That's "Odysseus of Ithaca" in "A Perfect Vacuum"[1], by Stanislav Lem.
Ad 1: https://stanislaw-lem.fandom.com/wiki/A_Perfect_Vacuum
Lady Ranelagh: The Incomparable Life of Robert Boyle’s Sister
11–20 of 81 posts
Re: Lady Ranelagh: The Incomparable Life of Robert Boyle’s Sister
#12Arguments like this make me suspicious. Essentially, we've got no way of knowing how much Lady Ranelagh would have achieved if... so that leaves us free to speculate about how she was an unknown genius. There's an infinite supply of these figures for feminist academics to make hay with. Meanwhile, how many people can name an achievement of Robert Boyle, who actually was the greatest English scientist before Newton? M…
This from the book's description [1] implies that she did much more that that.
> Philosophers, mathematicians, politicians, and religious authorities sought her opinion on everything from decimalizing the currency to producing Hebrew grammars. She practiced medicine alongside distinguished male physicians, treating some of the most elite patients in London. Her medical recipes, political commentaries, and testimony concerning the philosophers’ stone gained international circulation. She was an important influence on Boyle and a formidable thinker in her own right.
[1] https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/L/bo592598...
Re: Lady Ranelagh: The Incomparable Life of Robert Boyle’s Sister
#13Arguments like this make me suspicious. Essentially, we've got no way of knowing how much Lady Ranelagh would have achieved if... so that leaves us free to speculate about how she was an unknown genius. There's an infinite supply of these figures for feminist academics to make hay with. Meanwhile, how many people can name an achievement of Robert Boyle, who actually was the greatest English scientist before Newton? M…
as a man, how insecure does one have to be to take offense at a book that celebrates the achievement of a woman, and to question the accuracy of it without having actually read it?
Seems a bit of a straw man no? I don't see how the parent comment expressed having taken offense, nor particular insecurity, and surely not enough to infer their gender, or any such grounds for "motives".
The comment you are responding to also explicitly points out the basis being just the article in question, and being open to the possibility of a better argument posed in the book. So, I honestly do not see the issue here.
edit: As is evident from the response they got, the book seems to give better insights, which must be a win for everyone?
Re: Lady Ranelagh: The Incomparable Life of Robert Boyle’s Sister
#14I’ve always wondered the true number of Einsteins, Ramanujans, Lovelaces, etc who were forced into a life of physical exploitation, turned into mechanical machines because of life’s and humanity’s brutality. Even in modern times... (not that forcing anyone, even non-geniuses into a life of manual servitude or exploitation is ever ok)
"Imagine that you’ve got a million people farming in Antarctica. They’re eking out this bare subsistence in agriculture in the snow,"
"Obviously, if you let those farmers leave Antarctica and go someplace else to farm, the farmers are better off. But isn’t it also better for the world if you let people stop eking out this existence, contributing nothing to the world, and go someplace where they could actually use their skills and not just feed themselves, but produce something for the world economy?"
The failure of the developed world to enable all of humanity to realize their potential is a huge, huge problem for everyone.
Imagine you had been transplanted to Haiti or Equatorial Guinea at basically any point in your life, and you weren't given an education, you weren't allowed or able to move to anywhere else etc etc. It would be a huge loss not just to you but to everyone else that your potential went unrealized.
Re: Lady Ranelagh: The Incomparable Life of Robert Boyle’s Sister
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
as a man, how insecure does one have to be to take offense at a book that celebrates the achievement of a woman, and to question the accuracy of it without having actually read it?
Seems a bit of a straw man no? I don't see how the parent comment expressed having taken offense, nor particular insecurity, and surely not enough to infer their gender, or any such grounds for "motives". The comment you are responding to also explicitly points out the basis being just the article in question, and being open to the possibility of a better argument posed in the book. So, I honestly do not see the issu…
straw man? No there is a dead giveaway right here:
> "There's an infinite supply of these figures for feminist academics to make hay with."
He devalues the content of the article by labeling the author as "feminist academics"? Not just saying "researchers" or "academics" - he needed to point out that it was a woman with a feminist agenda.
But the fact that this is the top comment and gets defended (instead of flagged for the misogyny it is) says enough.
