Essentialism and Gender
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 ก.พ. 2019
- my website: www.jordanbcooper.com
Patreon: / justandsinner
In this video, I discuss philosophical essentialism and modern gender theory. I explain realism and its differentiation from both nominalism and conceptualism.
![[UNCUT] ฝันรักห้วงนิทรา | EP.3 (1/4)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zVXAFD1OLZg/mqdefault.jpg)
Some things certainly belong in real categories, eg. there is something innate in a hydrogen atom, a scandium atom and a tungsten atom that make them all atoms, all part of the same category.
However, other categories are arbitrary and are only “real” to the observer. Colour is a spectrum. Where does “red” end and “orange” begin? Really the only universally understood way to classify colour is by light wavelength. Understood by these parameters, all colours of light can be grouped into the very real category of “electromagnetic wave” as all wavelengths of light are inherently electromagnetic waves.
Another example of a nominal category is “food”. What is considered food depends on the organism and even among humans the definition of food is different. I was shocked to find that my boyfriend didn’t consider chocolate to be a real food as it didn’t provide real sustenance. I argued that as it was consumable and our bodies could use it for energy, it was food. Both of us were right; we just had different definitions of the word food.
So, first off, that example of the category of "food" is only like that because how you are using the term is too vague. What is food is that which edible by a living creature (as in the creature would not die or be seriously harmed by consuming it). Of course, then it is divided to various categories like "human food", "dog food", "food that is healthy for humans", "food that provides energy for human" etc. Where you and your boyfriend differed, is not in having a different definition of what is "food", but rather, you and him were talking about two different concepts that are sub-sets of the larger concept of "food".
Of course, obviously, there can still be debate on how to define those sets, but that is simply because, what we see and experience is, as to reference Plato's cave, a mere shadow of the form and not the form itself; what we speak of from our observations is an abstraction from the external world and thus an abstraction of an abstraction of the reality. A perfect example of this, is actually in the idea you brought up in regard to the colour spectrum. Firstly, so how we refer to colour is merely a shorthand so that we don't have to say "that object reflects light of a wavelength of exactly 700 nanometres," as the colour we experience is technically infinite and thus an abstraction from the reality is necessary in order to conceptualize and speak of the reality. Secondly, the debate on where "red" ends and "orange" begin, is not a debate on what is "red" and "orange", but rather it is a debate on, given the reality that is "red" and the reality that is "orange", how much of the essence of either colour is necessary to be considered that colour. What I am saying, is that the reality is objective (or in other words, universals exists beyond our perception), but because our observation is an abstraction of an abstraction of the reality, our experience alone is incapable of fully grasping the reality--this is actually what the role of philosophy is, as to use wisdom and reason to better parse together a fuller grasp of reality than what individual experience is capable of.
Lastly, in this debate, there is also a debate on whether objects are merely the sum of their parts, and on that I'll say that table salt is not sodium and chloride, but rather it is sodium chloride--the interaction between sodium and chloride make it more than just the sum of those two parts, and in most things there are such interactions that make it more than the sum of its parts.
Thank you for explaining, my university professor taught us this concept in the most mindboggling way possible. I couldn't get it until you explained it in 8 minutes
I think this is a very important discussion and it's crucial to not conflate the words "gender" and "sex"; specificity matters. Where the majority of male and female sex categories have shared and stable essential characteristics, the gender categories are subjective and unstable. The gender categories we create are generalizations or shortcuts, but with each person we meet their "gender" is specific to them and will inevitably defy the generalizations in one way or another (ex. meeting a male person who wears makeup). Whereas for the vast majority of people their sex will meet the generalizations of the categories (of course a small percentage of people's sex will not, because there are always outliers in any stable category).
This is so essential to understand the third way of Aquinas.
Eh... nomanalism doesn’t deny that we observe real things, but how we choose to slice and dice up the world IS up to us.
I could make a category of humans called “flurgles” and humans in this category have an odd number of moles on their body. People who are not “flurgles” are “fliggles”.
The creation of the categories of “flurgles” and “fliggles” doesn’t add anything real to the world. The particulars in that category ARE real.
What is the relationship between sex essentialism and those who speak of 'race essentialism'?
Thank you for the video. I agree but i will play devils advocate.
If there is such a thing as femaleness and maleness howcome the roles vary a little bit from each culture. Usually the males were the hunters in some primal cultures but also a few where the women were.
From what I understood about essentialism and gender is that it does not matter what you do, what you think or what roles the society assign for you. We share the same essentialist idea of the femaleness and maleness around the world.
That is, a male is a male just like the color red is red.
If you want to think otherwise then you have anti-essentialism views, for example a male growing long hair a wearing ladies clothes and putting make up on calling "himself" a woman.
@Kevin Cobb thank you. That is a good explanation
@@meyer2911 There can be a difference in roles but not a difference in being. That's essentially what essentialism argues. You can apply the example this guy uses in the video, of cutting a dog's hair. Gender in essentialism is similar to the dog's hair (and subsequent appearance as a cat) having nothing to do with it's being. It is essentially still a dog, no matter how it acts or looks.Therefore a man is still a man, even if he may let his hair grow or act like a woman (when you apply essentialist principles).
Hope that helps
@@bissi7a And what is an intersex person?
This was SO helpful, thank you!!!
Would you say the essence of maleness and femaleness can also be applied to ideas or objects?
So roughly a "general truth" claim based on pattern recognition that we can observe, intuit and interact with, but does not necessarily fit into other philosophies. In other words, because the sum of the parts can't be deconstructed into fitting into other realities or methods of analysis, people will call it "-essentialism" and dismiss it on that basis.
Note that I'm coming at this from a practical standpoint of understanding what people on the internet say when they claim something is essentialism.
It's like someone pointing to a penguin and saying you can't call things birds, because these can't fly, so "what is a bird really" and then without irony pointing at a reptile and calling that a bird.
Hilarious.
This video is brilliant but to be honest now that I've watched it I realized that I'm a nominalist
Are you justified in that belief tho
Words are social constructs
This was more about essentialism and sex, not gender.
Have you explored Islam?
The concept of realism can be applied to the Trinity, that there are three distinct persons, but they're God in essence. Thank you for that, you inadvertently gave me a better concept to understand it
Does homosexuality have an essence?
Yes people are male and female. But gender is not the same as sex.
Indeed. Sex exists while gender does not.
I hope this doesn’t make me cringe. UPDATE: I lowkey did.
What is mistaken in the presentation? Do you have a critique of realism?
Jordan Cooper You’re argument is accurate, but as a person how is affected by the our fallen creation in the aspects of gender and sexuality... I think it doesn’t address the real issues of our modern understanding of gender. IMO this is more towards the flat earther or creationist radicals side of gender theory.
Jordan Cooper Also the gender/sex chart is like the flat earthers new doughnut 🍩 shaped earth representation but for gender/sex.
@@DisabledPsychedelica Yeah, I understand that. I am certainly dealing with the more radical views regarding gender, but I think the radical perspective is more common than you may acknowledge.
Jordan Cooper It is a view several groups hold, but for the most part it’s extremely radical. It’s tolerated and given space, but most people consider it too radical.
how u gonna talk about gender and be wrong about it LMAO
I like how this video talked more about dogs than it did gender lmao, and comparing a dog turning into a cat as a sort of symbolism for transgenders?
whatever helps you cope
@@krispykicks7766 because that's exactly what it is 🤷♀️
Because essentialism is a bogus philosophy at its core
Can we take a step back from this airy fairy philosophy stuff now and go to empirical research for our answers?