The Forward - The Thinker
This term’s issue on ‘Women in Philosophy’ sheds light on the unheard voices of our unsung heroes For far too many centuries, the world has focused only on the male thinkers This isn't the case due to any added sophistication and refinement of ideas from the male counterparts, but simply due to the fact systematically, women's voices were utterly shushed The collection of articles will aim to outline our world’s most seminal, feminist voices and their respective contributions to modern-day philosophy From Aspasia to Laura Bassi to Hannah Arendt, the female perspective of the wider world will be outlined for Godolphin
Yours Sincerely, Aurore and The Thinker Team
SimonedeBeauvoir,bornin1908inFrance,wasaninfluentialmodernphilosopher,andakeyfigure inthedevelopmentofthefeministmovement.
Beauvoir’sbook,PyrrhusandCinéas,publishedin1944,arguesthatweareallradicallyand absolutelyfree.Shearguesthatnopersoncandirectlyaffectanother’sfreedom.Whetherthis appliestotherelationshipbetweenaslaveownerandaslave,oranexecutionerandacriminal,she arguesthatweareallimmunetopower,soourinnerfreedomcannotbeaffectedbypowerand figuresofauthority.However,shedoesacknowledgetheaffectspeoplehaveoneachotherand arguesthatother’sactionscanaffecttheconditionsinwhichpeopleactontheirfreedoms, therefore,wemuststillacceptresponsibilityforouractions.Becauseweareallradicallyfree,we haveanendlessnumberofopportunitiesandpossibleactions.Beauvoirarguesthatwearebrought upinaworldwithcertainvaluesandmeaningplaceduponitbyhumans.However,weallhavethe freedomtoreject,acceptorchangethesevaluesandmeanings.Shearguesthatotherpeopleneed tobepersuadedofourownvaluesforthemtohavemeaningandsignificanceintheworld.This posesthequestionofhowwecanberadicallyfree,andthereforeisolatedfromimposedvaluesand meaningsbyotherhumans,whilestillcreatingacommunityofallies,giventhatallotherhumansare radicallyfreelikeus.Thisleadshertoaskthequestionofunderwhichcircumstanceswecancreatea communityofallies.Onthis,shearguesthattoappealtoother'sfreedomwemusthavetheability toexpressourbeliefstoothersandhavetheabilitytoovercomethosetryingtosilenceus.But, additionally,theremustbeothersthatareabletorespondtoourexpressionsofbeliefs,andforthis tobethecase,theymustnotbefullyabsorbedbytheneedtosurviveandmust,therefore,have accesstocertainmaterialconditionssuchashealth,leisureandsecurity.Thisleadshertobelieve thatitisonlypossibleforourideastoappealtoothersifequalityisreachedthroughbothpolitical equalityandequalaccesstomaterialconditions.Shearguesthattheethicalthingtodoistostrive towardstheseconditionsofmaterialandpoliticalequality,andindoingso,ifpersuasionis insufficient,violencecanbeused.
Beauvoirpublishedanotherbookonfreedomin1947called TheEthicsofAmbiguity.Shearguesthat ourconsciousnessdesirestofindthemeaningofbeing,andusesitsfreedomtodiscoverthis.Our consciousnessalsodesirestogivemeaningtotheworld,whichcanleadtotwooutcomesdepending ontheattitudeinwhichthisattemptatdiscoveryisdone.Thefirstoutcomeisexploitation,iffinding meaningisdonewithamoodofdomination.Thesecondoutcomeisliberation,ifdonewithamood ofhope.Shebelievesthatthereislotsofambiguityintermsofthemeaningoftheworld.She
describes how we always fail to fulfil our desire to find the meaning of the world, and she rejects trying to find absolutes in order to give solutions to ethical dilemmas She instead thinks that we should analyse ethical ideas in terms of our own limits to finding the truth, and in doing so recognize that the future is open She rejects the idea of God, which claims to give an absolute ethical conclusion to the meaning of life and the morality of certain actions. She argues it allows us to avoid responsibility for creating our own conditions She argues that we must accept that the future is undecided and will be affected by our present decisions, and that this mentality will benefit both the present moment and the future She argues that evil is a result of denying our own freedom and other's freedom Therefore, we are responsible for providing conditions needed for freedom ( the material and political conditions of equality as discussed in Pyrrhus and Cinéas), and that it is impossible to live our own freedom without permitting the freedom of others
According to Beauvoir, as children we are free from responsibility but are still able to experience the freedom of imagination, meaning we can experience the joys but not the pressures that freedom brings
When entering adolescence, we are given the freedom of responsibility, and have to choose our own moral decisions However, some of us look to return to the stage we experienced as children, where we had limited freedom This turns people to following the authority of others, as to reduce their own responsibilities that come with this newly gained freedom. She believes that if in doing so we passively or actively accept and participate in the immoral actions of authority, this would be unethical She argues that some people refuse that we are free, others misunderstand what being free means, and ethical people recognize other people's freedom and the existence of freedom, while trying to protect people from the exploitation of others.
Later on in her life, Beauvoir became better known for her feminist works, including one of her most famous books : The Second Sex, published in 1949 Here, she is discussing what it means to be a woman. Her central claim in the book is about how women are the Other and men are the essential being She argues that women are thought of as the Other due to societal beliefs that women are
madeformenasanobject,andtherefore,theythemselvesarenotviewedwithasmuch independenceorvalue.Shearguesthatidealsforwomenarebothextremelydifficulttoreach,but alsocontradictory,creatinganillusionthatwomenarenaturallyinferiortomenwhentheyare unabletomeettheseideals.Sheclaimsthatcertainideologiesusethebiologicaldifferences betweensexestooppresswomenandcastthemastheOther.Inherbook,sheadvocatesfor women'sequalitywhilststillacknowledgingtheirsexualdifferencestomen.Shearguesthatboth menandwomenareradicallyfree,somustbetreatedequally.However,womenexperiencelife differently,astheyexperienceitthroughadifferentbody.Andforher,tobeawomanisto experienceyourbodyinacertainway.However,Beauvoirdoesnotclaimthatexperiencingbeinga womanonlyhastodowithone'sbiology,butalsothehistorical,economicandculturalassumptions thatareplaceduponwomen.Themostrenownedlineinherbookistranslatedas"Oneisnotborn butbecomesawoman".Shearguesthatsocietalfactorsalongwithwomen'sparticularexistencein theirbodiesiswhatmakesthemwomen.
