Hmmmm...

Here's a comment I must come back to when I have more time...


Demonslayer said...
It was said that if women are less reasonble, they're less human. There needs a philosophical distinction. All humans are reasonable insofar as they all have reason. But the exercise of that reason can vary from person to person and from day to day. The reason by itself stays the same, but the exercise of it does not. Plato and Aristotle talk about how the passions and emotions can inhibit the exercise of emotions. Aristotle claims that women have more powerful emotions and thus it inhibits the exercise of her reason, compared to men. I'm not saying I agree with Aristotle right now, but I'm saying that it's wrong to say that Aristotle is calling women less human, because he didn't say that and it doesn't logically follow from his arguments either.

Now, I'll give my own opinion on the whole deal...

I've thought about it like the three Platonic Divisions of the Soul: Passions, Spirited, and Reason. It's generally recognized that women are more emotional, and thus, I presume, may have greater affiliation or emphasis for the spirited part of the soul (as Plato explains how the spirited part pertains to the emotions).

Now, since men are less emotional ... are they more reasonable? Aristotle says says. But I would note that they are also more passionate. Just as emotions can cloud a woman's reason, moreso can the passions cloud man's reason. The passions are understood to be more disorderly and in need of correction than the spirited, and thus, I think, men can attain a greater degree of disorder and unreason. I think this is obvious. Men in our current culture seem much more driven by their passions especially in sex. Does anyone disagree with that? Men are pigs, most of the time. Women are less so. That's my impression. Thus, I would say, women aren't less responsible for sin ... I think men are less responsible for sin. They have more influences sapping their reason.

I'm pretty sure I'm right about what I just said, and what I'm about to say next, I'm slightly less sure of:

Plato said that the way for reason to gain control of the passions is through the spirited. The spirited side must be moved emotionally in the right direction by a good influence. With the spirited side then being converted to heeding to the good it thus heeds to reason. With the alliance of the spirited and reasonable parts of the soul, they are able to conquer the passions and bring the whole soul under control.

Now, I think women, pertaining more to emotion, thus acts as the means by which the passions of the male are brought under control, just as the spirited is the means for the passions to become orderly under reason. One can see this, as women are always seeking to better men and make them responsible and less barbaric and such. It's foremost important for women to be good in society I think then, otherwise men have no hope.

Actually, I'm pretty sure I'm right about that too. It's this that I'm slightly unsure about:

When men are tamed by women, men make a dramatic conversion and become very reasonable. Women, when they marry a man, hope that they can change him. Men, when they marry a woman, hope that she'll stay exactly the same. I think that generally true. Women are usually good right from the start, comparatively, just as the spirited is closer to reason than the passions. Women are naturally more reasonable from the start ... but, when men are converted and tamed, they seem to dramatically flip flop to the opposite side of the soul. They become very reasonable. Women seem to stay more the same throughout their life, comparatively. They seem to hover more in the lands of the spirited, comparatively. They always keep reason from surrender to the passions, but they operate the emotions in the right way. Men, when they see a good woman, want to change, just as the spirited can change the soul.

Reason, Aritotle and Plato argues, is more divine and should obviously be the ruling force over the emotions and passions. The people more able to exercise reason are thus naturally more fit rulers.

Therefore, in very ordered and civilized societies, its natural that men have more leading roles, because their souls are ordered and their reason is operative, moreso, might I hypothesize, than women. When society is corrupt and wild passions are disordered, men are more disorder and on the polar opposite of the soul. Women, since they seemed grounded more in the middle of the soul, the spirited, they are closer to reason than the passionate men. Thus, in disordered society, women are more fit leaders, because the men are crazy. That's why, dare I say, that in today's corrupt culture, there are more women ruling the culture. I'm not saying they shouldn't, because if the men were suddenly given those positions, things would be even worse, because they would be ruled by their passions, as commonly seen in the Culture of Death.

What ought be done is women to be moral and convert men, so that men can once again be responsible leaders. When converted, men, I'll boldly assert, start ruling women. That's biblical and grounded in natural reason, I think.

What do you think? I think this might be true. But I'm not 100%.

I've run this theory across of few women and they seemed to agree. What do you think?