Robert Mayhew
- Published in print:
- 2004
- Published Online:
- March 2013
- ISBN:
- 9780226512006
- eISBN:
- 9780226512020
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- University of Chicago Press
- DOI:
- 10.7208/chicago/9780226512020.001.0001
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Ancient Philosophy
While Aristotle's writings on biology are considered to be among his best, the comments he makes about females in these works are widely regarded as the nadir of his philosophical oeuvre. Among many ...
More
While Aristotle's writings on biology are considered to be among his best, the comments he makes about females in these works are widely regarded as the nadir of his philosophical oeuvre. Among many claims, Aristotle is said to have declared that females contribute nothing substantial to generation; that they have fewer teeth than males; that they are less spirited than males; and that woman are analogous to eunuchs. This book aims not to defend Aristotle's ideas about females but to defend Aristotle against the common charge that his writings on female species were motivated by ideological bias. The author points out that the tools of modern science and scientific experimentation were not available to the Greeks during Aristotle's time and that, consequently, Aristotle had relied not only on empirical observations when writing about living organisms but also on a fair amount of speculation. Further, he argues that Aristotle's remarks about females in his biological writings did not tend to promote the inferior status of ancient Greek women.Less
While Aristotle's writings on biology are considered to be among his best, the comments he makes about females in these works are widely regarded as the nadir of his philosophical oeuvre. Among many claims, Aristotle is said to have declared that females contribute nothing substantial to generation; that they have fewer teeth than males; that they are less spirited than males; and that woman are analogous to eunuchs. This book aims not to defend Aristotle's ideas about females but to defend Aristotle against the common charge that his writings on female species were motivated by ideological bias. The author points out that the tools of modern science and scientific experimentation were not available to the Greeks during Aristotle's time and that, consequently, Aristotle had relied not only on empirical observations when writing about living organisms but also on a fair amount of speculation. Further, he argues that Aristotle's remarks about females in his biological writings did not tend to promote the inferior status of ancient Greek women.
Strachan Donnelley
Ceara Donnelley and Bruce Jennings (eds)
- Published in print:
- 2018
- Published Online:
- May 2018
- ISBN:
- 9780813167275
- eISBN:
- 9780813175669
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- University Press of Kentucky
- DOI:
- 10.5810/kentucky/9780813167275.003.0007
- Subject:
- Environmental Science, Environmental Studies
Developing the theme of the preceding chapter on the need for greater ecological literacy in American society, this chapter discusses the difficulty that scientists and other technical experts have ...
More
Developing the theme of the preceding chapter on the need for greater ecological literacy in American society, this chapter discusses the difficulty that scientists and other technical experts have in fulfilling their ethical responsibilities as civic educators in a democratic society. Ecological issues are truly complex, but actual scientific uncertainty and disagreement are grossly distorted and magnified for commercial or ideological ends. The result is a mistaken public perception. Only scientists themselves can correct this serious distortion.Less
Developing the theme of the preceding chapter on the need for greater ecological literacy in American society, this chapter discusses the difficulty that scientists and other technical experts have in fulfilling their ethical responsibilities as civic educators in a democratic society. Ecological issues are truly complex, but actual scientific uncertainty and disagreement are grossly distorted and magnified for commercial or ideological ends. The result is a mistaken public perception. Only scientists themselves can correct this serious distortion.
Riane Eisler
- Published in print:
- 2019
- Published Online:
- August 2019
- ISBN:
- 9780190935726
- eISBN:
- 9780190935757
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/oso/9780190935726.003.0002
- Subject:
- Psychology, Cognitive Psychology, Social Psychology
If, as some evolutionary psychologists claim, we are inexorably driven by evolutionary imperatives of ruthless selfishness, it follows that we cannot solve problems such as violence and oppression. ...
More
If, as some evolutionary psychologists claim, we are inexorably driven by evolutionary imperatives of ruthless selfishness, it follows that we cannot solve problems such as violence and oppression. If genes trap us in nasty and cruel behaviors, there is no point in trying to build societies that are more humane. This chapter explores a very different evolutionary perspective that recognizes the human capacities for change and choice and emphasizes biocultural interactions over determinism. This emerging perspective on human origins and behavior hypothesizes, on the basis of much data, that the default tendencies in our species are toward prosocial helping and caring behaviors and concludes that, although we cannot create a world that is totally free of violence and cruelty, we can construct cultures with low levels of violence and oppression where our capacities for creativity, caring, and consciousness are allowed to develop and flourish. It points to a plethora of evidence—from ethnography, history, and psychology to genetics, neuroscience, and ethology—that provides a shock-and-awe set of counter-arguments to the assumption that selfishness and violence govern human nature (including what Darwin had to say about this) and uses the Biocultural Partnership-Domination Lens to show how gene-environment interaction differs in cultures orienting to either end of the partnership-domination social continuum. This chapter melds what we are learning about brain development and functioning with multiple avenues of scholarship to reveal otherwise invisible patterns that can help us move forward.Less
If, as some evolutionary psychologists claim, we are inexorably driven by evolutionary imperatives of ruthless selfishness, it follows that we cannot solve problems such as violence and oppression. If genes trap us in nasty and cruel behaviors, there is no point in trying to build societies that are more humane. This chapter explores a very different evolutionary perspective that recognizes the human capacities for change and choice and emphasizes biocultural interactions over determinism. This emerging perspective on human origins and behavior hypothesizes, on the basis of much data, that the default tendencies in our species are toward prosocial helping and caring behaviors and concludes that, although we cannot create a world that is totally free of violence and cruelty, we can construct cultures with low levels of violence and oppression where our capacities for creativity, caring, and consciousness are allowed to develop and flourish. It points to a plethora of evidence—from ethnography, history, and psychology to genetics, neuroscience, and ethology—that provides a shock-and-awe set of counter-arguments to the assumption that selfishness and violence govern human nature (including what Darwin had to say about this) and uses the Biocultural Partnership-Domination Lens to show how gene-environment interaction differs in cultures orienting to either end of the partnership-domination social continuum. This chapter melds what we are learning about brain development and functioning with multiple avenues of scholarship to reveal otherwise invisible patterns that can help us move forward.
