The Myth of Soulless Women

#1
If the first casualty of war is the unwelcome truth, the first weapon of the discontented is the welcome lie.


There are those who know John Chrysostom said that “the image of God is not found in Woman.”
There are those who know that Thomas Aquinas said that a woman is a defective male.
There are those who know that Aristotle said that a woman is a deficient male.
And there are those who know that an early council of bishops, held at Macon in Burgundy, France in a.d. 585 decreed that women do not have a soul. 

..... on a side note, its interesting to note how misinformation fuelled by idle hands was a thing even before the internet.
Reply
#2
Damnit! They’re onto us.
Reply
#3
Yeesh, how sad. There are some men today who think these things, and probably always will be.
Reply
#4
I was thinking the OP might have been a bit cryptic. John Chrysostom et al (as the article explains) didn't actually say those things. The source was actually an unemployed 16th century academic who published such things to make some bucks. The welcome lie resonated with the discontented, so now there are some men (and women) who think these things (about history) and probably always will.
Reply
#5
(Jan 16, 2020 04:43 AM)Anu Wrote: women do not have a soul. 

The immortal, immaterial and spiritual component of a human being is in itself a myth. Thus a myth about a myth has no meaning.

If you were talking about not having soul or that spark of creative energy, then I’d say false.
Reply
#6
(Jan 24, 2020 05:07 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote:
(Jan 16, 2020 04:43 AM)Anu Wrote: women do not have a soul. 

The immortal, immaterial and spiritual component of a human being is in itself a myth. Thus a myth about a myth has no meaning.


That's "mythical" in an existent context. But an impotent meme in that sense about a another ineffectual meme can still have socio-political effects. The background belief framework which these were born from hasn't been rendered completely powerless.

In an Abrahamic religious state, "no soul" status could result in a sub-category of humans being deprived of sufficient rights due to that or absence of related attributes. Early science research did something roughly in that context with animal experimentation, with respect to taking up Descartes' view that other creatures did not experience pain, etc. (See "Consciousness does not depend on language" and this.)

There may be no actual instance of such a regime policy in the world, but the article seems to be focusing on the negative social reaction toward such an idea. Particularly when it's falsely attributed to an individual or an organization's canon. The above would be a reason why it garners the negative reaction -- the potential political threat if the thought orientation was adhered to, regardless of factual status.

EDIT: Oops, read the first paragraph above again and went "???" with respect to noticing what the hands typed was just the opposite of what I was thinking. What's in red is the edited/added, corrected parts. (I'm not a good multi-tasker -- one focus of attention in the environment often gets scrambled up by the distraction of another.)
Reply
#7
If soulless women are mythical then all women have a soul. I don’t know how I can read it any other way.

Stuff like this used to get my attention in a philosophy class and I’d sit there in bewilderment that people would argue over something that for me made no sense. Prof loved it when I took that stance. One day the topic came up that men think about sex every 10 seconds. I told him it was stupid to argue a myth. He asked how so. I simply said, ‘for one thing, who said men think’? I did real well in that class.
Reply
#8
(Jan 24, 2020 08:42 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: If soulless women are mythical then all women have a soul. I don’t know how I can read it any other way.


My bad in terms of clarification. Typed the opposite of what I was thinking. Corrected parts indicated in red.
Reply
#9
(Jan 24, 2020 05:07 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote:
(Jan 16, 2020 04:43 AM)Anu Wrote: women do not have a soul. 

The immortal, immaterial and spiritual component of a human being is in itself a myth. Thus a myth about a myth has no meaning.

If you were talking about not having soul or that spark of creative energy, then I’d say false.
The problem with utilizing arguments with flexible premises is that one can arrive at the complete opposite conclusion by the same means. For instance, one could talk about how the notion that there is no eternal soul etc is a myth, or that the party line of militant atheism is championed by men (and women) and their so called powers of thinking and so on. When you try to take philosophy as something divorced from context (like history, value, etc) it tends to degenerate into white noise (while the raging current of history and  value flows on regardless, albeit blindly).

CC's post brings us back to that formidable playing ground of philosophy quite nicely.
Reply
#10
Did/do women who were/are accused of being soulless believe the accusation? Accusers......same thing.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)