I know some of you are tired of hearing about this, but I think language is
an interesting topic, and, after all, LISTSERVs are for discussing
interesting topics! :-)
On man as a generic term, here's a passage from Transforming
Knowledge (the chapter on conceptual errors; sorry, I can't remember
the author's name) . . .
"We hit absurdity fairly fast on this level. Consider the famous syllogism:
'Man is mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.' Try it
with a woman: 'Man is mortal. Alice is------' what? A man? No one
says that, not even philosophers. 'Man,' the supposedly generic term,
does not allow us to say, 'Alice is a man.' So we say, 'Alice is a
woman.' Then what are we to deduce? 'Therefore, Alici is------' What?
It is man, a supposendly universal category that is simultaneously neutral
and masculine but not feminine ('masculine' is defined in contradistinction
to 'feminine'), who 'is mortal.' Is Alice, who is female and hence not in a
category that is either neutral or masculine, then immortal? . . . We can
think of Socrates as a man withough dereailing the sullogism; we cannot
think of Alice as a woman. Reason flounders . . . "
Alicia Gebhardt
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
