Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

chiefmors t1_jd31w3f wrote

This was mildly interesting until it claimed that not acknowledging rocks as entities capable of being subjects (in the same way we do brains) was sexist and because my ontology took too many cues from penises rather than vaginas.

Ah, psychoanalysis, I hope you never change.

3

Otarih OP t1_jd34aqi wrote

I wouldn't call it sexist because that is more a term on the stratum of human discourse. The idea is more that it is phallogocentric bias, in the metaphysical sense. I don't believe that the feminine-masculine dyad is reducible to sex in human beings. Thus there is a femininity inside the rock, but we wouldn't claim it has a vagina. Hope that helps.

−7

chiefmors t1_jd39j7e wrote

I don't like mixing phalluses with philosophy of mind, but I've long suspected I'm also just not cut out for continental philosophy.

3