Sophia Connell

A great number of women were active in early analytic philosophy. However, there is still a lack of attention paid to their contributions in research and teaching. In order to change this situation, this paper sets out practical ways to incorporate women’s works into a core philosophy syllabus. Pedagogically, it will be important to explain early analytic women philosophers’ style and context, for they often have unfamiliar ideas and arguments, some of which pre-figure later moves, celebrated when written by men. For example, Constance Jones’ 1890 signification-denotation distinction prefigured Frege's sense and reference; Susan Stebbing’s 1932 distinction between same-level and directional analysis solved the paradox of analysis 10 years before it was formulated; Ruth Barcan’s 1946–47 quantified modal logic was not only the first such logic, but forced Quine to re-examine his anti-modal arguments. Stebbing, Alice Ambrose, and Margaret MacDonald wrote compellingly about the nature and function of philosophy. We provide practical suggestions about how to integrate early analytic women’s work in teaching: interrogating ‘great man’ narratives by designing courses that are not person- but topic-based, integrating intellectual biography, examining women’s influence on others instead of presenting their ideas as a ‘critique’ of men’s, and including women’s names in essay/exam questions.

Aristotle's Parts of Animals is a foundational text in both the history of philosophy and the history and philosophy of biology. Critically important for understanding his mature philosophical programme, the Parts of Animals has two chief aims. PA Book I is an introduction to the study of animals and plants and provides preliminary considerations for how to investigate all aspects of their nature. PA Books II-IV is the most comprehensive example of the application of Aristotle's philosophical methodology to real world examples of substances, that is, to animals. In this book, a team of international experts cover topics such as Aristotle's exhortation to study biology, his methodology in the study of natural entities and kinds, the study of mind as part of nature, his analysis and use of concepts such as essence, substance, definition, matter, form, species, analogy and teleology, and the influence and legacy of the text.

This paper gives an overview of the philosophical work of Dr Sophie Bryant which appeared in _Mind_ in the late nineteenth century. Bryant was the first woman in the UK to gain a postgraduate degree. Best known for her work in educational reform, she was also an important intellectual, held in high regard by the editors of _Mind_. Details of her association with these men and her intellectual development will be given, including her work on experimental psychology, ethics, the emotions, and philosophy of education broadly in line with British Idealism. Her attempt to set out a unified system of knowledge in the idealist manner was not just theoretical but also designed to for the practical improvement of students both mentally and morally. This led Bryant to focus on intellectual virtues and thus also allowed her to explain the usefulness, indeed the necessity, of abstract subject matter in the classroom.

Grace de Laguna’s philosophical work was bold and original. She was also able to connect together seemingly disparate strands of the pragmatic, metaphysical and psychological research going on around her, as Joel Katzav shows in his paper. This commentary gives some historical background to her academic career in an attempt to explain how she could have been forgotten as a philosopher. Social and institutional factors led to her work not being recognized when she wrote and thus sinking into obscurity in philosophical circles afterwards. Although her work was initially widely read, her research seems not to have had any continuing direct impact on later developments in philosophy. However, it is crucial to restore her thought to its rightful place in the history of our subject.

Reviewers of Bertrand Russell’s Marriage and Morals (MM) came to no consensus on the purpose of the work. Some saw it as advocating love in marriage, others as destroying marriage and still others as an attempt to justify promiscuity (Kayden, Tract on Sex and Marriage: Review of Marriage and Morals by Bertrand Russell. The Sewanee Review 38(1), 104–108, 1930; Pan, Review of Marriage and Morals by Bertrand Russell. The China Critic 3(8), 186–187, 1930). Their confusion is understandable given the tensions in the book. This chapter proposes that these were partly the result of an unsuccessful attempt to combine two incompatible value systems: aristocratic values and the new morality which Bertrand Russell and his wife at the time, Dora, promoted. The book also reveals a couple in crisis—whose ideals had proved impossible to realize in their life together.

