Josh and Ray begin the show by debating Was Mary Astell England's first feminist. Josh brings up that Astell argued that women were men's intellectual equals, and she encouraged women not to marry. Ray remembers that was skeptic and that she pushed back against Descartes in her Letters.
Guest Allauren Forbes, Professor of philosophy at McMaster University, joins the show. She maintains that one of the things that makes Astell’s position interesting as a feminist is that she says claims that sometimes people rule over others illegitimately, so sometimes husbands who are irrational or tyrannical or morally bad. And as a consequence, even if they have rule over women, they don't necessarily owe them submission or obedience in an unquestioning way. Ray asks about the kinds of recourse that Astell thinks would be available women to take, and kinds of recourses would be illegitimate.
Josh and Ray discuss with our guest the notions of freedom and friendship in the work of Mary Astell. Allauren responds that one thing women can do is to never get married, and set up an alternate version of life, where friendship will play a really important part. Josh is interested in the role that friendship plays and Ray highlights how friends can help each other out. Allauren mentions that there are a couple of ways in which friends can do this, one by providing admonishment when making a mistake; and another is the provision of recognition in ways that aren’t always available to ourselves. Ray wonders about the threats and challenges of distinguishing between good and bad friends. For Allauren there's two levels of friendship, one intimate and positive, which requires virtue, and a second one, which is more general and social, and it doesn’t entail virtue.
In the last segment of the show, among other topics, the three turn to the discussion of Astell’s theological commitments and how they shaped her rationalism, feminism and her relationship to the work of Rene Descartes. They also agree and discuss the significance of community for Astell and how different talents can coexist in harmony together. The show concludes with a critical assessment of Astell’s ideas about the education of women and her political opinions.
Roving Philosophical Report (seek to 5:58) → Holly J. McDede interviews Katie Tertell, a cello player in the band Howay the Lasses, based in New Castle, England, where Astell was born. The band plays the song ‘Mary Astell’, inspired by A Serious Proposal to the Ladies, a book that argues for the intellectual equality between men and women.
Sixty-Second Philosopher (seek to 4:49) → Ian Shoales discusses Astell’s feminist legacy as a problematic one, but also complex and daunting. And her ideas regarding the education of women which were mocked by—inter alia—Addison and Swift.
Comments (3)
Daniel
Sunday, October 29, 2023 -- 3:20 PM
Conditioned by theConditioned by the interpretation of Astell's conception of liberty as an agent's faculty of preservation of internal self-governance in the context of arbitrary constraint, which distinguishes it from any reference to an absence of constraints, one could characterize it accordingly as reserved competency of an agent rather than as a condition for the performance of rational action. Although in A Serious Proposal to the Ladies, Part II, Astell distinguishes between Understanding as the receptacle of comparable ideas and the Will as the capacity to prefer one to the other, which closely follows Locke's distinction between the agreement and disagreement of perceived ideas (Understanding) and the desire for or rejection of an idea as motive ground for some bodily motion which begins an action (Will), she adds, at least in one interpretation, the notion of liberty as constituting a separate faculty from Will on account of the fact that reserved capacity for observable behavior and preserved ability for unobservable self-organization are different. It is this latter which insures that one can prefer submission to some customary behavior, e.g. Marriage, which makes one's grounds for action discoverable only in another agent, and nevertheless avoid becoming an agent of the respective custom itself.
Because Liberty then in contrast to Will can be described as the faculty of internal self-governance in contrast to that of the generation of optional effects by ideal causes, does Astell hold that some arbitrary constraint by customs handed down by tradition are a necessary condition of any rational action at all, on the basis that without them a faculty of internal organization would be irrelevant? If some customs, say, those given out by a Deity, are limited in number but can be put together in a potentially infinite variety of combinations, does Astell's Liberty entail a continually evolving form of preferable slavery? In particular, could Astell's view of marriage be described as a libertarian stoicism in free conformity with arbitrary custom overriding independent will?
tebvas
Sunday, December 3, 2023 -- 8:47 PM
Does Astell's Liberty includeDoes Astell's Liberty include a type of preferred enslavement that is always evolving? For example, if some practices, such as those that are bestowed by a deity, are restricted in quantity but may be combined in an endless number of different ways, then does this imply that Astell's Liberty is a form of superior slavery?
Daniel
Tuesday, December 5, 2023 -- 3:01 PM
No. But maybe your bot canNo. But maybe your bot can come up with an answer for this:
1) A law enforcement official (O) licensed by the state seeks a dangerous fugitive from the law (F).
2) O has received information indicating that F is riding on a ferris wheel at a popular amusement park.
3) Fearing that F might escape if O's response to this information is delayed, authorized by O's authority, the ferris wheel is unhooked from its axel and rolls into the nearby sea, drowning all of its riders.
From O's perspective, two outcomes of this action are possible:
a) The fugitive is found among the victims, and the operation is proclaimed a success or,
b) the fugitive is not found among the victims, and the operation is pronounced an unfortunate accident and miscalculation.
The question is this: If a lawyer for the family of one of the victims which is not identical with F seeks criminal charges against O for the action of unhooking the ride from the axel, would O be correct to claim that the lawyer is assisting F by seeking such an indictment? And the sub-question is this: Does the success or failure of the operation supervene upon consideration of it potential criminality? Does O's perspective override the legal protections (i.e. rights) of the victims?