Rich & Chris,
I am not hurt, but it is sad that women in this society need to be justified or defended to get included anywhere. .
There are as many women as men and have lived as long as men in this universe. When appropriate apportunity given on merit basis, women have contributed well.
In Indian culture, women are "Adi Shakti", the supreme mother, power behind the universe. And she can take any avatar she wants to, when she wants to, and at her discretion. Indian women are not tought to feel inferior to anyone ! As I said, women are Laksmi ( goddess of wealth), Saraswathi ( goddess of knowledge and music ), Kali ( Goddess of Physical power, who protect good from the evil..)... etc. So there is a lot of importance for the feminine power!
Then there are mortals like us who keep wondering about the need for participation and compitant contribution from women!
Women comming from our culture, do feel that it is almost barbaric ( backword thinking), if women are not respected and included well within any community with appropriate roles and repsonsibilities... ( unless in specialised situation like monks.. )
Enough of this cultural issue... But there is something deffinetly missing in western culture even if there are queens among the aristocrates etc.. which causes an intelectual gap for female gender and thier role in society.
Pavithra
--- On Mon, 9/21/09, Rich Cooper <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Rich Cooper <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: FW: [ontolog-forum] Event Ontology
To: pavithra_kenjige@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Monday, September 21, 2009, 3:26 PM
Please note that the use of “women” in that example was INTENDED to be absurd because Church’s strategy was to prove how irrational the position taken by his opponent really is. It’s a use of “sarcasm” and “reduction ad absurdam” used a lot in debates (though seldom in written literature because it doesn’t go over very well, as you felt hurt by it; I’m so sorry it was so misleading as to do that to you.)
Your friend and admirer of many great women I have known,
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Pavithra
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 10:40 AM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Cc: semantic-web@xxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Event Ontology
I can not believe that you all were talking about women in this link relating to Ontology!
Who ever wrote that thing did not have good understanding of life and women!
I am not even going to lower myself to defend ! I can not even beleive this at all!
This is one of the reason why I brought the topic of Indic culture! To talk about how to teach people to respect women as capable as men yet different!
Such thinking is a social illness and not women's fault!
--- On Fri, 9/4/09, John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Event Ontology
To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: semantic-web@xxxxxx
Date: Friday, September 4, 2009, 9:22 AM
Azamat,
That is an extreme version of nominalism:
> "events are primarily linguistic or cognitive in nature.
> That is, the world does not really contain events. Rather, events
> are the way by which agents classify certain useful and relevant
> patterns of change."
> http://motools.sourceforge.net/event/event.html
> I read many event ontologies, but this one is the most idiosyncratic,
> softly speaking.
Unfortunately, that point of view was fairly widespread among
20th century analytic philosophers. Some of them even claimed
that all the laws of physics are merely verbal (or mathematical)
summaries of observations.
That view is true of some so-called laws, such as Bode's
law,
which states a simple numerical formula for the distance of the
planets from the sun. Most physicists, however, are realists
with regard to the laws of physics: they believe that there is
something real underlying the laws that have been tested and
verified under many kinds of conditions by large numbers of
experimenters.
The option of treating events as real and allowing quantified
variables to range over events is usually called 'event semantics'
and attributed to Donald Davidson. However, Peirce insisted that
it was appropriate to quantify over events long before Davidson,
and Whitehead made events the central focus of his ontology.
Furthermore, Davidson had taken Whitehead's course when he
was an undergraduate at Harvard. He was so enthusiastic about
Whitehead's approach that he decided to study for a PhD in
philosophy at Harvard.
Unfortunately, Davidson was
suckered into a "bait and switch"
deal because Whitehead retired, and Davidson was stuck with
Quine as his thesis advisor. Quine was a nominalist who had
no sympathy with Whitehead's philosophy, so Davidson couldn't
write his dissertation on event semantics under Quine.
But Davidson did return to event semantics after he got tenure
and didn't have to "suffer the slings and arrows" of the
nominalists. But it would be more appropriate to call event
semantics the Plato-Aristotle-Peirce-Whitehead-Davidson theory.
And by the way, you could also add the logician Alonzo Church
to the anti-Quine, anti-nominalist group. Church presented the
following paper at Harvard, especially because he knew it would
annoy Quine:
http://www.jfsowa.com/ontology/church.htm
Following is the title and opening
paragraph of that paper.
John
_________________________________________________________________
The ontological status of women and abstract entities
By Alonzo Church
Goodman says somewhere that he finds abstract entities difficult to
understand. And from a psychological viewpoint it is certainly his
dislike and distrust of abstract entities which leads him to propose an
ontology from which they are omitted. Now a misogynist is a man who
finds women difficult to understand, and who in fact considers them
objectionable incongruities in an otherwise matter-of-fact and
hard-headed world. Suppose then that in analogy with nominalism the
misogynist is led by his dislike and distrust of women to omit them from
his ontology. Women are not real, he tells himself, and derives great
comfort from the thought -- there are no such things. This doctrine let
us call
ontological misogyny...
Source: http://www.jfsowa.com/ontology/church.htm
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|