Beauvoirarguesthatwomenlackthesolidarityneededtostopthepatriarchalsystem,astheyfocus toomuchontheirdifferences(eg.throughrace,religion,classetc.)ratherthantheirunityas females.So,womenmustactwiththeabsolutefreedomtheyhave,whilstnotunethicallyignoring theunityandtogethernesstheyhavewithotherwomen.Shedoesnotargueforlackofromantic connectionbetweenmenandwomen,butratherarguesthatanequalrelationshiphasbeenreached ifthoseintherelationshipsarebothsubjectsandobjectsoftheirromanticdesires.Shebelieved thatwomenmustunderstandthattheydon'tneedtobelikemeninordertobefree,asthisidea woulddismisstherealityofthesexualdifferencesofherbody.
SimonedeBeauvoirfurtherexplorestheideaoftheirbeingamarginalisedOtherinsociety,through examiningitthroughtheelderly.Shedoesthisinherbookpublishedin1970, TheComingofAge. ShediscusseshowtheelderlyareturnedintotheOther(justasthewomenwereinherbook The SecondSex).Shearguesthatthisisaresultofnegativesocietalviewstowardsageing.Shearguesthat theelderlyareviewedastheOtherduetobothbiology,whichmayresultinthemhavingahindered accesstotheworld,theelderly’slackofengagementwiththeworldbytheirownchoice,andalso duetosocietalstigmaplacedaroundageing.ShearguesthatifweweretofollowMarxistideals (idealsofcommunismandequality)neithertheelderlyorwomenwouldbeviewedasOther. However,shealsoacceptstheappealofviolenceanddominationandacceptsthatheridealoffull equalityislikelyunattainable.
In various pieces of her work, Beauvoir examines the idea of self. She believed that people’s circumstances, including one’s physical body, economic conditions, and cultural circumstances that they have been born with do not restrict the possibilities in their life. She argues that our existence and life is shaped by our decisions, of which we have many to choose from due to our absolute freedom.
Simone de Beauvoir's theories placed radical freedom at the core, through her ideas of the power of figures of authority, equality, the meaning of life, feminism and ideas on self
By Helen Basi - BiographyPatriarchy?
Ashumans,weoftenturnablindeyetotherootcauseofourproblems.Itseemsoftenenoughthat ignoranceisbliss,andintherevolutionaryfieldofphilosophythisisnolessthecaseaswelaudPlato, AristotleandHippocrateswithoutrecognitionforthebiasbehindtheirscriptures.Indeedwithin eachinfamoustextarereferencestotheinferiorityofthefemalerace,emphasisingtheneedfor subjugationandtotalsubmissiontotheconstructofmasculinity.HenceIpropose,arethegrandiose edificesofthought,erectedbythemostreveredmindsthroughouthistory,complicitinperpetuating asystemthathascontinuedtooppresswomenforcenturies?
Aristotle’spoliticalphilosophy,asexpoundedinhiswork"Politics,"positedahierarchicalsocietyin whichwomenwererelegatedtosubordinate,domesticroles.Hearguedthatwomenwere inherentlyinferiortomen,bothphysicallyandintellectually,andthereforeunsuitedforparticipation ingovernanceandpubliclife;hepreachedthatthe naturalorderofsocietynecessitatedtheruleofmen overwomen.Thiswasaccentuatedinhisbiological treatisessuchas"GenerationofAnimals"and "HistoryofAnimals,"whereinheperpetuatedthe ideaofwomen'sinferioritybasedpurelyontheir reproductivebiology.Hecharacterisedwomenas incompleteorrather,defectiveversionsofmen, attributingtheirperceiveddeficienciestotheir reproductiveorgansandabilityforchildbirth.
AristotleandGreekphilosopherGalenbelievedina "one-sexmodel,"whichpositedthatwomenwere essentiallyimperfectmales,(seentopossessthe samefundamentalreproductivestructureasmen, theonlydifferencebeingthatfemalegenitaliawas insidethebody,notoutsideofit).Thusthey concludedthat"womenhaveexactlythesame organsasmen,butinexactlythewrongplaces" reinforcingthenotionoffemaleinferioritybasedon corporealitywhichcontinuestooppresswomenin themodernday,bearingweighttomore contemporaryissuessuchaswomeninsport,maternitydiscriminationandabortion.
Hippocratesnotoriouslypropagatedtheconceptof“hysteria”,derivedfromtheGreekwordfor uterus:awordthatcontinuestocategoriseandstereotypeirrationalityandinstabilitythathe suggestscanonlybeintrinsicwithinwomen.Hebelievedthatthevariousemotionalresponses exhibitedbywomenwerecausedbyawanderinguterusseekingtofulfilitsreproductivefunction; suchwastheinherenttelosofwomen.Indeedthisnarrativeisincreasinglyprevalentinthemodern day:amancanreactbutawomanonlyoverreact.Hippocratesevenwritesonbiological determinisminhiswork“OntheNatureofChild”suggestingthatmalesuperioritybeginsinthe
womb : he suggested that male embryos developed more efficiently than female embryos accentuating the preexisting belief of the inherent physical and intellectual superiority of men.
Indeed these ideas pervaded civil society so much so that they were internalised by many of our beloved female philosophers. We see this in Hypatia rebuffing a student who developed amorous affections for her by flinging her bloody menstrual rags at him, chastising him for loving the unclean body over transcendent beauty. Hypatia detests her feminine body and believes it to be a vessel that plays into patriarchal desire, satisfying their need to turn women into objects of sexual gratification and child bearing and she mourns women’s inability to transcend the body on Earth. We see that Hypatia, despite her philosophical prodigy, despite her intellect and reverence as a philosopher within the city, is still reduced to and pursued as a sexual object, who is still subject to menstruation, a feminine condition she will never escape. Indeed this sentiment is shared by thousands of women worldwide : the idea that as long as we exist in society, we are not perceived as people but as inferior beings in the minds of the men that dominate governmental composition, with a stereotype, a narrative imposed upon us from which we may never escape.
But, times are changing and the tides are shifting, and we find ourselves in an era where women are more powerful than they have ever been. It is clear that centuries of philosophy have introduced and ingrained misogynistic ideas within civilisation and it is clear that these form the foundation of societies today However there is one fundamental difference : women are refusing to allow the patriarchy to continue to subjugate them. Though attitudes towards women are inherently difficult to alter within this generation and relies on the shaping of ideology for generations to come, we find ourselves in a society that actively condemns the narrative of the patriarchy, works to reverse its damage and devotes itself to diminish its influence. Women truly can have it all, they just need to believe it.
