جایگاه زن در تفکر اسپینوزا و کانت

Matter of women

One of the matters which has been neglected in the past centuries and just lately comes to attention is the status of women in the view of earlier philosophers. It is one of the issues have been dealt with by feminist philosophers. Feminist philosophers who have engaged in a project of re-reading and re-forming the philosophical canon has faced two unique difficulties. The first, the problem of exclusion of women from the history of philosophy. Feminist philosophers have faced a tradition that believes there are no women philosophers and, if there are any, they are unimportant. The absence of women from the history of philosophy, and the canon, is reflected and discussed in some philosophical writings today. Although men philosophers and the historians of philosophy omitted and neglected women philosophers, they thought and sometimes explained women's features and their status in the family and society in detail. Thus, the second difficulty has been brought up for feminist philosophers when they are re-reading the western philosophical tradition. It is the exclusion of everything that is feminine or associated with women by philosophy itself and its norms of reason and objectivity. Moreover, when they have dealt with the matter of characterizing women and explaining the features commonly considered feminine, they have talked negatively. Spinoza, Dutch philosopher of the seventeenth century, and Kant, the hero of enlightenment, have dealt with women and their differences with men in their works and of course, they have also talked somehow negatively. In a few places, Spinoza pointed out the matter of women and sexual differences between people. Among Spinoza's works, there is no work that talks about just this matter. However, in the case of Kant, there are some works on this matter: Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime and Anthropology from a pragmatic point of view for example.

Women in the view of Kant

In Anthropology, Kant has explained his views on the sexes and dedicated a section to describe the characteristics of the sexes. In that treatise, he has ascribed three features to women. First of all, women are described as naturally weak and fearful. The second characteristic ascribed to women by Kant is women's ability to manipulate men. The third feature is not explicitly mentioned by Kant but it may be inferred. In the Anthropology, he says, “the woman should dominate and the man should govern for inclination dominates, and understanding governs”. The third feature which seems important and fundamental for our discussion has been severely criticized by some feminist philosophers. Since Kant has explained that women act only on inclination, but men are capable of using their reason, feminists have considered it as violating the most fundamental principles of his ethical theory or excluding women from the category of “rational beings”. It is obvious that both of them are not acceptable. Moreover, women, like wage workers are considered passive citizens and obviously deprived of political rights as active citizens.

Women in the view of Spinoza

 In his Political Treatise, Spinoza, like Kant, has deprived women of the right to vote as citizens. His first reason, like Kant’s, is based on the weakness of women. The weakness of women has been mentioned in his Theologico-political treatise and Ethics too. The second reason according to him is explained on the basis of men's emotions toward women. He held that men love women from mere lust and assess their ability and their wisdom by their beauty and also resent any favor which the women show to others. Thus, the equal political status of women and men according to him might damage peace. Despite women’s exclusion from political matters, in the fourth part of his Ethics, Spinoza has stressed the equality of women and men in the state of nature. Although this statement may make Spinoza free from the criticism of feminists, the philosophy of him, especially his theory of mind, has also had some features which have made his philosophy an important source and support for the feminist philosophers.

In the eleventh proposition in the second part of the Ethics, Spinoza has explained what makes the human mind is ideas. Indeed, the object of ideas that constitute the human mind is the body. Thus, to the extent that “a body is more capable than others of doing many things at once, or being acted on in many ways at once, so its mind is more capable than others of perceiving man things at once”. It means that the differences between human souls are the result of the differences between their bodies because some bodies have more interactions with other bodies and presumably minds of them perceive more things than others. As so far as perceiving more things increases the power and virtue of human beings according to Spinoza, it may be followed that women might have minds more perfect or as perfect as men if they have improved their interactions with others. Thus, some feminists have interpreted his views as a great source and support for their philosophy.

Conclusion

Spinoza and Kant have thought on women and extensively on their rights as citizens. Both of them deprived them of the right of voting. Although their views on political matters are somehow similar, their thoughts about men and women in the state of nature have an important difference. In the view of Kant, the difference between men and women is natural. He thought that women act only on inclination, but men are capable of using their reason. However, Spinoza has never talked about such a difference when explaining his theory of mind. He has considered women and men equal in the state of nature. Moreover, his theory of mind opens the way for women to improve their minds and reasons and make them more powerful and perfect, and thus acquire political status as men. As a result of those differences, feminists have severely criticized Kant but considered Spinoza as a great supporter of their philosophy.

References

- Bakhtiari, Fatemeh (2014), “feminist interpretation of Spinoza’s theory of mind”, Falsafeh, Vol. 41, issue 2. Winter and Spring, pages 47-64, https://jop.ut.ac.ir/article_50252.html.

- Broad, Jacqueline (2003), women philosophers of the seventeenth century, Cambridge university press.

- Descartes (1985), Discourse on the Method, Translated by John Cottingham, Robert Stoothoff, and Dugald Murdoch, in: The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, Vol.1, Cambridge University Press.

- Kant, Immanuel (1887), The Philosophy of Law, translated by W. Hastie, B.D. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.

- Kant, Immanuel (1992), "Answering the Question: What Is Enlightenment?", translated into Persian by Homayoon Fooladpoor, Kelk, no. 22, December & January 1991-2, pages 48-57, http://ensani.ir/file/download/article/20120426145722-5209-326.pdf

- Kant, Immanuel (2006), Anthropology from a pragmatic point of view, translated and edited by Robert B. Louden, Cambridge University Press.

- Kant, Immanuel (2011), Observations on the feeling of the beautiful and sublime and other writings, edited by Patrick Frierson & Paul Guyer, Cambridge University Press.

- Kant, Immanuel (2012), Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, translated and edited by Mary Gregor & Gens Timmermann, Cambridge University Press.

- Kant, Immanuel (2014), The Philosophy of Law, translated into Persian by Manouchehr Sanei Dare Bidi, Tehran: Naghshonegar.

- Kleingeld, Pauline (1993), " The problematic status of gender-neutral language in the history of philosophy: The case of Kant", The Philosophical Forum, vol. XXV, no. 2

- Lloyd, Genevieve (2009), “Dominance and Difference: A Spinozistic Alternative to the Distinction between ‘‘Sex’’ and ‘‘Gender’”, Moira Gatens, Feminist Interpretations of Benedict Spinoza, the Pennsylvania State University Press, pp. 29- 42.

- Mikkola, Mari (2011), “Kant and moral agency and women’s nature”, Kantian Review, 16, 1

- Nye, Andrea (2004), Feminism and modern philosophy: an introduction, Routledge.

- Okin, Susan Moller (1982),"women and the making of the sentimental family", philosophy &public affairs, vol. 11. No.1, pp. 65-88

- Rachel, James (2003), The Elements of Moral Philosophy, McGraw-Hill.

- Spinoza, Baruch (1994), Ethics, edited and translated by Edwin Curley, in A Spinoza Reader: The Ethics and other works, Princeton University Press.

- Spinoza, Baruch (2002), Political treatise, translated by Samuel Shirley, in: The Complete Works of Spinoza, Hackett Publishing Company.

- Spinoza, Baruch. (1966). The Letters, translated by A. Wolf, in the Correspondence of Spinoza, Great Britain.

- Spinoza, Baruch. (2007). Theological-Political Treatise, translated by Michael Silverthorne and Jonathan Israel, edited by Jonathan Israel, Cambridge University Press.