ABSTRACT
Introduction: A Fling with the Philosophers Introduction W hen surveying the developm ent of philosophical ideas, it should be noted that a significant part of what passes for the canon of western philosophy goes unnoticed or is consigned to silence. M argaret W hitford writes of the surprise she felt when she realized the extent to which misogyny determ ines the thoughts of the ‘g reat’ philosophers of the western tradition when they tu rn their attention to the puzzling question of the nature o f ‘w om an’.1 Who is woman? W hat does ‘she’ want? Almost uniformly, such passages offer answers to this ‘question’ which describe women in deeply unflattering terms. W omen are described as ‘the devil’s gateway’ (Tertullian). They are ‘big children their whole life long’ (Schopenhauer). According to Aristotle and Aquinas, a woman is a ‘m isbegotten m ale’. Encountering such passages can be problem atic for women who are involved in the attem pt to develop a distinctively feminist approach to philosophy. T he works of these philosophers form the basis for philosophical debate. W hat is the feminist philosopher to do with the misogyny contained in these texts?It is at this point that the question of methodology arises. It would be a gross exaggeration to suggest that all the key texts o f western philosophy are misogynistic. Discussion of the nature of woman appears in relatively few philosophical texts. T he philosophers’ prim ary aim has been to analyse and explore the ‘hum an’ condition - although, of course, what they have to say about women will undoubtedly affect their understanding of humanity! Can the ‘wisdom’ of the philosophers be separated from the misogyny, or are the two intimately connected? Does a feminist philosophy find its foundations in the western philosophical canon, or should feminists seek an alternative grounding for their ideas?2In her writings, the French philosopher and psychoanalyst Luce Irigaray confronts this central problem of the misogynous elem ent present in the western philosophical tradition. At the same time, she is concerned to address the question of how women m ight ‘learn to speak’; in o ther words, how women might develop their own distinctive language. This m ight suggest that Irigaray believes the best way forward is to ignore the philosophical canon with its masculinist ethos. This is not the case. Rather than ignore what she term s the ‘phallogocentrism ’:< of