By Antara Martins - Topical ArticlePhilippa Foot’s Trolley Problem
One of the most renowned thought experiments associated with utilitarianism is the trolley problem which details a fictional scenario where an onlooker has the choice to save five people in danger of being hit by a trolley, by diverting the trolley to kill just one person. However, what is less well known is the fact that this hypothetical was devised by 20th century English philosopher, Philippa Foot.
Philippa Foot created the ‘trolley problem’ in 1967 as a way to test moral intuitions regarding the doctrine of double effect and utilitarianism. The thought experiment raises the question of why it seems permissible to steer a trolley aimed at five people toward one person while it seems immoral to do something like killing one healthy man to use his organs to save five people who will otherwise die. This suggests that the theory of utilitarianism which states ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’, appears to only be justifiable in specific circumstances. The trolley problem inspired many alternative circumstances to further explore intuitions and the relevance of conventional moral doctrines. The core question that these dilemmas emphasise is whether or not it is ethical to actively inhibit the utility of an individual if doing so produces a greater utility for other individuals.
Through the trolley circumstance alone, many slight distinctions in the set up could entirely change the moral implications of prioritising the majority over a minority. For example, consider the exact same scenario except instead of pushing a lever in order to stop the trolley from trampling five people, you’d have to push the fat man standing next to you onto the tracks. This has led to attempts to find a relevant moral distinction between the two cases. One potential contrast between the two scenarios could be that in the original case, no harm is being intended towards anyone and harming the one individual is simply a side effect of pulling the lever and thus diverting the trolley saving the five people. However, in the fact man case, harming the individual is an integral part of the plan to save the five people. This solution is essentially an application of the doctrine of double effect, which determines that you may take action that leads to negative side effects, but deliberately intending harm, even for righteous causes, is immoral. So, an action is justifiable even if the harm to the innocent person is foreseen, so long as it is not intended.
Through the model of the trolley problem, Foot explored why in all circumstances it isn’t justifiable to kill the individual in order to save the majority? Foot argues that negative rights are generally more significant than positive rights. Negative rights would involve explicitly causing harm to an individual or group whereas positive rights may lead to a burden in order to prevent a fatal consequence from occurring. In the fat man scenario, an individual’s negative rights are being violated in order to meet the positive rights of others, and this is unethical as the negative rights have priority over the positive rights. Contrastingly in the original scenario no negative rights are being infringed to meet positive rights; the situation pits the negative rights of the five against the negative rights of one, and both choices involve breaching someone’s negative rights. In this instance, it is optimal to minimise the violation of negative rights by pushing the lever
Overall,PhilippaFoot’strolleyproblemraisesquestionsaboutwhetherornotitisrighttoactively inhibittheutilityofanindividualifdoingsoproducesagreaterutilityforotherindividuals.Her workhasinspiredmanydebatesandconsiderationssurroundingrealworldapplicationsof challengingscenariosinvolvingtherightsofminoritiesandthemaximalutilityandcontinuestobe veryrelevanttothismodernage.
ByMayaErkman-ExplanationofTheoryThe life and work of Mary Wollstonecraft
Mary Wollstonecraft is widely thought of as ‘the first feminist’, however another lesser known female philosopher had published feminist texts almost a century prior. Mary Astell’s A Serious Proposal to the Ladies is one of the most important and neglected works advocating the establishment of women’s education. The text argues that women are morally inferior to men and provides a two part remedy after analysing the problem. Its reception was so controversial that Astell responded with a lengthy sequel, A Serious Proposal to the Ladies part II, wherein a method is offered for the improvement of their minds. The cause of great infamy, Astell’s Proposal was imitated by Defoe in his “An Academy for Women,” mocked in the Tatler and other reputable papers of the time, and satirised on the stage.
The first chapter of Astell’s book addresses the problem with women, she strangely does not believe they lack rights, but rather they themselves lack a sense of internal freedom and self control, leading them to be governed too much by their emotions. Furthermore she states women pay too much attention to material things such as appearance and wealth, therefore falling into these feminine associated vices such as vanity and pride. Going on to address the cause, Astell blames poor education and misjudgment of real values as the reason for women lacking the “judgement and skill to discern between reality and pretence”. The strong societal forces difficult to overcome with rationality “render our selves incapable of any serious and improving thought’ and Astell recognises the strong societal disapproval women who try to take such self improving steps should face.
Moving onto the operative section of the writing, Astell encourages the establishment of an all female educational community, composed of women who have retreated from the world and have completely devoted themselves to education and virtue. Astell believes this would shield them from the dangers and temptation of the world, and instead they can safely develop their own habits in which to develop their own self knowledge. And of course Astell being a strong disapproval of men, states women shall be kept away from ‘the rude attempts of designing men’, which although admittedly is true in some cases, seems rather extreme and quite harsh. Furthermore removal from such public institutions would completely isolate women from men and leave them to further dominate an already patriarchal society with little to no resistance. The final part of astells cure proposes reading, philosophical reflection and emotional control/understanding as a means of allowing women to understand their immortal souls value, and move away from such intrinsic material validation of which they previously relied upon.
Despitehercommitmenttothefemalesex’simprovement,Astell’spositionasafeministhasbeen doubted,astheresultsofhermethodwouldclearlynotcreateasocietalchangethatpresents womenwithrights,rathertheirinternaltransformation.Thisisratherdifferentfrommoreliberal feministswhocamealonglatersuchasthesuffragetteswhobelievedincollectiveresistanceto oppression.Astellstronglybelievesthatmenandwomenarefundamentallyequalintermsof intellectualandmoralcapabilities,womenhavesimplylackedtheabilitytoprovethemselvesinthis wayduetodistractionsandpressures.Herstructuredanalysisofhowwomencometolack autonomyinsociety,andheradvocacyofwomen’seducation,goesbeyondmanypriorfeminist writers,asheruseofphilosophicalargumenttoachieveherendsrecognisesherasakey predecessortofeministphilosophytoday.
ByHermioneBanks-Biography
The life and work of Margaret Lucas Cavendish
Margaret Lucas Cavendish, or the Duchess of Newcastle was a profound philosopher, author, poet, playwright and scientist who lived until she was 50 in the seventeenth century (1623-1673).Her philosophical ideals were discovered from her published collections of Philosophical Letters in 1664, as well as many of her orations, which were published two years prior. In her childhood, she was the youngest of 8 children and had no formal education, instead relying on libraries and tutors, although she later thought that the latter was more for “formality than benefit”. Cavendish greatly influenced society via her writings on Natural Philosophy and her feministic views that were prevalent in her play Love’s Adventures, yet her specific views differ in her various books. These views include Materialism, Vitalism and Panpsychism.
