ABSTRACT
Everyone makes philosophical assumptions, no matter how naõÈve or how complex. We all have views about the structure of reality, what exists and what does not, whether or not there is a divine and/or a malignant being, what is good and bad, what is beautiful, whether or not we should eat animals, the differences and similarities between men and women (and the why of this). And we act on the basis of these beliefs and assumptions. In this sense we are all of us philosophers. But most of us do not read the philosophical canon where we will ®nd the `greats' (and not-so-greats) who are considered to be the `true philosophers'. As I argued earlier, Jung's and Luce Irigaray's work is deeply philosophical in a way that many of us can only begin to imagine for ourselves, but which is, nonetheless, very clear when we begin to read what they have written. Their engagement with the canon is not only obvious, but very deep. Indeed, the philosophical canon is part of what brings them together. Plato's philosophy is of particular interest to both of them especially around the question of women and the feminine. Methodologically, the mode of argument we ®nd in Plato is also apparent in their work, even though it is subverted, as we shall see, by Luce Irigaray.
