Although I have written a number of provocative articles in the past, I do not remember a writing of mine that attracted more scathing criticisms than the one I wrote approximately a year ago. Entitling the column "Women and Philosophy," I argued that women are less philosophical than men because of their biological constraints, in particular, pregnancy and childcare. Such constraints inhibited the philosophical genius of women, because a great mind requires the freedom to explore intellectually -- a condition of which women are deprived, as their lives are necessarily disrupted by the exhausting years during which they must bear and nurture their children.
I hope the title of my column today has caught the eyes of those readers who, remembering my year-old piece, continue to condescend to me, for my argument today might interest them.
I intend to illustrate that a number of so-called canonical writings written by men are overrated. Examining texts on political philosophy, one can easily see that many of the minds that we accept as brilliant were too often logically inconsistent or simplistic to be worthy of such a praise. Their literary legacies reflect their tremendous intellectual endeavors that still inspire humanity, but for a thinker to be perceived great, he or she has to exert more than just an effort; the effort must be executed impeccably -- a qualification that too many men have lacked.
Take a look at Marx's philosophy, for instance. A prolific writer -- or, rather a writer to whom conciseness was a vice -- Marx wrote volumes and volumes on his understanding of the historical dialectics, which, to him, would end when society transcended the state, after which the equality of humans as political beings, in terms of rights, and as socioeconomic beings, in terms of ability, comes to coexist.
I admire his grand analysis of human history; at the same time I cannot help but notice its one fatal problem -- his reductive treatment of history, whose sole driving force is economic activity. In explaining every human incident, Marx contrives a chain of causal relations that originates in an economic phenomenon, thereby creating a marvelous self-ceiling argument. Of course, nothing is wrong with an argument that cannot be refuted as long as it is absolutely right, but such an argument belongs not in academia, but in church.
Let us now look at J.S. Mill's philosophy as described in his "On Liberty." Throughout this essay, considered one of Mill's greatest achievements, he differentiates "self-regarding" from "other-regarding" actions, the former of which are those whose repercussions are confined to the private sphere, while the latter of which positively or adversely affect the other members of society. In doing so, he promotes the establishment of a society where the extent to which one can exploit his or her individual liberty is clearly defined, so that the private sphere is protected from intrusion by outsiders.
The serious problem, which Mill fails to address, is that his system provides no systematic mechanism to distinguish the two categories of action. Should a person whose argument is marred by such an enormous lapse in thought be lauded for his intellectual genius? I don't think so.
The list of such examples can go on, but unfortunately I must stop, as my column is becoming long. So I hope the readers will take with them one insight: the "great" political theoretical texts written by men have affected, and sometimes even revolutionized, the organization of human society in spite of their grave argumentative defects only because the ignorant masses are attracted to encompassing and simple perspectives regardless of their flaws. However, as Hume illustrates in his "Treatise of Human Nature," a claim to an absolute -- an action implied by any such grand endeavor -- cannot be undertaken without a logical inconsistency because of our inability to establish a causal relationship with certainty.
In today's world where liberal democracy has clearly prevailed as the ultimate organization of society, we do not need men's highly problematic way of thinking, often described as "binary," which to me is often a euphemism for "simplistic." Now is the time when women must engage in philosophical contemplation in their superior "holistic" manner, with which they would provide mankind with their humble, but precise and practical, political theory grounded in reality. Many men still stubbornly believe that such an intellectual project would be intrinsically inferior to the kind in which they have excelled in the past -- an attitude manifested, for example, by the Review editors' obsessive attachment to the Western canon.
But this attitude is unfounded. It only reflects the growing insecurity of men who are not used to seeing women imparting intellectual influences on society.