All of the three views are under the umbrella term called Natural Philosophy, now known as empirical science. As Cavendish was a scientist, her natural philosophy allows her to combine her physics knowledge with her religion. Her book, Grounds of Natural Philosophy is important not only because it was Cavendish’s final articulation of her metaphysical knowledge but also because it outlined her fundamental views on “the nature of nature”—or the base substance and mechanics of all natural matter, and vividly demonstrated her probabilistic approach to philosophical enquiry. Cavendish wrote half a dozen works on natural philosophy. Indeed, natural philosophy constituted the largest part of her philosophical output as well as part of her writing as a whole.
Although she did not mention it often, it is said that she was a Christian as in Physical Opinions she states that “Pray account me not an Atheist, but believe as I do in God Almighty ” Cavendish argues that her religion did not matter in the face of her reasons and philosophy and therefore did not debate God’s existence in most of her works.
Materialism is a philosophical monism, or, the belief that everything in the world is composed of a single substance, and in this case, it is matter. This is an influence on Hobbes' philosophy, that the world is entirely composed of matter, that other substances could not affect nature. For Cavendish, complex systems such as the human brain are also composed of distinctive matter in motion. Furthermore, there is proof of her materialistic views dating back to the beginning, when she wrote Philosophical Fancies, published in 1653. Cavendish argued for materialism in nature. In the first two chapters, which she reprinted as Philosophical and Physical Opinions in 1655, she claims that nature is an infinite material, sometimes describing it as “the substance of infinite matter”. Nearing the end of her life, she published the Observations Upon Experimental Philosophy in 1666, which claims that all actions, sense and reason are physical. This is proof that she holds the belief that nothing can control matter, though matter controls all.
Vitalism is the theory that origin and phenomena of life are dependent by force. Cavendish believed that all matter is alive, whether inanimate or not. She began writing about Vitalism when she outwardly rejected Mechanism, something that was associated with Materialism in her time. The difference between the two were that Mechanists believed all things to be of the same value, whereas Vitalism believed that being a living organism separates us from inanimate objects, though they both believe in matter being the substance of life. She claimed that the substance can not directly transfer motion from one body to another, since motion is a property of the body that possesses it (whereas animate objects, eg. humans can).Rather, what we see is like a “dance”, in which each body moves according to its own, internal principle, such that a pattern is created by the
dancers.Sheexplicitlypointsoutthisdancemetaphorinherfirstworkof1653(Philosophical Fancies)andagainin1655.Her vitalism,similartoherotherbeliefs, changesslightlythroughoutherlife, andinthe1660’sshereplacedher dancemetaphorwithwordssuchas “imitation”,elaboratingonthefactof somethingbeingcopied.
Panpsychism,closelylinkedtothe othertwo,isthebeliefthatalllifeis alive.Thephrasewascoinedby FrancescoPatriziinthesixteenth century,andderivesfromthetwo Greekwords“pan”(all)and“psyche” (soulormind).In1668and1671 respectively,Cavendishtalksaboutthe mentalityandlifewithincreaturesthat aren’thumans,thougharestill animate,suchasantsandcrocodiles.
Shesupposesthatitiscommon knowledgetoknowthatanimalsand insectsalsoholdintelligence.She debatesoneofherbeliefsbyfirst pointingouttheobvious,thathumansareabletothink.Shethenextendsthis,byasking“ifthe physicalelementsthatmakeupthebrainareentirelynon-mental–andexhibitnotraceofmentality –howcouldtheyadduptoalargerbrainthatthinks?”.Cavendishansweredthisquestionby explainingthatthesenon-metalelements,andinanimateobjectsingeneral,thereforehavetohold mentality,orproto-mentality.Insummary,shebelievedthatallmatterisliving,inanimateornot, althoughshedidn’tbelievethattheyequatetotheknowledgeofhumans-thereforebeingopposed totheMechanismphilosophy.Quote,in1668,“therearedifferentKnowledges,indifferent Creatures; theyaredifferentKnowledgespropertotheirkind,(as,Animal-kind,Vegetable-kind, Mineral-kind,Elemental-kind)… ”
Unlikeherworkonnaturalphilosophy,herthoughtsonsocialorpoliticalissuesappearineither worksoffictionorinessaysstronglyconditionedbyrhetoricaldevices.Forexample,in Orationsof DiversSorts, shespeaksinavarietyofvoices,imaginingseveralfictionalcharacterswhopresenta numberofpositionsonissues,withoutindicatingtheauthor’sownviews.Similarly,infiction,shehas severalcharactersadvocateforphilosophicalpositions,whichcomplicatesanyattributionofthat viewwemightmaketotheauthorherself.Inherfamousbook, TheBlazingWorld,Cavendish appearsasacharacter,whoadvisestheEmpressofsaidBlazingWorldonhowhersocietyshouldbe governed.Inthiscase,wemightfeelfairlyconfidentthattheviewsespousedbythecharacterof Cavendishagreewiththeauthor’sown,butthisisn’tthesameformanyofherworks.Thisispartially whyhistoriansandphilosophersdonotknowmuchaboutherviewsoutsideofNaturalPhilosophy.
MargaretCavendishisknownasanearlyfeminist,anditshouldbeofnosurprisewhy.Inthe OrationsofDivers,shelamentshowmenaretreatedbeyondhowwomenare,possessingallthe power.Cavendishpresentswomenasaccomplishedandsuccessfulinothertextsaswell.In Bellin Campo (1662),shehasagroupofwomenformanarmyforthesakeofshowingmenthatwomen shouldbe“co-partners”ingovernment,and“helpruletheWorld”.Intheend,thewomendefeatthe enemiestogetherwiththemen,showingherviewtowardsgenderequalityandfeminism.
In conclusion,weseethatMargaretLucasCavendish,orDuchessofNewcastle-upon-Tyne,wasa greatinfluenceoncultureandthebeliefbehindNaturalPhilosophy,andbasedpartofher philosophicalknowledgeonHobbes,aswellasotherreligiousphilosopherssuchasDescartes(who shelaterdisagreedduetohisviewonmovementwithnatureandmachinery).Hersocialstatus upliftedherworks—12ofwhichbeingoriginal,whilstshewroteinatimeofimmensepolitical upheaval.Adifferencefromotherfemaleauthors,atthetime,wasthatCavendishexclusivelywrote underherownnametoemphasiseherfeminismandidentity.
