Aristotle and his biases?

Bloodthirsty said:Aristotle (384-322 BC) wrote in his History of Animals that the male embryo develops a human soul at about 40 days and a female embryo develops its soul at about 80 to 90 days. Aristotle's thinking derived from his three-stage theory of life: vegetable, animal, rational. The vegetable stage was reached at conception, the animal stage at "animation," and the rational stage soon after live birth. This theory, along with the 40/80 day view came to be accepted by early Christian thinkers. (See Exodus 21:22-25)

Yeah, there you have it. Exactly. 👍

I wouldn't really go as far as calling those Aristotelian gems discriminatory against women or anything like that. If we're going to nitpick, and if we really want to 😁, even Russell—who passed away in the 70s and was a liberal—had his own moments regarding this topic ☕

I guess I just find it interesting whenever a "great mind" trips over something so trivial. Not even that kind of thing, though... more like when they just can't seem to explain an idea within their own framework.

Sloan said:I wouldn't even bother nitpicking those Aristotelian gems just to claim they're sexist or whatever. If we're really going to split hairs and hunt for 😁, even Russell—who passed in the 70s and was a total liberal—had his fair share of questionable takes on this stuff ☕

It’s just wild to me when these "great minds" trip over the most basic things. Not even the controversial stuff, but just when they can't actually explain their own damn logic within their own framework.

Exactly. I'm totally convinced that the whole "discrimination" angle was just slapped onto the interpretation of the philosopher's original ideas way down the line.

Tyler Grant76 said:so, can we actually know what kind of elephants they were?
or women?

Well, I guess we can 🙂 😁

But hey, you can just keep guessing 😂 until next time 👋

Silajn said:Well, we could

Can we?
Can we actually?

I would argue that we can't.
I mean, just look at how much the female psyche has shifted between the turn of the 20th century and the start of the 21st.

Things that might seem perfectly normal to you—things your dear grandmother would likely consider utterly scandalous—just don't fly anymore.

For instance, the simple fact that a woman might not address a man with formal titles or that level of traditional deference.
Or something along those lines—not that it really matters right now.

Essentially, you can see the massive gulf between a modern girl who uses the internet, knows how to read, picks up books that aren't just romance novels, and stays out past midnight, versus an old-fashioned lady.
You and your grandmother grew up in two entirely different worlds.
Now, just imagine how different the worlds were for you and a Socratic wife.

In my opinion, it's impossible. And honestly, your claims about knowing exactly what women were like in ancient Greece don't sound all that convincing to me because of that very reason.

As for the elephant comparison, that wasn't exactly a rigorous study. I guess since what one elephant likes varies from elephant to elephant...
...it's the same with women. For example, maybe you prefer intellectuals.
While Polyhymnia might go for a certain type of North American guy, and so on.
I suppose even Aristotle would be too smart for such broad generalizations.

Natch said:I think there’s actually some scientific basis for this... more on the biology side than anything philosophical.
I’d love to get an expert in on this—maybe Arthur Barnes could weigh in... specifically regarding which week during pregnancy an embryo actually starts developing sex characteristics. If I remember correctly, we’re all basically the same until a certain point, and then the guys finally start developing male anatomy. Anyway, just my two cents... let's see what the pros have to say... 👍
Not gonna even mention that by next week, we’re all gonna be nursing some serious balls... 😱 😱

If I remember right, the body develops into a woman somewhere around the fourth or sixth week of pregnancy—which explains why men have nipples at all. After that point, those Y-linked genes kick in... you know, the ones responsible for massive amounts of adrenaline... or whatever the actual gene function is called... 😁They step up for expression, and then this whole chain reaction kicks in... a massive shift in gene activity that basically shuts down female development and pushes everything toward the male path...

If anyone wants more info, just ask over on PZ... 🙂

Aristotle wasn't even talking about that.

He was actually discussing the soul.

His whole premise—if I recall correctly—is that the soul enters a male fetus at forty days, whereas for a female, it happens at eighty days.