In contrast to Aristotle's male oriented explanation of procreation the Galenic was 'feminist' inasmuch as both sexes were presented as contributing equally in conception and accordingly both had to experience pleasure... Anatomically, the two sexes were presented in Galenic accounts as complementary, the difference being that the man's genitalia were on the outside and the woman's on the inside. The clitoris was likened to the penis and the ovaries considered 'testicles' or 'stones' that produced seed. The male seed was, it is true, depicted by Galenists as superior in having 'spiritual' qualities lacking in the female, but Galen's reproductive schema was far more egalitarian than Aristotle's.

Many philosophical schools included female followers, such as Pythagoreans, Cynics, Cyrenaics, Platonists, Epicureans, and Stoics. The most extensive fragmentary writings by female philosophers are those of Neopythagorean women, particularly Theano, Perictione, Phintys, and Ptolemaïs. The most well-attested women philosophers in antiquity include Aspasia, Diotima, Arete, Hipparchia, Sosipatra, and Hypatia. These women appear to have held many different positions and views. There is no distinct feminine philosophy in antiquity, although some fragments from Pythagorean women are an attempt to apply philosophical principles to the everyday lives of women.

Efforts to include women in the canon have long been beset by reactionary gatekeeping, typified by the charge “That's not philosophy.” That charge doesn't apply to early and mid‐analytic female philosophers—Welby, Ladd‐Franklin, Bryant, Jones, de Laguna, Stebbing, Ambrose, MacDonald—with job titles like lecturer in logic and professor of philosophy and publications in Mind, the Journal of Philosophy, and Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. It's hopeless to dismiss their work as “not philosophy.” But comparable reactionary gatekeeping affects them, this paper argues, typified by the labels “bad philosophy” and “derivative philosophy.” Virtue and vice epistemology help explain why these women have been neglected and why their own approaches are epistemically virtuous. Their contemporaries and historians are deficient in scholarly virtues in labelling these women's work “bad” or derived from male mentors with no or specious justification. Their disparaged qualities—intellectual humility, modesty, critical self‐reflection, disclosing biases—are often epistemic virtues.

In a work entitled On the Generation of Animals, Aristotle remarks that “intellect (nous) alone enters from outside (thurathen)”. Interpretations of this passage as dualistic dominate the history of ideas and allow for a joining together of Platonic and Aristotelian doctrine on the soul. This, however, pulls against the well-known Aristotelian position that soul and body are intertwined and interdependent. The most influential interpretations thereby misrepresent Aristotle’s view on soul and lack any real engagement with his embryology. This paper seeks to extract the account of intellect (nous) in Aristotelian embryology from this interpretative background and place it within the context of his mature biological thought. A clear account of the actual import of this statement in its relevant context is given before explaining how it has been misunderstood by various interpretative traditions. The paper finishes by touching on how early commentary by Christian writers, freed as it was from the imperative to synthesise Greek philosophy, differed from those that came after. While realising that Aristotle’s position would not aid them in their explanations of the soul’s survival after death, their engagement with Aristotle’s science allowed for other aspects of theology concerning the fittingness of soul to body.

Women were involved in both practical and theoretical aspects of scientific endeavour in the ancient world. Although the evidence is scant, it is clear that women innovated techniques in textile manufacture, metallurgy, and medical sciences. The most extensive engagement of women in science was in medicine, including obstetrics, gynaecology, pharmacology, and dermatology. The evidence for this often comes from male medical writers. Women were also involved in the manufacture of gold alloys, which interested later alchemists. Maria of Alexandria innovated equipment and techniques while also theorizing about chemical change. Many of the works ascribed to women in antiquity were not written by women. However, they do indicate what sorts of sciences were taken to be the province of women.

This Element provides an account of Aristotle on women which combines what is found in his scientific biology with his practical philosophy. Scholars have often debated how these two fields are related. The current study shows that according to Aristotelian biology, women are set up for intelligence and tend to be milder-tempered than men. Thus, women are not curtailed either intellectually or morally by their biology. The biological basis for the rule of men over women is women's lack of spiritedness. Aristotle's Politics must be read with its audience in mind; there is a need to convince men of the importance of avoiding insurrection both in the city and the household. While their spiritedness gives men the upper hand, they are encouraged to listen to the views of free women in order to achieve the best life for all.