ByMiaohaoChen-Biography
LauraBassiwasoneofthemostseminal,feministscientistsofthe18thcentury.Herworknotonly expandeduponNewton’stheoryonlightsandopticsbutitalsodelvedintohumanrationalismand itsexpansionthroughthegainingofknowledge.Bassi’sworkwassomewhatcontroversialin18th centuryItaly,infact,herthesispublishedattheUniversityofBolognawasheavilyscrutinisedbyboth membersoftheChurchandscientificpioneers.ThusleavingBassitodefendherworkinfrontof CardinalLambertiniintheBolognaTownHall,amomentwhichredefinedawomensrolewithin science,philosophyanddiscovery.
Bassiwasbornin1711,toalowermiddleclassfamilyandastheonlydaughteroflawyerGiuseppe Bassi.Fromayoungage,itbecameevidentthat Bassi’scuriositywasaboveanyofherpeers. Herparentsrecognisedthiskeenintellectand thusensuredshewasprivatelyeducatedunder thesupervisionofLorenzoSteganiandlater GaetanoTacconi.Tacconifurtherrecognised Bassi’sincredibleaptitudeandwasessentialin introducingBassitotheinnercirclesof Bolognesesocietyandmostimportantlyto CardinalProsperoLambertini.Bassi’sgiftfor knowledgestruckhimasextraordinary,agift fromGodeven,andthusheinstructedthe senatetograntheradegreeandpermissionto studyattheUniversityofBolognain1732. Evidently,Bassiprogressedquicklythroughthe ranksoftheuniversityasshebecamean honorarymemberofthecity’sscienceacademy, soonafterthisshepresentedherthesisandcommencedherdegreeinPhilosophywhichallowedher tobecomepartofthecollegeofphilosophers. Moreover,Bassipubliclydefendedforty-nine philosophicaltheses.Theywerenotdissertationsinanymodernsense,butshortLatinstatements, worthyofdebatebetweenprofessorsandstudents,derivedfromreadingtheentirecorpusof naturalandphilosophicalknowledgesinceantiquity. ThereforeonMay12,1732,shebecamethe firstwomantobeawardedadoctorateinscience,andthesecondwomantoreceiveaDoctorof Philosophy.FollowingthisachievementBassibecamefamousastheBologneseMinerva,afterthe RomanGoddessofWisdom.Soon,Bassiovertookherfellowstudentsandachievedanadditional thesisaswellasauniversityteachingqualificationandlaterheldherfirsteverlectureat Archiginnasio.
Bassiisthesecondwomangraduatewecandocumentanywhereintheworld.Herpredecessor’s experiencehelpedtodefineherpossibilities.Asin1678,theVenetianElenaLucreziaCornaro PiscopiareceivedaphilosophydegreefromtheUniversityofPadua,thiswasanevidently controversialaction,onewhichwasdaredtoberepeateduntilthenotable.Throughout hertimeat theUniversityofBologna,Bassiwasanavidadvocatefortherightsofwomenineducationand scienceasawhole.ThroughherroleasLambertini’sprotegee,Bassicampaignedextensivelyfor equalrepresentationofthetwosexesinacademia.Herprominentpositionwithintheuniversity
The life and work of Laura Bassichallenged domestic gender roles as well as opening up the wider discussion on whether or not women should have the opportunity to take up work in sectors such as science and philosophy
The ambition to further challenge Italian society is reflected through Bassi’s extensive adoration for Newtonian physics Although she was heavily advised by Tacconi to streamline her studies upon Cartesian Science - which was notably less controversial, Laura remained adamant in her interest and made it her mission to introduce Newtonian ideas to Italy. In fact, she went on to teach young people about British physics for a further 28 years, even though at times Bassi’s lessons were somewhat ‘censored’ as they became required to be ‘private’ However, this simply aided Bassi in being able to teach what she wanted to and thus Newton’s Laws and Franklinian Electrical ideas were dispersed to the Italian youth
Through a philosophical lens, Bassi held an empiricist view of the natural world. As a scientist, her analytical approach to the naturalistic world highlights her idea of it being understood throughout observation, experience and empirical evidence Her extensive work on physics and hydraulics depicts her fascination on how things work and thus show that through scrutiny and analysisanswers are possible Furthermore, Bassi’s notorious 49 point defended thesis contained ideas from some of the most notable thinkers of our world. Such as Aristotle’s ideas on motion, comments on Descartes’s claims that a force cannot act at a distance and the ideas of the motion of fluids of Galileo and Torricelli
Through this, it became more and more evident that Bassi not only had an incredible understanding of groundbreaking physics, but also a deep appreciation for modern philosophy Laura Bassi is remembered as one of the most important, poignant feminist icons of the 18th century, her groundbreaking dedication to the sciences and philosophy broke the stigma regarding a womens role within the higher echelons of academia, allowing for a ripple effect of more and more female academics, not only in the University of Bologna but Europe as a whole.
By Aurore Lebrun - BiographyHannah Arendt: Author, Philosopher, Inspiration.
Hannah Arendt is remembered as one of the most prominent philosophers and political theorists of her time. Born in Germany in 1906, she was raised by her widowed mother and studied philosophy under Martin Heidegger However, she was arrested in 1933 for working for the German Federation of Zionists which was an organisation that encouraged the emigration of German Jews to Palestine After her arrest she fled to Paris, as she was Jewish and due to the rise of Hitler in Germany, antisemitism was rife Once there, she worked for a group that rescued young Jews but soon after her arrival in France, policies were passed that forced all Jews to report for internment As a result she was imprisoned in a detention camp in Gurs, Southwest France but managed to escape and flee Nazi Europe, seeking refuge in New York in 1941
During the 1940s, she wrote many essays and journals on anti-semitism and the treatment of Jews and later in the 1950s, began to publish several books such as The Origins of Totalitarianism and The Human Condition In 1961 she was offered the opportunity to write about the trial of Adolf Eichmann, a nazi notorious for the transportation of Jews to concentration camps. She wrote many essays on this which were eventually transcribed into a book: Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. She faced immense controversy over her reports on Eichmann. To summarise, she claimed that Eichmann was not a fundamentally evil person but rather an ordinary one capable of evil actions. She didn’t defend him and still insisted he be hanged for his crimes but she also argued that ordinary people can commit atrocities due to a lack of awareness or critical thinking. She believed that evil cannot be explained away by asserting innately evil people as the cause but instead felt many people could easily cling to abhorrent ideologies in order to feel a sense of belonging in an increasingly alienating world. This explanation was not received well, perhaps because of its terrifying implications If Arendt is to be believed, then evil can rise from mere ignorance or neglect and there is a much greater potential for it. Arendt thought that many people such as the Nazis committed abominations through a mindless dedication to a cause because it was a relief to not have to choose or think about their actions, but rather follow the instruction of others Her perspective is one that raises intriguing questions about human nature and the potential for evil within society due to her concerns about the severe impact conformity can have on morality.
