Some of my thoughts on feminism (be prepared for a surprise)

[the Worms]

Hey. I am not trying to shamelessly endorse my writing, but I was reading the thread about rape and decided that a paper I wrote about feminism (for my philosophy of science class) would be a thing of interest to some of you. I am sorry if there is some philosophical jargon or if I assumed knowledge that some of you may not have, but I really do think it is pretty good. Be warned, the first 13 pages or so are summaries of different papers that I am trying to synthesize in my paper.

[MST3Kakalina]

hey. i'm reading it right now.

however, it's kind of late here, and being with Mecha has made me kind of love-stupid.

[the Worms]

Where is he these days? Not that any of you would have a clear idea of where I am, since my posting is so infrequent. But I still wonder how he is getting on in life.

[implode]

well. i read it, almost all of it, operating under the idea that perhaps my grasp would exceed my reach, and though i'm not sure if it did, i'm sure that i was left reaching into thin air at more than one point in the process.

the first bit, kuhn's interpration of the rationality of science, i must admit, made me feel like i was drowning in a sea of terminology, but that's my own fault for not putting myself in a setting that would be conducive to learning in that particular direction. which is fine, as we will see, since my main quarrel with the discussion in general (not any of the arguments he sets forth) is that they're all trying to exceed their grasp, as well. there is no standard of perfection to go by when we're discussing manmade concepts, like the scientific process, so i feel the whole discussion can be summed up with "we're doing the best we can." i understand it is a philosophers job to frolic in the territory of "why?", which is why i couldn't imagine dedicating my life to philosophy - sometimes you just have to throw up your arms and scream "because! nothing gets done otherwise!!" of course you need the scientific process to constantly be evolving, but it will do so on its own accord as advancements are made in other aspects of the field. which is why it's important that we have a balance of both those who will do these things, and those who will interpret why these things work.

the fact that the scientific process is not perfect is a direct result of the fallacy of man. nothing CAN be perfect, there's no standard to judge it by, and if it could have been done better, a mind capable of doing so would have done it already or will do it in the future. what kuhn is doing is not that - what kuhn is doing is taking what has already been done and noting that it is imperfect. what he's presented is meant to be interpretated by a mind that does not work the way mine does, so its effect on me is almost a glaze of indifference. i have no desire to improve on the scientific process. i don't know if it's the best that it can be, at this point, but i believe it's good enough to get done what i believe we need to get done. epistemology, on the whole, i consider to be useless if i ever intend on getting any progress done, but i am not a philosopher. i have no problem with listening and accepting what others have to say, if there's merit there, but when it comes to questioning <i>why</i> i do so i just get nervous and decide i'm better off not knowing. if i were to understand the nature of thought, thoery, knowledge, etc... would it not be true that from there i could adapt it, into something that was no longer the "thought" i've been used to for so long and has gotten everything done in the way of my progression as a human? if i'm satisfied with the progression of my human mind, the mechanics of how it gets done should not be something i start concerning myself over until i'm unsatisifed. is the whole idea of philosophy that you guys are unsatisifed with the way the species has decided to go about doing things? if this is the case, i present, i suppose a bit out of character, the fundamentally philosophical question of "why?" to you.

i'm so glad you still post here, worms. though i'm sure you must get bored with us a vast majority of the time, i'm still very glad i have someone like you in my life to present me with a vastly different viewpoint on universal concepts than the ones i've gown accustomed to. it must be the converse for you, of course, unless you primarily only associate with philosophers, so i understand why you only post here once in a crayola-blue moon. but. um. i guess in a stumbling, roundabout way, this paragraph is just a thank you for being you around me. so. thank you.