🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <BxIKsp.Gt3@unx.sas.com> sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:
>
>
>As another teaser, have you ever wondered why the "feminist philosophers"
>all seem to have a certain political perspective -- as though this
>somehow is a part of the essential nature of feminism or feminist
>philosophy?  If you want to get a job as a "feminist philosopher" you
>not only have to teach "feminist issues", but you have to teach them
>in a certain *way*, from a certain point of view.  Any feminist
>philosophers out there who are Ayn Rand followers?  Any feminist
>philosophers who would, under any objective criterion, be considered
>"right" of center rather than "left"?
>

	Two comments.

	Gary, you're really only highlighting your willingness
to argue issues you have little substantive knowledge of here.  The
political differences between, say, Irigaray, Okin, Fraser, and Daly
(to take four prominent feminist philosophers of diverse schools)
are probably much wider than those separating, e.g., Rorty and
Putnam.  

	Secondly, you seem to be implicitly claiming that a true
philosophy worthy of the name should be politically neutral, equally
acceptable to both followers of Rand and Marx.  This foolishness
merely betrays the ethically irresponsible legacy of Wittgenstein's
disconnection of transcendental philosophy from the world. [1]  
That feminism seeks some connections between thought and practice
is no vice.

[1] Not to give Ludwig too much credit: these ideas are inherited
from his hidden inspiration, Schopenhauer.

Cordially, 

Michael S. Rooney