All in all, Arendt is a profoundly compelling philosopher who urges us to consider the origins of evil and whose life experiences drastically influenced her philosophy It is difficult to convey the significance of Hannah Arendt and so I mean this article only as an introduction to her - a relatively succinct biography and synopsis of her primary ideas. However, I’d love to encourage you to extend
yourknowledgeofherthroughthebestwaypossible:reading.TwobookswhichI’drecommendto kickstartyourknowledgeofherwouldbe: WeareFreetoChangetheWorld byLindseyStonebridge and OnLoveandTyranny:TheLifeandPoliticsofHannahArendt byAnnHeberlein.Thefirstisabook whichencouragesreaderstoconsidertheirownlivessimilarlytohowArendtwouldhaveand teacheshowshenavigatedthroughtimesoftyrannyandtumultwhilethesecondisabiography whichexpandsonhowherlifeimpactedherpersonalpoliticalandphilosophicaltheories.
HannahArendtwasandremainsaninspirationbecauseshewasnotafraidtofacecontroversyinher pursuitofknowledge-atraitanyphilosopherwouldbeluckytohave.Sheisalsoaphilosopherwho, whileimpactedbyhergender(shedidwriteabookinrelationtothefemaleJewishidentity)wasnot definedbyit.Itisimportanttorecognisethatfemalephilosophersarenotamazingbecausetheyare women,theyarewomenthatareamazing.
ByNinaFreudenheim-BiographyPhilosophy’sgendergaphasgarneredconsiderableattentioninthetwenty-firstcentury—andfor goodreason.Thompson,Adleberg,SimsandNahmias(2016)foundthatthedegreetowhichwomen areunder-representedexceedsthatinallotherfieldsapartfromthemostmale-dominatedofthe sciences.Evidently,thereisanissuewithphilosophy’saccessibilityandappealtoanyonewhodoes notalignwithitsdominantdemographic.Onestudyfoundthatwomencomprised21percentof thosewhotaughtphilosophyatU.Scollegesanduniversities(Norlock2009)andothershave concludedthatwomenauthorbetween12and16percentofpublicationsacceptedbytop philosophyjournals(Haslanger2008;Wilhelm,Conklin,&Hassoun2017).Ithasalsobeenshown thatwomen’srelativelikelihoodofleavingphilosophyissignificantlygreaterthanthatofmen (Piovarchy2019-2020)andthismightbeexplainedbythefindingthatwomenfeelareducedsense ofbelonginginphilosophyclassrooms(2016,Thompson,Adleberg,SimsandNahmias).Inother disciplinessuchashistory,literature,anthropologyandclassics,genderhasbecomeamainstream issue.However,inphilosophy,feministtheoriesareoftenseparatedfromwhatisconsideredtobe ‘true’philosophyandopinionsaboutwhichfemalephilosopherscountasrealphilosophersareoften rootedinfalseinformationorincorrectpresumptions.
Thefoundationfortheunder-representationofwomeninphilosophywaslaidlongagoandthe inequalityweseetodayisheavilyinfluencedbytheprejudicesofthepast.Therearecountless explanationsforwhywomenhavebeenunwelcomeinphilosophythroughouthistory—although justificationsarenon-existent.Antony(2012,p.234)believesthatsexismimpactswomenmorein philosophythaninotherdisciplinesbecauseitinvolvesmorediscourseevaluatingtheformal reasoninganduniqueideasofothers.Thismeansthattherearemorefrequentopportunitiesfor prejudicetocausemarginalisation.Thesevereunder-representationofwomeninhistoriesand anthologiesofphilosophyisevidenceofthemisogynythatfemalephilosophershaveencountered.
Justafewtokenwomenwereincludedinthehistorieswrittenintheeighteenthandnineteenth centuries,mostofwhichwerenotdeemedtobeproperphilosophersandinsteaddescribedas ‘mystics’.Nowherewithinthemwasawomanidentifiedashavingusefulandoriginalideas.O’Neill (2005,p.186)refersto“thepurificationofphilosophy”asacontributortothisissue,whichwasthe eradicationoftheoriesconcernedwithreligiousissuesfrom‘real’philosophyinthelateeighteenth century.FemalephilosophershadbeenwritingaboutGodandwerethereforekeptoutofthecanon. Asaresult,agreatdealofwomen’spublishedworks,whichhadpreviouslybeenconsidered philosophical,weredisregarded.
Inthenineteenthcentury,aftertheFrenchRevolution,femalephilosophersstillfacedunequal treatment.InFrance,thefemaleauthorsymbolisedwomen’sgrowingautonomy,theprospectof theirfinancialself-relianceandeventhepotentialforthedeconstructionofthepatriarchy.Inthose days,beingaphilosophermeantinfluencingculture.Itwasapositionofpower,whichmostmen believedshouldbereservedfortheirsex.Noteventhosewiththegreatestfaithindemocracycould copewiththepossibilityofmaledominioninphilosophybeingundoneandthisresultedinimmense pressuretosetasidewhatProudhon(quotedind’Héricourt,1864,p.73)calledthe“womanwho dabbleswithphilosophy”.Aswellasthis,therewerevarioushistorianswhoputthephilosophical canontogetherinawaythatseemedto‘leadupto’theirpersonalopinions.Thismeantthatthey renderedfeministphilosophyanirrelevant,entirelyanthropologicalsubjectbecauseitcontradicted their(predominantly)misogynistattitudes.
Thelackoffemalerepresentationinhistoriesofphilosophyhasbeenanindicatortobothmaleand femalereadersthatphilosophyisadisciplineformen,whichmeansthatwomenhavebeen discouragedfrompursuingitasa career.Inthepastfiftyyears,it hasbeendifficultforwomento studyorteachphilosophy becauseinmostenvironments, maleshavebeenthenorm. Althoughthegendergapis shrinking,countlesswomen(and minoritygroups)inthefield todayhavehadtoface marginalisation,disrespect, self-doubtandharassment. Severalhavebeenforcedoutof professionalphilosophyby misogynyandunequal opportunity,ortheyhavebeen pressured into pursuing other careers. The gender gap is an issue because prejudice against women (and minority groups) can have significant impacts on philosophy itself. The growth of the discipline is restricted by close-minded attitudes, with many philosophers feeling confined by its inflexible boundaries. According to Solomon (2001, p. 101), “what was once a liberating concept [philosophy] has become constricted, oppressive, and ethnocentric”. Although the situation is improving, we must strive for an even more inclusive future for philosophy; we must aim to teach more and learn more about female philosophers.