And honestly, there’s just no way to prove that.

It can be proven wrong.

If a male fetus doesn't even exist after 40 days (6 weeks is 42 days), then there's no way a soul could enter it. That makes the whole claim logically flawed. Just because you can't prove something is true doesn't mean you can't prove it's false... 😉

Maybe the concept of a fetus doesn't even exist as we define it.
But then again, there is the soul.
And my thought is—that soul enters this undefined state 😉 😉
into what eventually turns out to be a male embryo after about 40 days, or a female one after 80.

Go ahead—try to prove me wrong.

The Executioner said:but there's a soul.

Where? Show me.
(error fundamentalis)

The Executioner said:and it enters that undefined fetus😉 😉

It’s not undefined. It's female. 😢

William Gonzalez3 said:maybe there isn't even a fetus.
but there's a soul.
and it enters that undefined fetus 😉 😉
into what later turns out to be a male fetus after 40 days, and a female one after 80.

Go ahead, try to prove me wrong.

We already settled this. You aren't even paying attention to the thread.😉

Walter Myers4 said:Look: http://www.mayoclinic.org/topics...a/week14.asp

I'm quoting here: "Along with the 15th week of pregnancy, this marks the end of the first trimester.... In male fetuses, the prostate develops, while in female fetuses, the ovaries descend from the abdomen into the small pelvis."

So, I'd say that stuff about the 80th day actually meant that's when the sexes start to differentiate.

while the 40-day thing meant the general formation of life begins:

http://www.mayoclinic.org/topics...a/week05.asp

"By the end of last week and during this one, a simple ball, the blastocyst, transforms into an embryo within which three different types of tissue begin to differentiate, which will become three distinct types of tissue. From the inner layer (endoderm), the digestive system, pancreas, liver, and lungs will form, and from the outer layer (ectoderm), the nervous system, skin, hair, tooth enamel, and eye lens. The middle layer (mesoderm) will differentiate into the skeleton, muscles, kidneys, heart, and blood vessels. Cells from each tissue move until they reach their target destination."

*_spike said:Where? Show me the proof.
(error fundamentalis)

It isn't indeterminate. It’s female. 😢

It was Aristotle who argued that the soul exists, not me.

So, I suppose one should read his arguments—and then try to dismantle them.

As for the fetus, I'll admit it's female.
But I never actually claimed it wasn't sexed.
My point was more about it being indeterminate regarding the soul. In other words, if it's male, there's no soul until day 40; if it's female, it's day 80.

Basically, a male fetus is defined by the soul after just 40 days.
A female one isn't quite there yet—the soul enters later.
(I guess since it's female, she probably just took a little longer to get ready.)

William Gonzalez3 said:Regarding the fetus, I’ll admit it’s female.
But I never said it wasn't biologically sexed.
The point is, the soul hasn't settled yet. Meaning, if it's a boy, there's no soul until day 40, and if it's a girl, you have to wait until day 80.

Basically, a male fetus gets its soul after 40 days.
A female one doesn't. The soul enters later.
(Probably because she's a woman and clearly took longer to get ready)

Actually, it's the opposite. Based on what _spike said about breasts:

_spike said:Up until the fourth or sixth week of pregnancy, the body develops as female—which is why men even have nipples. After that, the Y-linked genes finally kick in, triggering a massive wave of genetic activity that halts the female development path and pushes everything toward becoming male.

So every fetus has a female soul by day 40, and a male one maybe by day 80?😉 Is that right, _spike?

We have no way of knowing what kind of soul they possess.

Sure, we can identify certain biological traits of a fetus at specific weeks of pregnancy, but as for its actual soul—that is something entirely beyond our understanding.
It’s just as impossible to know exactly when that happens.

Aristotle argues that men are the first to receive theirs.

I suppose if this had been written by a woman living in a matriarchy, she might have argued that women receive theirs first.

Since I am a man living in a patriarchy, I find myself agreeing with Aristotle. 😁
And well, if anyone dares to disagree with us, we might just have to settle things quite physically.