ABSTRACT Alice Ambrose is best known as Wittgenstein’s student during the 1930s. Her association with probably the most famous philosopher of the twentieth century contributes to her obscurity. Ambrose is referred to in historiography of this period as ‘follower’ or ‘disciple’ but never considered in her own right as a philosopher. The neglect of her place in the history of philosophy needs to be resisted. This paper explores some of Ambrose’s most interesting ideas from the early 1950s, when she developed and expanded some of Wittgenstein’s inchoate suggestions and contributed to on-going debates about how to do philosophy and the role of language in the discipline. By combining an analysis of the 1950 paper “The Problem of Linguistic Inadequacy” and the 1952 paper “Linguistic Approaches to Philosophical Problems”, it will be seen that Ambrose rejects the idea that ordinary language can be improved and begins to develop the view that philosophical language adapts to usage. Thus, Ambrose does not blindly follow Wittgenstein but breaks with his idea that there is something inherently wrong with the way philosophers communicate. The paper also seeks to show how marginalized philosophers become obscured in the history of the subject through the example of Ambrose.

This paper aims to establish that, for Aristotle, the state of the physical body is crucial to the human capacity for theoretical understanding. In recent years, scholars have begun to recognise the importance of Aristotle’s biological writings for understanding his psychology, after the relative neglect of these connections. The relevance in particular of the so-called Parva naturalia, small works on what is common to body and soul, and the De motu animalium, a work devoted to animal motion in broad terms, has begun to fill in the picture of how the living body is involved in cognition. This paper will support this point of view by adding the De generatione animalium, a work which gives an account of the advent of soul capacities through the development of the body from the blood, under the control of the nutritive soul. An Aristotelian science of human physiology is a study of the “thinking body”, a person as a whole rather than disembodied nous. I will first set out factors that have made it difficult to integrate Aristotle’s biological treatises into our understanding of human thinking. Next, I will distinguish the thinking shared with other animals, from theoretical understanding, which is something only humans can achieve. I will then explain the aspects of the body that must facilitate and eventually bring about the capacity for thinking, before turning to Aristotle’s embryology where nutritive soul is ultimately responsible for the construction and maintenance of the thinking body. It will be concluded that only a human body leads to theoretical understanding and only a healthy human body can do so adequately.

In de Generatione Animalium (GA) Aristotle argues that both parents contribute to generation through differentiated products of the nutritive process, governed by nutritive soul. This appears to agree in general with the fact that the nutritive soul is the same thing as the generative soul, as set out in de Anima. This essay analyses the contribution of the female animal to generation as a nutritive residue and the result of her nutritive functioning. The female contribution to generation is made useful by its location and latent potentials: it ends up in the uterus ready to become all the parts of the new animal’s body, once its own nutritive soul becomes actualised. After giving a comprehensive overview of the content of the female contribution as residue of nutrition, the last part of the essay articulates a challenge that this presents for Aristotle’s account of nutritive soul. Since the female is unable to generate without the addition of the male generative residue, it would seem that her nutritive soul is defective, lacking the generative capacity that males possess. Articulating this problem requires a closer analysis of the connection between nutrition and generation in Aristotle philosophy. The essay finally concludes that because the female animal’s soul attempts to perpetuate an animal the same in form into the next generation this is enough to render it generative as well as nutritive.

Aristotle's voluminous writings on animals have often been marginalised in the history of philosophy. Providing the first full-length comprehensive account of Aristotle's biology, its background, content and influence, this Companion situates his study of living nature within his broader philosophy and theology and differentiates it from other medical and philosophical theories. An overview of empiricism in Aristotle's Historia Animalium is followed by an account of the general methodology recommended in the Parts of Animals. An account of the importance of Aristotle's teleological perspective and the fundamental metaphysics of biological entities provides a basis for understanding living capacities, such as nutrition, reproduction, perception and self-motion, in his philosophy. The importance of Aristotle's zoology to both his ethics and political philosophy is highlighted. The volume explores in detail the changing interpretations and influences of Aristotle's biological works from antiquity to modern philosophy of science. It is essential for both students and scholars.