Research is being done in order to determine which other interventions could help resolve the gender imbalance, testing whether the strategies that work in STEM fields are effective in philosophy Increasing the number of female role models for students, raising their feelings of acceptance, widening the range of careers suggested to them and introducing girls to the subject at younger ages are the four most promising methods being trialled. A study (Paxton, Figdor and Tiberius, 2012) has found that when a university has more women teaching philosophy, more female students become philosophy majors. This has led to various arguments advocating for the preferential hiring of women in philosophy departments in order to cultivate a climate which supports female students and professors. Initiatives such as journals exclusively dedicated to women in philosophy are also promoting wider involvement with feminist publishings and Superson (2011, p. 415) urges that we should continue using this kind of strategy until it is no longer necessary If we can advance further towards equality, women in philosophy will receive their due recognition and the world will become a better place.
By Ines Escobar - Topical ArticleThe Life and Philosophy of Gargi Vachaknavi
Gargi, a philosopher and scholar who lived during the Vedic period around 7th century BC, was a remarkable woman, whose knowledge and wisdom continues to inspire generations. Despite the patriarchal constraints of her time, Gargi’s determination and accomplishments left a formidable mark in the male dominated world of philosophical history, and should be acknowledged and celebrated to this day
Gargi is mainly recognised in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, an ancient Indian text. It documents Gargi’s debates with Yājñavalkya, a considerably renowned sage of the time. One of the most well known texts which shows the complexity in Gargi’s philosophies is the account retelling the story of when she was invited to a large assembly arranged by King Janaka of Videha. This assembly gathered several acclaimed scholars and philosophers, who were brought together to participate in intellectual debates. Gargi fearlessly participated in these discussions, showcasing her profound understanding of philosophy. With her unrivalled intelligence and powerful personality, Gargi quickly established herself as the leader among these philosophers. Her philosophy was rooted in her search for the ultimate truth and the nature of reality. She delved into the existence of Brahman, the supreme God, questioning its nature and how it links to the individual self, atman. She discusses these questions to length with Yājñavalkya, displaying her philosophical capabilities and her unwavering determination for the truth.
Gargi’scontributionsgofarbeyond herphilosophicalabilities.Inaddition tobeingaphilosopher,shewasalso awriterwhocreatedmanyhymns andversesthatreflectedonher spiritualinsights.Manyofherverses areincludedintheRigveda,oneof theoldestandmostsacredtextsof Hinduism. Beyondallofher academicachievements,Gargi'slife servesasanexampleofthepowerof courage.Inapatriarchalsociety wherewomenwereoften marginalised,Gargibrazenlyasserted herrighttopursueknowledgeand engageinphilosophicalthinking. Gargi’sdedicationtophilosophyhas beenrecognisedbymany,and numerouseducationalbuildingshave beenestablishedinhername.The ‘GargiCollege’isanexampleofan institutionwhichhasbeendedicated toeducatingwomen,andtodayit holdsover4,500students.
Gargiremainsasymbolofempowerment,andsheencourageswomenaroundtheworldtopursue theirambitions.Itisveryfittingthattheliteraltranslationofthename‘Gargi’canbetranslatedto ‘Thepersonwhoinspirestothink’,asthatisexactlywhatsheachievedduringherlifetimeand beyond.
ByVictoriaYoung-BiographyAnintroductiontoGayatriSpivak-CantheSubalternspeak?
“I’mconsideredbytheDeconstructioniststobetoovulgar,bytheMarxiststobetoodeconstructive, tootheoretical,bytheFeministstobetoomaleidentified,andnotsingle-issueenough,andtheSouth AsiansthinkI’mnotanexpertandthereforehavenoexpertise”-GayatriSpivak
GayatriSpivakwasborninCalcuttain1942andisUniversityProfessoratColumbiaUniversity,where shehastaughtEnglishandComparativeliteraturesince1991.Spivakisknownforhertranslationof Derrida’sLaGrammatologie,abookthatchangedthefaceofcriticism.Hertranslationwas groundbreakingasitallowedreadersinEnglishtoaccessrevolutionaryideasofdeconstructionist theory,whichalsoinfluencedmuchofherlaterwork.Spivak’sownphilosophyhasbeeninformedby Post-ColonialTheory,Deconstruction,MarxismandFeminisminawaythattranscendseachofthese individualintellectualmovements.Inthisshortpiece,Ihopetogiveyouabriefintroductiontosome ofSpivak’sextremelycompellingyetcomplextheoriesthroughanexplorationofherseminalessay “CantheSubalternspeak?”
SpivakbeginsheressayinadialoguewithtwoofthegreatestEuropeanphilosophersofthe20th century;MichelFoucaultandGillesDeleuze.Heresheengagesincriticaldiscourseaboutsomeof theirideasonPower.BothFoucaultandDeleuzearguedthatIdeologywastoosimplisticawayin whichtounderstandtheworld.Theybelievedthatoneoverarchingnarrativetodeterminepeople’s identitieswastoorestrictive.ButSpivakissuspiciousofthisandaskswhattypeofsubjecthasthe privilege tobeone“withnogeopoliticaldeterminations”.Shequestionswhatsortofpersonis not marked bygender,raceandclass.Andhereitseems,FoucaultandDeleuzeneglectthefactthat peopleare markedandexploited byraceandclass.Thishomogenisingofhumanexperienceis characterisedbySpivakasrespondingtoonlytheideaof“theWesternSubject.”Shestatesthat “DeleuzeandFoucaultignoreboththe epistemicviolence ofimperialismandtheinternational divisionoflabour.”Spivakcontendsthatwhenpostmodernphilosophersapplytheoriesrelevantto developednationsontoplacessuchastheGlobalSouth,theyfurtherperpetuatethiswestern hegemony.
Extendingthiscriticalanalysis,Spivakturnsto thedeconstructionisttheoriesofDerridaand appliesthemfurthertoFoucault'sand Deleuze’sideas.DerrideanDeconstructionist theorytriestoprovethateachsideofabinary is contingent upontheexistenceoftheother (forexample,youcan’thavelightwithout darkness.)AndSpivakusesdeconstructionto considerthesubjectandobjectsplitbetween whatshehascharacterisedastheEuropean subjectandcolonisedGlobalSouthobject. *GlobalSouthisatermthatdenotesa groupingofcountriesbasedontheirdefining characteristicswithregardtosocioeconomics andpolitics. SpivakcontendsthattheSubjectcan’texistunlessithasarelativepointtobecompared
against.Andtheideaoftheobjectiscontingentontheassumptionthatthesubjectissuperior. Hence,thisobjectispurelyanideologicalresponsetocertainpowers.Theobjectdoesn’texistoutin theworldornaturallybutisone created byourverymaintenanceofthesplitbetweensubjectand object.Butby constructing thenotionoftheobject,itcanbesubordinatedtootherpowers.Spivak arguesthatthisisexacerbatedinacolonialcontext.
