Krauss and hawkings said these things in books they wrote that are essentially philosophy. Neither of the books the tey were commenting on proved any scientific conclusion, the basically took a model for the way things could work based on the limited scientific knowlwge we have and speculated on a theory that could explain more things that was not scientifically proved , but something they were putting forward for a possible explanation for the unexlaoned. That is called philosophy, particuarlly its metaphysics .
“Expect for a patina of twenty- first century modernity, in the form of logic and language, philosophy is exactly the same now as it ever was; it has made no progress whatsoever. We philosophers wrestle with the exact same problems …show more content…
Of course, if they started saying that, it makes it difficult to paint women as an oppressed minority.
One thing it also does, is make modern day chivalry transgressive to feminism, but is this actually sexism?
According to the dictionary ‘sexism’ is described as follows “attitudes or behaviour based on traditional stereotypes of gender roles”. Then this would suggest that yes in fact it is following the formality of traditional gender roles.
There could be a problem suggested here, that feminists have spent so long in their echo chambers, that they have convinced themselves that beyond all reason that the only affects of gender roles were negative for women. They focused entirely on those parts that they personally didn’t like and completely ignored the benefits of gender roles. It is absolutely logical that feminists come to the conclusion that chivalry is a bad thing, a trasgressive thing for women and for feminism.
The simple routine of a man pulling a seat from under the table for a woman is now a move against feminism; however this simple act would never be shared between two …show more content…
If that was all there was to it, it would become a rather uninteresting question. But with most of the concepts that interest philosophers, there is a deeper quest at stake. Take the case of freedom, they were not just interest in the way we use the word freedom, we want to know the acts we should describe as free, because the notion of free is tied to a moral responsibility. We think it matters if somebody is free. It is possible that we describe a person’s actions as free, when really from a god’s eye point of view they’re not. Perhaps we describe a persn as free in certain circumstances in ordinary life, but actually if we know about it, there is no moral responsibility there, no genuine freedom. There is a deeper metaphysical question underlying the linguistic
“Expect for a patina of twenty- first century modernity, in the form of logic and language, philosophy is exactly the same now as it ever was; it has made no progress whatsoever. We philosophers wrestle with the exact same problems …show more content…
Of course, if they started saying that, it makes it difficult to paint women as an oppressed minority.
One thing it also does, is make modern day chivalry transgressive to feminism, but is this actually sexism?
According to the dictionary ‘sexism’ is described as follows “attitudes or behaviour based on traditional stereotypes of gender roles”. Then this would suggest that yes in fact it is following the formality of traditional gender roles.
There could be a problem suggested here, that feminists have spent so long in their echo chambers, that they have convinced themselves that beyond all reason that the only affects of gender roles were negative for women. They focused entirely on those parts that they personally didn’t like and completely ignored the benefits of gender roles. It is absolutely logical that feminists come to the conclusion that chivalry is a bad thing, a trasgressive thing for women and for feminism.
The simple routine of a man pulling a seat from under the table for a woman is now a move against feminism; however this simple act would never be shared between two …show more content…
If that was all there was to it, it would become a rather uninteresting question. But with most of the concepts that interest philosophers, there is a deeper quest at stake. Take the case of freedom, they were not just interest in the way we use the word freedom, we want to know the acts we should describe as free, because the notion of free is tied to a moral responsibility. We think it matters if somebody is free. It is possible that we describe a person’s actions as free, when really from a god’s eye point of view they’re not. Perhaps we describe a persn as free in certain circumstances in ordinary life, but actually if we know about it, there is no moral responsibility there, no genuine freedom. There is a deeper metaphysical question underlying the linguistic