Re: Lady Ranelagh: The Incomparable Life of Robert Boyle’s Sister
#16I’ve always wondered the true number of Einsteins, Ramanujans, Lovelaces, etc who were forced into a life of physical exploitation, turned into mechanical machines because of life’s and humanity’s brutality. Even in modern times... (not that forcing anyone, even non-geniuses into a life of manual servitude or exploitation is ever ok)
This exactly is the purpose of my branch of feminism! To be liberated from social systems of oppression of all kinds. It's refreshing to see a genial discussion here on HN, challenges aside.
Re: Lady Ranelagh: The Incomparable Life of Robert Boyle’s Sister
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
as a man, how insecure does one have to be to take offense at a book that celebrates the achievement of a woman, and to question the accuracy of it without having actually read it?
Seems a bit of a straw man no? I don't see how the parent comment expressed having taken offense, nor particular insecurity, and surely not enough to infer their gender, or any such grounds for "motives". The comment you are responding to also explicitly points out the basis being just the article in question, and being open to the possibility of a better argument posed in the book. So, I honestly do not see the issu…
It is not win. It is simply assuming and claiming she is getting unfair credit without bothering to look at the case -- on the basis of her gender. The comment did not asked for tldr, the comment literally made claims about her lack of achievements.
Admitting that you did not checked it and being theoretically open to change if you would bothered does not change all that much. Plus, this is just how bias works. In assumptions claim when you don't check evidence.
Re: Lady Ranelagh: The Incomparable Life of Robert Boyle’s Sister
#18I’ve always wondered the true number of Einsteins, Ramanujans, Lovelaces, etc who were forced into a life of physical exploitation, turned into mechanical machines because of life’s and humanity’s brutality. Even in modern times... (not that forcing anyone, even non-geniuses into a life of manual servitude or exploitation is ever ok)
This exactly is the purpose of my branch of feminism! To be liberated from social systems of oppression of all kinds. It's refreshing to see a genial discussion here on HN, challenges aside.
Except oppression isn't necessarily an end and allowing certain groups to define oppression or deriving it from immutable historical fact simply creates another privileged class and gives one a stick to beat oppressors who may not even intentionally participate in so called "oppressive acts" with.
I argue fighting oppression is only useful insofar as it presents a utilitarian good for society and that certain levels of structural violence is necessary for nation states to function. At the end of the day, there always needs to be a (large) class of street sweepers, accountants and restaurant workers for the benefit of the rest of society.
Re: Lady Ranelagh: The Incomparable Life of Robert Boyle’s Sister
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems a bit of a straw man no? I don't see how the parent comment expressed having taken offense, nor particular insecurity, and surely not enough to infer their gender, or any such grounds for "motives". The comment you are responding to also explicitly points out the basis being just the article in question, and being open to the possibility of a better argument posed in the book. So, I honestly do not see the issu…
straw man? No there is a dead giveaway right here: > "There's an infinite supply of these figures for feminist academics to make hay with." He devalues the content of the article by labeling the author as "feminist academics"? Not just saying "researchers" or "academics" - he needed to point out that it was a woman with a feminist agenda. But the fact that this is the top comment and gets defended (instead of flagged…
[deleted]
Re: Lady Ranelagh: The Incomparable Life of Robert Boyle’s Sister
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems a bit of a straw man no? I don't see how the parent comment expressed having taken offense, nor particular insecurity, and surely not enough to infer their gender, or any such grounds for "motives". The comment you are responding to also explicitly points out the basis being just the article in question, and being open to the possibility of a better argument posed in the book. So, I honestly do not see the issu…
straw man? No there is a dead giveaway right here: > "There's an infinite supply of these figures for feminist academics to make hay with." He devalues the content of the article by labeling the author as "feminist academics"? Not just saying "researchers" or "academics" - he needed to point out that it was a woman with a feminist agenda. But the fact that this is the top comment and gets defended (instead of flagged…
I'll readily admit that English is not my first language, so there might undertones in that quote I'm unaware of. I also agree that the use of "feminist academics" was unnecessary, but mostly for not making a greater effort at "avoiding unrelated controversies" as per guidelines [1].
I might glossed over some detail there, and instead gave the original poster the benefit of the doubt, and assumed that the meaning was as following:
- Unknown female geniuses lost to history due to gender inequality are many - The article itself does not make a good argument of why Ranelagh in particular might be a good example. The bar should be higher. - Maybe the book gives a better argument
As mentioned, I might have gotten the first one wrong, though I did not, as you put it, defend it. Disagreements are appreciated. Instead, I believed you created an argument, which was based on a lot of assumptions (gender, motive, misogyny, etc, hence "straw man") and went much, much further in the opposite of "avoiding unrelated controversies".
---