Whenotherscholarshadpreviouslystudiedthefalloutofcolonialismtheyonlyconsideredthose thatwereinpoweri.ehighuppoliticalrepresentativesofnatives,oreventhecolonialists themselves.Butwhataboutthemarginalisedgroupsofpeople?Thewomenandthechildren.The “subaltern”.ThistermwasinitiallyadoptedbyAntonioGamscitodescribethosesubjecttothe hegemonyoftherulingclasses.Spivakcompletelyenhancestheword.Assheopines,"Iliketheword 'subaltern'foronereason.Itistrulysituational.”Andsheappliesthistermspecificallyinthecaseof colonisedwomen.Attheendofheressay,Spivakarguesthatultimatelythe“subaltern”can’tspeak. Sheconcludesthat,eveniftheyhadsomethingtosay,theywouldn’tbeequippedtoengagewiththe politicsimposedonthem.AndjustascenturiesofcolonialruleinnationssuchasIndiahadothered thesubalternclasses,Spivakdemonstratesthatthesameprocessisbeingrepeatedbutthrough academicdiscourse.Iwouldarguethatsherevitalisesabroaderandnuancedunderstandingof colonialisminthesubordinationofthecolonised.
Inthispivotalessay,Spivaktakesonpoststructuralisminadifferentcontextandremindsusofthe voicesthathavebeenlostinhistory.AsscholarJennySharpephrasesit;“GayatriSpivakhasbeen instrumentalinintroducingafeministagendatothefieldofpostcolonialstudies.”Toconclude, Derridaoncesuggestedthatthemeaningofaparticularobjectisalwaysintheprocessofchange.So fittingly,I’dliketoremindyouasthereader,thatSpivak’sessay,writtenin1988,isalivingbodyof workandthereforetheideasarestillevolvingandeverchangingtoo.
ByRaniaLwinKarim-BiographyA condensation of Martha Nussbaum’s novel, Justice for Animals
Martha Nussbaum is one of the most accredited and distinguished philosophers of our time, having fifty five honorary degrees and the most prestigious philosophical prizes to her name, and in her book Justice for Animals, she lays out political and ethical reasons for, and the application of, her system of animal rights. She begins her argument through presenting the urgency of this process to her reader, as she states one might think objections to animal cruelty are a recent development, and following our increasing expansion of legal rights, animal rights will surely slot into place. However objections to animal cruelty have dated to the time of Plutarch and Porphyry, and have continuously fallen to neglect. Now, she points at our fresh incentives to do so, as the man made machine of animal suffering has never functioned at such a high scale, with 70 billion land animals being killed each year. This occurs to these animals, humanity's future and our planet's detriment, and Martha states we have a “long-overdue ethical debt” to rectify this, which she offers through her capabilities approach.
Tointroduceherapproach,sheanalysesotherperspectivesonthisissue,fromthescalanaturaeto thattakenbytheutilitarians,andbrutallydissectstheirflawsthroughhercogentprose.Shedeftly pointsoutthesocietaldivideinregardtodifferentanimals,throughthebeliefthatthepoorlyjudged extenttowhichananimalcanreasonisproportionaltotheextenttowhichithasrights,seen throughhowcowsandpigsareslaughteredhoweverthekillingofadogisviewedashorrendous. Notonlydoessheillustratehowthisispoorlyjudged,howevershealsowritesthatsuchdistinctions areunnecessary,as“thesalientmoralfactisnot[theanimals]capacityforreasoning,but[their] capacityforsuffering”,whichshestatesallsentientcreatureshave,andusestofurtherherown approach.
Martha’stheorytakesthenameofcapabilitiesapproach,anormativeapproachtohumanwelfare, whichsheextendstoanimals.SheusesStevenWise’slegalisticargument,statingthatcorporations aregivenpersonhoodunderlaw,sogivingsuchtoselfdirectinganimalsseemsevident.Shealso statesthatanimalshaveaninherentworthandhavethesameinteresttostriveashumans,so thereforeargues“attentionbylawshouldbesimilar,[so]wemustnotdeliberatelyornegligently inflictpainonanimalsanymorethanwearepermittedtodosotohumans.”Thislaysthebasefor whytheseanimalsshouldbegivensuchrights.Withinthisextensivelistofrights,Marthadoesnot onlyavoidpainforsuchanimals,butalsogivesthemanopportunitytoflourish,throughensuring positiveopportunitiesareavailable.Sheviewsthisasnecessary,assheeloquentlypointsoutthat
animalsinzoosmaynotsufferduetoperniciousconditions,astheyhaveneverknowndifferent, leavingthemsatisfiedwithlittlespace,butthatdoesnotmeantheyshouldnothaveaccesstospace requiredtoliveatrulyfulfillinglife.
Marthaalsowritesthatanimalsshouldhaveanactivepartinthelawandtheupholdingofthe centralcapabilities,statingthatnonverbalhumansandthosewithinabilitytorationalisearegiven legalrepresentation,soanimalsshouldtoo.Sheoffersthisonasmallerscale,suggestingduly qualifiedanimal“collaborators”,whohavestudiedandlivedwithsuchspecies,suchasPeter Godfrey-Smithforoctopuses,orBarbaraSmutsforbaboons,shouldbe“chargedwithmakingpolicies ontheanimalsbehalf,andbringingchallengestounjustarrangementsincourts”.Sheherestates animalsshouldhavealegalstandingtobeabletoenforcetheserights,allowingtheirproteststobe recognised.Throughthissheenvisionsasuperiorwaytopassanimalfriendlypolicies,tocleanthe air,bandeforestationinvitalecosystemsandtoreducesingleuseplastic.Sheacknowledgesthe possiblecostofthese,butillustrateshowthisalsoextendsbenefittohumansandtheirfuture.
Inconclusion,Martha’sbookdismantlesotheranimalrightsapproachesbeforedisplayingherown,a worldwithkeybasicrightsgiventoallsentientcreatures,andpeoplerepresentingthesespeciesto broadentheirrightsandlegallystandfortheseanimals.Throughthissheenvisionsarapidityof actionandpolicywhichwillnotonlyhelpprotectanimallife,butthatofhumansaswell.
ByCarolinaHerbst-BookReview