« he's an english major | Main | "stands still and has come to a stop" »
I did not know that
In his lectures on metaphysics, Adorno writes:
Even the categories of male and female are distinguished according to the same dualism by Aristotle, all the higher, form-giving categories being equated with the male -- as was only too evident in a patriarchal society -- and the merely material and existent with the female. No doubt you will have endured a learned school-teacher telling you that the roots of mater and materia are related, and you will recall the ensuing howl of triumph -- that, too, is an echo from Aristotle's Metaphysics. (p. 78)
I never endured learning this from a learned school-teacher. The devolution of philosophy in our lives is measured by the progressive disappearance of even philosophic pedantry and charlatanism.
By Swifty | April 23, 2007 in Adorno, Quotes | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/361357/17940082
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference I did not know that:
Comments
Professors I have had have been uncomfortable or even unwilling to discuss this aspect of Aristotle's thought, for the very reason that they are perceived as easy targets for scientism's mockery of the relevance of philosophy for rigorous thought. I think it's best that we be up front about factually incorrect assertions of various canonical figures, and consider in good faith how they affect or do not affect the cohesiveness of their thought as a whole and in its specific aspects.
Posted by: Floyd | Apr 23, 2007 2:12:17 PM
In what way can Aristotle's assertions be considered "factually incorrect"?
Posted by: CBR | Apr 23, 2007 3:02:18 PM
I assume you are asking for an example? I was reminded in particular of his claim that the female contributed only material substance, while the male provided the form for a human embryo. Now that I think about it, I guess that can hardly be shown to be "factually incorrect" unless he actually said that the male provides no material, which I cannot recall (can somebody help me out with a reference?). In any case, the idea itself strikes me as relatively spurious. Speaking on the matter of the process of fertilization, what can one hope to gain in argument by any other method than factual observation?
Posted by: Floyd | Apr 23, 2007 3:36:54 PM
Ah, I see where you're coming from. I thought you were saying that equating male/female with form/matter was itself factually incorrect, which had me confused.
Posted by: CBR | Apr 23, 2007 6:34:38 PM
But if there were no longer pedantic Latin teachers, gleefully resenting their wasted lives, how would we still learn to understand all that hyperbole about "phallogocentrism"? More importantly, how would we come to understand- (absolutely no pun intended!)- that metaphysical thinking has always privileged activity over passivity, and thus better apportion the distribution in our thinking, together with the attendant categorical confusions? Er, we don't just want to say the wimens should become "autonomous" too, eh?
In fairness to "il maestro di color che sanno", though he did hold that biological reproduction mostly occurred from seed, in accordance with the form/matter distinction and the categorical structure of the cosmos, he did recognize instances of spontaneous generation. For example, eels. The facts are these: Mediterranean eels don't develop sex organs until shortly before spawning, and they die just after spawning, and they spawn off the coast of Bermuda.
Posted by: john c. halasz | Apr 23, 2007 11:01:49 PM
Post a comment
Please note: comments are published at the discretion of the post's author and will not appear immediately. Do not submit comments more than once.
