🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <BxK1zu.93q@unx.sas.com> sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:
>
>In article <1992Nov11.010102.14565@cheshire.oxy.edu>, rooney@cheshire.oxy.edu (Michael Sean Rooney) writes:
>
>|> 	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.
>
>"Ethically irresponsible legacy of Wittgenstein's disconnection of
>trancendental philosophy from the world"?  Well, I guess that ices
>the cake. I did not, by the way, claim that a true philosophy worthy
>of the name (whatever that means) should be politically neutral.
>I posed a question concerning how *uniform* the political philosophy
>of so-called "feminist philosophy" is and how *central* a given
>perspective seems to be.  The implicit question, of course, is
>what comes first:  a committment to a particular philosophy for which
>one then concocts a new discipline to serve as a vehicle of expression,
>or the genuine identification of a new discipline and the discovery
>that virtually all of its acolytes happen to cleave to a particular
>political philosophy.
>

	Regardless of "what comes first" (either an abstract metaphysical
position or a practical political disposition), it is the arguments of the
philosophies in question which matter.  Obviously, assuming a political 
stance ad hoc (say, libertarian capitalism) and then detailing "down" to
metaphysical stands increases the possibility of incoherence considerably
(cf. the pontifex minimus Leonard Peikoff).  But this does not have to be 
the case.  The "genuine identification of a new discipline" (whatever that
means) need not proceed from pre-political considerations.  It is the
positions and arguments that are central, items which seem anathema to
the anti-feminist-philosophy posters on this thread.

Cordially,

Michael S. Rooney