The solution to feminist concerns is a world without men, a proposal which can be fully justified by the processes of critical thinking which philosophers seek to be expert in. Briefly for now...
1) The marriage between violent men and an accelerating knowledge explosion is unsustainable. This formula should have become clear at 8:15am on August 6, 1945, as a new era in human history dawned over Hiroshima Japan. If this is still unclear, just ask yourself, how much power do you want psychopaths like Putin to have?
2) No society in history has figured out how to keep the majority of peaceful men while ridding itself of the minority of violent men.
3) Thus, to have men is to have violent men, and to have violent men is to be marching blindly towards the end of the miracle of modern civilization.
Sadly, academic philosophers are not in a position to explore this revolutionary reality of the 21st century because discussing such ideas as "a world without men" in public would brand a philosopher as an "unwoke" crackpot, and such a reputation is career death to anyone who wishes to make a living as an intellectual elite.
And so we see, yet again, that trying to turn philosophy in to a business is in direct conflict with the highest calling of philosophy, which might be defined as exploring the boundaries of the group consensus in search of new ideas which can help prevent this civilization from committing suicide.
The solution to feminist concerns is a world without men, a proposal which can be fully justified by the processes of critical thinking which philosophers seek to be expert in. Briefly for now...
1) The marriage between violent men and an accelerating knowledge explosion is unsustainable. This formula should have become clear at 8:15am on August 6, 1945, as a new era in human history dawned over Hiroshima Japan. If this is still unclear, just ask yourself, how much power do you want psychopaths like Putin to have?
2) No society in history has figured out how to keep the majority of peaceful men while ridding itself of the minority of violent men.
3) Thus, to have men is to have violent men, and to have violent men is to be marching blindly towards the end of the miracle of modern civilization.
Sadly, academic philosophers are not in a position to explore this revolutionary reality of the 21st century because discussing such ideas as "a world without men" in public would brand a philosopher as an "unwoke" crackpot, and such a reputation is career death to anyone who wishes to make a living as an intellectual elite.
And so we see, yet again, that trying to turn philosophy in to a business is in direct conflict with the highest calling of philosophy, which might be defined as exploring the boundaries of the group consensus in search of new ideas which can help prevent this civilization from committing suicide.
The cliche version: If the things we want to hear could take us where we want to go, we'd already be there.