If
this is true, by what reasoning would it ever be appropriate for men to search
out and consider how they may lead good lives, which is exactly the study of
philosophy, but inappropriate for women?
Could
it be that it is fitting for men to be good, but not for women? Let us examine
in detail the qualities which are suitable for a woman who would lead a good
life, for it will appear that each one of them would accrue to her most readily
from the study of philosophy.
The
false opposition between male and female is only one of so many ways that we
find to divide and separate the world. It is certainly right to distinguish
the way things are different, though we do ourselves a great disservice when we
forget how they are also the same. A contrast is confused with a conflict; a
complement is confused with a contradiction.
What
Musonius says here about gender can apply just as easily to other false
divisions we impose upon ourselves. Besides facing men against women, we are
drawn to breeding discord between races, classes, nations, religions, or
political ideologies.
What all
these instances share in common is how they insist that one side is right
precisely because the other is wrong, that some people are better on account of
other people being worse, and that this idea must be true through being at war
with another idea that must be false.
Why are
we tempted to do this? I can only think that it reflects an attempt to discover
our own value, but in a cheap and easy way that draws attention to the failings
of the other.
I know
that whenever I have fallen into this trap, which I have done more often than I
care to admit, I somehow feel more special when I oppose myself to someone or
something else. I make myself bigger, taller, or stronger by making others
smaller, shorter, or weaker.
It
becomes so effortless to cast blame, to diminish, or to dispose that I may
hardly be aware that I am doing it. I have to admit that I am drawn to such a
twisted solution because it diverts me from having to carefully consider
myself.
We see
contradictions where logic demands none. We build walls to avoid facing the
beautiful yet terrifying prospect that our neighbors are just the same as we are.
Picking enemies we can hate requires far less soul-searching than embracing the
friends we should love.
Why do I
think I should have the opportunity to study and practice philosophy? Well, I
have reason, so it is necessary for me to learn to live well. Does a woman also
have reason? Or that man who has a different color? Or that group over there
that speak in words I can’t understand? Does my political opponent also possess
a mind and a will?
“No!
They are a lesser form of the species, barbarians, barely human!” We have all
heard that, time and time again, both in the past and in the present. The
opponents may change, while the ignorance remains the same.
My
selfishness and narrow thinking do not want me to admit that if I have certain
human needs, responsibilities, or rights, then every other human being also has
those same needs, responsibilities or rights.
I may
prefer to ignore this, because it is more immediately gratifying for me to
receive instead of give, to exclude instead of accept. Resentment becomes a
sort of universal “get out of jail free” card. If I can blame others, I can
cast aside my own sense of accountability for myself. False division is an
excuse for my own failure.
A truth
is only universal when it applies too all instances, not just to some. If a man
should be wise, brave, temperate, and just because of his humanity, then a
woman should also be wise, brave, temperate and just because of her humanity.
This will also be true if someone is rich or poor, young or old, or waving any
color of flag.
You
don’t need to roll your eyes at me, and tell me that this is sentimental
claptrap. The passions may appreciate it, but it is reason that demands it.
Written in 4/1999
No comments:
Post a Comment