European Professor: E=Mc² is "Sexed," Speed of Light is "Privileged"

Pundit Press ^ | 1/20/15 | Aurelius

[muir_redwoods]

The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius is limited.

[Zeppo]

Gee, a feminist, postmodern, psychoanalytical theorist also happens to be an idiot.

I am so surprised (not).

[Smedley]

Next week Imam al Sharpton will declare the equation rasus

[Chode]

[faithhopecharity]

the difference between academic brilliance, so-called, and insanity is that the latter does not have tenure

[Bryanw92]

She should go bake me a cake.

[Opinionated Blowhard]

This quote is so amusingly bizarre that I scoured the internet for an explanation and more context. The most charitable that I could find was:

It is notoriously difficult for Anglo-Saxons to understand the French, as their way of talking is oblique and not literal. In this way, the whole of French philosophy is opaque to literalists, who can pontificate and object until their bovines greet them at the dusk, but will not make any progress. For the unsophisticates: she is playing with an idea. “Perhaps…” and “Let us suppose…” introduces a playful modality. Already, you need to assume she isn’t making an analytical statement of the sort that are most common in America, when you are trying to advance an argument. So, if we keep in mind that she is not American, or British, what is the argument that she is really trying to advance? Well, the speed of light stands for something else. It is in fact related to Western notion that male sexuality is primarily visual. To decode the puzzle: the primacy of male sexuality is a sexed equation. Are we aware that Irigary is concerned with sexuality as it relates to gender? She is not your typical, puritanical USA feminist, in that she is totally concerned with sex. So, if she is concerned with discussing sexuality, rather than criticizing science, which is in fact what she is doing, what might she be obliquely suggesting? To recap: she doesn’t think that sexuality should be given over to the primacy of the viewer who is nominally male.

So the statement itself is meaningless. Its just yet another way to say that sexuality should not be viewed from a male perspective. Uh, ok. Next . . . . . .

[Opinionated Blowhard]

What the explanation points out — and I agree with this — is that translations can easily be misunderstood given that we all talk and think in cultural contexts. Anyone who speaks another language knows that. (I speak German and how Germans speak and think still amazes me sometimes.)

[buwaya]

This is quite old - the crazy lady has been around for a long time.
This was part of the background of the “Sokal Hoax” of the 1990’s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

[Snickering Hound]

[Cyclone59]

Of course it is a sexed formula. It is male - it has a stick shift and ball bearings, it is what makes it go so fast...

[Viking2002]

So the universe itself is sexist? This is a joke, right?

[Vendome]

[GraceG]

Well if this dumbass can change the laws 'o physics and make it less sexists she is welcome to try....

[Vendome]

[Flycatcher]

She should go bake me a cake.

Yeah, but she'd probably do it the speed of molasses.

[IllumiNaughtyByNature]

what?

[Maceman]

Irigaray, who describes herself as a "Feminist Philosopher,"

Upon hearing such a description, my dear departed Yiddische grandma would have asked her: "And from dis you make a livink?"

[fhayek]

I understand that there is always something lost in translation. Languages are more than a medium of communication, they are a medium of thinking. I can accept that, but, when you try to apply obscure meanings to cold mathematical, physical equations, you really are straining things a bit. I mean, anything could stand for anything, and all you are left with is one of those meaningless arguments you had with your college roommate when both of you were stoned.