🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <BxE6rn.IHx@quake.sylmar.ca.us>, brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:

|> 
|> No.  I think that those who advocated such views were wrong.  Perhaps you 
|> would like to continue to apply that reasoning and advocate "slave philosophy"
|> and "serf philosophy".  What kinds of deep philosophical insights do you
|> think one acquires by being a woman, a slave, or a serf?  

Brian, you're being really dense here.  The point is not what kinds
of insight one acquires by being a woman, a slave, or a serf, but
rather what *position* one may gain by being a "feminist philosopher",
a "slave philospher",  or a "serf philosopher".

In order to make it in the game, you either have to be pretty good
at an established area (history of ancient philosophy, logic and
philosophy of science, epistemology, etc.) or you need to find a
"developing" area to be an "expert" in.  Look at this as market
pressures and the adaptability of academics to an environment in
which most niches are already occupied.  I'm really sorry you
mentioned "serf philosophy".  I'm afraid you've sewn the seed of
a new specialization.
-- 
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm