I have seen many quotes in which most of the time philosopher refer to man instead of human, are they being sexist or something.
For example: “Man is the only creature who refuses to be what he is.” by Albert Camus
In: Other
“Man” was, for the vast majority of the history of the English language, the **gender-neutral term**, hence terms like “mankind”.
Social trends have changed, and we prefer the term “humanity” rather than “man” or “mankind” these days. It has nothing to do with sexism, it’s just a small change in how we use the language in order to appear more inclusive, even though there wasn’t anything wrong with it in the first place.
Bonus: “Dude” and “guy” are also gender-neutral. “You guys” and “Dudes” means “people”, not explicitly “men”.
They’re using “man” to mean “human.” It’s sort of like how people might say “mankind.”
Recent writers tend to prefer human or other gender neutral terms, but that’s a pretty modern thing. Most historical writers used the ‘man’ form.
Kids Definition of man (Entry 1 of 3)
1: an adult male human being
2: a human being : PERSON
3: the human race : MANKIND
4: HUSBAND entry 1
I now pronounce you man and wife.
5: an adult male servant or employee
6: one of the pieces with which various games (as chess and checkers) are played
7: a member of the group to which human beings belong including both modern humans and extinct related forms
Sexism.
Some people say that ‘man’ was a gender neutral term, but I haven’t seen any evidence of this. I think it is more true to say that philosophers (and others) simply did not consider women as significant. Thinking was done by men. Policy was set by men. Action was performed by men. (When women were actually involved, they were exceptions).
When JFK said that the USA “should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth” he said “man” and “him” because it was inconceivable at the time that the effort would involve women (although of course it did, but always in a subservient role).
It can be useful to “translate” the sexist vocabulary of past ages into neutral terms by thinking of “man” as gender neutral, since we now believe that most of what was said applies just as well to women. However, I don’t think we should fall into the trap of believing they were actually including women in their thinking.
Latest Answers