Do you agree that philosophy is just the art of finding problems where their are none... and then theorizing how to solve the problem?

This is how I feel about gender philosophy

For Example

Most arguments are

A. Gender is not bound by the genitalia

Gender is a social construct and we can

identify as any social construct we so


B. Gender is bound by genitalia

Gender cannot be changed by

your beliefs.

You can never change your gender

unless you find a way to change your


BUT there really is no issue here

because both sides are forgetting

that GENDER is just a word... it is not

the definition... and that is what is going on.

Team B defines gender as SEX. And Team A defines gender as a social role. There are a few idiots out there but for the most

part Team A members do believe you can not change your "sex" but that you can change your "gender" aka social role.

All of these videos are really just people arguing over the definition of the word gender... Yet gender philosophy is the rage right now.

8 Answers

  • 6 months ago
    Favorite Answer

    I do agree.

    Able to follow your reasoning & that gender definition-ism isn't philosophy.

    Well done.. together witnessing that those academics, right now, have

    no other search conclusion.

    So yes the philosophy you describe is trying to find problems where there are none

    within the probable parameters, a virtual impossibility.

    I too studied sociology many years ago intensively ; & was always puzzled that at unknown

    stages I would be required to go back over work completed to rethink what I had understood

    & learned connection wise. This led me on to see if the same odd reset happened in another

    very similar social science - psychology.

    And it did (I was at university at the time & was marked down when I gave a different conclusion

    to apparently what-was-to-be-learned..).

    This made me crucially think that there was something wrong with the teaching I & others were

    getting in a social science...& to cut a long story short I found the reason to be that the philosophy

    behind the course structure -in particular the COURSE AIM- was faulty. And it was the difference

    between what is known as the search method called "objective" and in the first instance what had

    already been identified as "bad philosophy"...the known bad stuff of general philosophy called

    relative-ism, & subjective-ism and newly discovered historicism.

    Your brief description in your Question suggests that the type of philosophy used in your example

    was one of "historicism" - an easily missable mistake in use with junctions throughout which are

    based on historical, unreliable deductions usually ; where such can be well "masked" & are not

    easily prominent where they occur. It takes some further work to unearth these historicist

    mistakes when & where they occur, & as I have found this can takes much time & effort in

    trying to show others exactly the fault or faults in some previous unsuspected work.

    Source(s): modern objective philosophy (+ training within the History-of-Ideas, for info see Conjectures & Refutations by KR Popper + my open work user activity where I explained my experience of University H.o.I.)
    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • 6 months ago

    Mathematics is much more precise than the philosophy and theory of set theory.

    instead of gerero.

    For that reason I have not studied philosophy, but there are very interesting philosophers that are not studied in the career. and I am a specialist

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • That is an example of creating a problem. I still roam my mind wondering what is created and what is found? What's the difference there? And is that too subject to the same semantic quandary? So before I can answer your question I must first know the answer to my own. No conclusions have been found or created???

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • 6 months ago

    I don't agree. I don't think it was philosophers that found the gender-identity problems.

    A problem is a situation that is other than as one desires. The solution to a problem is some method by which the undesireable situation can be changed to better suit one's preferences.

    Some person that was born with a penis felt more comfortable living a life that (in at least some aspect or another) society generally associated with, and assigned to, people that are born with vaginas. The obstacles to living that preferred life were the problems that that person found. One of those obstacles was another person saying, "I don't care if you want to use the women's bathroom. I don't want you in there." The person that says such things represents additional finders of problems. The people that observe, and/or are affected by, the gender bender's behavior also may have some problems with it.

    Philosophical principles can be applied to the problem, but I don't think of it as a primarily philosophical problem. I see it as more a sociological and legal problem.

  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • It is very dangerous to suppose yourself not capable of idiocy; charging in head first without knowing the consequences but expecting something different. We think we see the real world but often we just see our fears. Humans are just as capable of seeing red as any bull in any china shop.

    We exist in darkness in ignorance and poverty of spirit yearning for the sunshine. We need to devote ourselves to the tiniest trace of hope. Surrender to perfection and perfection will serve. With no ego or vanity.

    We need to believe in the things we cannot see, taste, touch, smell or hear, that is beyond our minds. The truth is small and it makes no imposition. Doom or delight; it awaits.

    I just know myself and know what I have experienced. I call myself man. I have an x and a y. I have a male gonad. I have always been this way. I know what makes me feel good as a person, as a man. I seek muscularity. I seek fitness. But I like food and prefer a little girth. I prefer not to have harsh looks.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • 6 months ago

    Philosophy is a scientific search for the truth, for knowledge. Many people use the term to mean pipe-smoking, glass of brandy, speculation in an armchair. That's not actually philosophy at all.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • 6 months ago

    Gender "philosophy", is merely people trying to set themselves apart from the masses. It is a concept invented by people with inferiority complexes in an attempt to stand out, to make themselves feel like they matter in a world where seemingly everyone but them has something to say and a role to play. What the argument actually is, is semantics, not philosophy.

    Philosophy is the love of knowledge, the love of wisdom. At its very core, it is a desire to know, to understand, anything and everything. It is curiosity.

    • ...Show all comments
    • peter m
      Lv 6
      6 months agoReport

      (though you & I should both-still-try-to-highlight known-bad-philosophy like relative-ISM, subjective-ISM and historic-ISM. Because I hope that we can then better believe in true, Good philosophy.. of the useful kind)

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • Anonymous
    6 months ago

    That’s a philosophy about philosophy.

    In the end it’s just all opinions... multiplying words. Fools love giving air to their opinions.

    In the end only one opinion counts... and that is not mine, or theirs or even yours. The one and only opinion that counts belongs to God.

    Find out what He thinks - who He is and what pleases Him. Your soul depends on it.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.