, humans have transformed themselves into excessively interdependent beings. As a result, he says, they can no longer behave according to their impulsive desires, most of which are condemned by society.
To emancipate humans from this state of alienation, existentialists propose various solutions. For example, Nietzsche, believing that cruelty is the most basic human instinct, sees liberation in the endeavor to introduce new morality into the world by destroying the weak.
One should now see how moral relativism fuels existentialism. Relativism annihilates any perspective based on an absolute truth, and consequently humans, in constant search for a unifying principle, become alienated. While humans blindly believed in God, alienation was an abstraction. However, the decline of faith has made many question their reasons for their compliance with the social conventions contrary to inherent human passions.
The prevalence of relativism is undeniable. Professor Alan Bloom of the University of Chicago writes: "[A]lmost every student entering the university believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative." And this relativism has been breeding alienated individuals who resort to existentialism.
As a reactionary philosophy, existentialism promotes a dangerously sexist view, however. By placing an utmost emphasis on subjective freedom, an existentialist tends to negate any value in social patterns based on dependence. He/she would say that dependence is nothing but an obstacle to complete emancipation, as the author of the controversial editorial does.
It may very well be that the essence of life is emancipation from alienation through subjectivity, and assuming this I can sympathize with the author, who mourns the "biological limitation" of women. However, as a rational person who wants to be as open-minded as possible, I cannot possibly endorse such a parochial belief. There is also another reason for me to demur, for I know what one existentialist, namely Nietzsche, has done to humanity; his philosophy became the primary justification for the Holocaust.
Therefore, I urge the existentialists to ponder carefully the implications of their philosophy. In particular, I would like them to understand that empathy, of which more women than men can understand the significance, might be another path to the emancipation that they desire, because no human is incapable of feeling the profound happiness generated from his/her acts of compassion. This is the "philosophical insight" that women could contribute to the evolution of human thought. Indeed many of them are endowed with this remarkable talent in order to remove sexism from existentialism.
