NATURALLY ARTIFICIAL

ENJOY PHILOSOPHY MEETS WEEKLY EVERY SUNDAY BETWEEN 11.30 AND 14.30 AT EDUARDO VII PARK, HERE:** https://goo.gl/maps/5e3jKFEweXkNvDdK6

ITS THE GARDEN BETWEEN THE “CARLOS LOPES PAVILLION” AND THE “PRAIA NO PARQUE” RESTAURANT AT EDUARDO VII PARK.

THIS IS A GROUP FOR ANYONE INTERESTED IN ENJOYING PHILOSOPHY.

NO PRIOR KNOWLEDGE IS REQUIRED.

ONLY ETERNAL CURIOSITY AND THE PLEASURE OF KNOWLEDGE.

PLS KEEP UPDATED of any changes and updates on our WhatsApp Group:
Enjoy Philosophy Lisbon Group Access-Link

We will learn, debate, enjoy and investigate philosophers and diverse themes from the philosophical perspective. Each reunion is structured as a conversation among all attendees about that day s philosopher softly moderated by the organizer. The conversation will kick-off from the very brief suggested reading providing easy access to all attendees both to the philosopher and the conversation.

Let´s be greek and dive today on…

What we naturally conceive as NATURAL.

When in her seminal 1970 work Sexual Politics, Kate Millett, one of the most brilliant feminist thinkers, invited us to dive into what we meant when we affirm that something is "natural", she was opening one of the deepest cracks in the long history of Power Structures transmission mechanisms.

Millett deconstructed the concept of "natural" gender roles by arguing they are not biological imperatives but rather socially constructed: for thousands of years having women in the kitchen or unable to vote was "the natural thing to do". And therefore those attitudes were perceived not only as justified but rather necessary. The opposite would have been "unnatural". Deconstructing the cathegory of "natural", Millet defended, should become therefore one of the priorities of Feminism.

But Millets extremely relevant consideration goes far beyond the tragic history of Patriarchy appearing as the absolutely necessary question to be asked to everything historically defended as "natural". Having heterosexual relations was the "natural " behaviour as having slaves was the natural attitude for most of human history, and below the "natural" cathegory silently lived a long history of political positions, institutions, status quo, social structures, etc... "naturally" transmitted forward to the lucky future generations by teaching them what was indeed "natural" and what was not. Under the concept of "natural" silently lived all the conceptions a society asumes (naturally) asserting them as (natural) facts. And therefore un-touchable, un-questionable, un-rejectable "truths" under the ultimate rule of Nature. Because who would oppose nature? Who would have the guts to oppose the order of Nature ?

Luckily we have philosophy to do the job.

The exploration on the binary division between natural and unnatural cathegories forces us to reflect as well on what is indeed the nature of the "unnatural". Can something be fairly conceived as Un-Natural, or contrary to nature, since the fact of its mere existence proves by itself being a part of nature ?

Isn´t everything that exists, precisely because it exists, natural ? A part of nature? Maybe scarce or ephemerous, ugly or evil, but if it exists... is it not a part of nature ?

Let´s think on what means to say that something is natural. And why, when and how we have been saying it...