"Quote:"

Just a whole lot of nothing. said:Look, let’s get one thing straight: Aristotle wasn't exactly against slavery.
Plato had his own way of looking at things. Politeia He actually imagined a world without slaves.

Plato argues that we need this one brilliant philosopher-king to run the show. If he’s the one in charge, we’re just living under his thumb, forced to swallow whatever judgment he hands down. To me, that makes us nothing more than subjects. Honestly, the whole *Politeia* is basically just a manual for ruling over slaves.

William Gonzalez3 said:we have no clue what kind of soul it has.

Look, we can talk about the biological traits of a fetus at certain weeks, sure, but as for its soul? We don't know, and frankly, we can't know.
Same goes for when it actually gets one.

Even Aristotle claims that men are the first to receive theirs.

I mean, if some woman living in a matriarchy had written that, she’d probably claim women get theirs first.

Since I'm a guy living in a patriarchy, I'm siding with Aristotle here. 😁
And anyone who tries to argue with us? Well, they're gonna have a very bad day.

Let's try to be a little scientific here, 👍 even when we're totally wrong. 😉

I’ve been thinking about this quite a bit lately—and I say this with all due respect to the academics—but I truly don't believe philosophy should be classified as a science. It just doesn't fit the mold, does it? While science relies on empirical data and repeatable experiments to reach a conclusion, philosophy seems to operate in a much more abstract, speculative realm—perhaps even something more akin to a deeply rigorous form of inquiry, but without that hard, measurable proof we expect from the natural sciences. It’s a different kind of pursuit altogether, I guess.

I suppose even philosophers don't necessarily have to be scientists—not by any strict definition, at least.

It seems a bit unlikely—if I'm being honest—that the core subjects of philosophy, specifically the investigation of the soul, could ever truly be tackled through standard scientific methods. I mean, how would you even begin to measure or classify something like that? It just doesn't seem to fit into the usual framework of empirical data and categorization, I guess.
Aristotle tried his hand at it—and, well, you can see exactly how that turned out.

William Gonzalez3 said:philosophy isn't a science.

So why on earth should philosophers be expected to act like scientists?

It’s pretty damn hard to take the stuff philosophy actually deals with—like, say, exploring the soul—and force it through some rigid scientific method where you try to measure it or categorize it or whatever. It just doesn't work.
Aristotle tried that approach, and look how spectacularly he failed.

And honestly, how much do we even actually know about what Aristotle wrote? For all we know, we're looking at some massive pile of errors left behind by some random scribe centuries later. Or maybe it's just a complete, intentional misinterpretation of the original idea that got passed down through history. Who knows? 😉

Also, for the record, philosophy isn't even about "exploring the soul." 😉

I didn't mean to imply that it's strictly limited to investigating the soul.

But, if that's the case, how would you actually define what philosophy does?

Maybe we could start by looking at what specific questions are tackled in, say, the Platonic Phaedo and the state?

William Gonzalez3 said:Aristotle (384-322 BC) wrote in his History of Animals that the male embryo develops a human soul at about 40 days and a female embryo develops its soul at about 80 to 90 days. Aristotle's thinking derived from his three-stage theory of life: vegetable, animal, rational. The vegetable stage was reached at conception, the animal stage at "animation," and the rational stage soon after live birth. This theory, along with the 40/80 day view came to be accepted by early Christian theologians. (See Exodus 21:22-25)

Let’s actually dig into this for a second:

Soul is defined by Aristotle as the perfect expression or realization of a natural body. From this definition it follows that there is a close connection between psychological states, and physiological processes. Body and soul are unified in the same way that wax and an impression stamped on it are unified. Metaphysicians before Aristotle discussed The Soul abstractly without Any regard to The bodily environment ; this Aristotle regards The Soul or mind not as The product of The physiological conditions of The body, but as the truth of the body -- the substance in which only the bodily conditions gain their real meaning.

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/a/aristotl.htm