-
Expand entry
-
Added by: Olivia Maegaard NielsenAbstract:
Academic and activist feminist inquiry has repeatedly tried to come to terms with the question of what we might mean by the curious and inescapable term "objectivity." We have used a lot of toxic ink and trees processed into paper decrying what they have meant and how it hurts us. The imagined "they" constitute a kind of invisible conspiracy of masculinist scientists and philosophers replete with grants and laboratories. The imagined "we" are the embodied others, who are not allowed not to have a body, a finite point of view, and so an inevitably disqualifying and polluting bias in any discussion of consequence outside our own little circles, where a "mass"-subscription journal might reach a few thousand
readers composed mostly of science haters.Comment: A classic in feminist, postmodernist, and social epistemologies. In this text, Haraway introduces the concept 'situated knowledge', which plays a big role in many philosophical subfields, especially in standpoint epistemologies. It would be a great introductory text in seminars on feminist epistemology or as a complimentary critique in introductory epistemology courses.
-
Expand entry
-
Added by: Olivia Maegaard NielsenAbstract:
In this paper, Harding demonstrates how starting inquiry from the lives of the marginalized is a prerequisite to what she calls "Strong objectivity". She outlines the central arguments for feminist standpoint theories and contrasts them with the objectivist ideals of traditional science, who, she argues, are only able to achieve weak objectivity.
Comment: A key read in standpoint epistemologies, explaining how starting from marginalized lives can create what Harding calls 'Strong Objectivity'. The arguments are fairly accessible and at the same time, there is plenty of potential for discussion.
-
Expand entry
-
Added by: Clotilde Torregrossa, Contributed by: Simon FoktAbstract: We expect there to be a connection between experience and knowledge in many of our ordinary epistemic judgments; this expectation is by no means confined to our knowledge of mental states. Thus, the appeal to a special necessary connection between experience and knowledge of mental states ignores the generality of this phenomenon. More important, however, it takes this phenomenon too seriously: our unreflective expectations about the previous experiences of a person who has knowledge, as I have argued, have little to do with whether these experiences are necessary for knowledge of that sort. Thus, they provide no threat to physicalism, or any other objective theory of mental states. To be sure, it is not hard to see why reductionist theses in the philosophy of mind raise suspicion, as they have often ignored the complexity of our mental lives. In this case, however, the suspicion leads to unwarranted fears about Procrusteans under the bed: it is not the insufficiencies of objectivity, but the vestiges of Empiricism, that suggest that these theories may be inadequate for expressing all the truth about experience that there is.