Often philosophy is about looking at something we take for granted from a new perspective.
Philosophy can expose blind-spots later generations will find hard to bloody believe, for instance, Aristotle raved on about the equality of man but didn’t think twice about owning slaves.
One of the best examples of this was in 1949 when French philosopher Simone de Beauvoir, Sartre’s on and off partner, published her masterpiece, “The Second Sex”. The book looked at the role of women and was so influential it started the Feminism movement.
Simone de Beauvoir called out a dynamic that had been unquestioned for thousands of years, showing how unfair and unreasonable gender roles had become.
Society was to fucking blame, and de Beauvoir’s showed that equal opportunity did not exist across genders, and that equitable solutions, or those that give more help to the lesser able, were essential to fixing this problem.
One of the main targets de Beauvoir had was love.
If you have been keeping up with my posts, you will know that our idea of ‘love’ is reasonably new. The Romans first came up with ‘romance’ and then the Middle Ages made love the be-all and end-all we know today, with Romeo and Juliet showing us that a life without love is not worth living.
Schopenhauer was one of the first critics of love, suspicious that it was nature’s con to keep us having kids.
De Beauvoir took it a step further and saw love typically as a tool of oppression.
Romantic love made women define themselves by their bullshit relationships with men. Women could only find meaning through sacrifice for their partners, robbing them of freedom.
This meant women were unable to live authentically and, therefore, happily.
Sound familiar?
Don’t think de Beauvoir was against love. In fact, she challenged Sartre by pointing out that his idea on defining ourselves through our actions was not correct because he didn’t mention love.
Our relationships with those we love, our family, our friends and our partners, also define us.
Unlike nearly every philosopher before her, who believed enlightenment could be attained isolated in a fucking cave, de Beauvoir hit upon one of the most important philosophical concepts of all - true happiness comes from helping others.
It comes from improving the freedom and dignity of others.
De Beauvoir also believed love should not be limited by our genders and it is most powerful when gender becomes irrelevant.
️ The only important part of truly fulfilling love is reciprocity, not the roles and norms of society, so it is not important who you fall in love with and fuck if it is founded on mutual freedom, equality and respect.
Who could argue with that?! 
![PXL_20240919_020052175~3.jpg]( "PXL_20240919_020052175~3.jpg")
Philosophy can expose blind-spots later generations will find hard to bloody believe, for instance, Aristotle raved on about the equality of man but didn’t think twice about owning slaves. One of the best examples of this was in 1949 when French philosopher Simone de Beauvoir, Sartre’s on and off partner, published her masterpiece, “The Second Sex”. The book looked at the role of women and was so influential it started the Feminism movement. Simone de Beauvoir called out a dynamic that had been unquestioned for thousands of years, showing how unfair and unreasonable gender roles had become. Society was to fucking blame, and de Beauvoir’s showed that equal opportunity did not exist across genders, and that equitable solutions, or those that give more help to the lesser able, were essential to fixing this problem.One of the main targets de Beauvoir had was love.
If you have been keeping up with my posts, you will know that our idea of ‘love’ is reasonably new. The Romans first came up with ‘romance’ and then the Middle Ages made love the be-all and end-all we know today, with Romeo and Juliet showing us that a life without love is not worth living. Schopenhauer was one of the first critics of love, suspicious that it was nature’s con to keep us having kids. De Beauvoir took it a step further and saw love typically as a tool of oppression. Romantic love made women define themselves by their bullshit relationships with men. Women could only find meaning through sacrifice for their partners, robbing them of freedom. This meant women were unable to live authentically and, therefore, happily. Sound familiar?Don’t think de Beauvoir was against love. In fact, she challenged Sartre by pointing out that his idea on defining ourselves through our actions was not correct because he didn’t mention love.
Our relationships with those we love, our family, our friends and our partners, also define us. Unlike nearly every philosopher before her, who believed enlightenment could be attained isolated in a fucking cave, de Beauvoir hit upon one of the most important philosophical concepts of all - true happiness comes from helping others. It comes from improving the freedom and dignity of others. De Beauvoir also believed love should not be limited by our genders and it is most powerful when gender becomes irrelevant.️ The only important part of truly fulfilling love is reciprocity, not the roles and norms of society, so it is not important who you fall in love with and fuck if it is founded on mutual freedom, equality and respect. Who could argue with that?! 
