His merit is inhis power; he pleases because he is strong. This is not the lawof love, I admit, but it is the law of nature, which is older thanlove itself
Judging from this statement, Men live by the law of nature and women live by the law of love. but men and women live and share the same world, why would both parties live by one and not by the other?
it is not nature, it is education, it is socialexistence which produces this difference.
nature can be educated? or that nature is educated into a being?
JAMAICA, indeed, theytalk of one negroe as a man of parts and learning; but it islikely he is admired for slender accomplishments, like aparrot, who speaks a few words plainly
the colonizer reducing the colonized/minority to an animal/beast. If you were not white, you were expendable in 1742.
No ingenious manufactures amongstthem, no arts, no sciences
Clear example of ethnocentrism. Hume believing that his way of life is the standard and all other cultures/beliefs shall be measured against your own. Very ignorant and dangerous way of thinking.
A man must never tell his wife if he risks a part of hisfortune on behalf of a friend
this was written in 1764 but I can't help to think of this movie scene from The Flintstones that relates to men not telling wives about risking assets for friends. 230 year difference between 1764 and 1994. []https://youtu.be/hDWnaLzJxQU?si=qegAG2F--ef06YCs
and because of their rarity may well makeher into an object of a cold admiration
If a women were to actually make a scientific discovery that could alter the way of life, because of the gender norms at the time, she would just be looked upon with jealousy and contempt rather than admiration and pride if a male were to make the scientific discovery.
one [should notwant] to disguise the charming distinction that nature haschosen to make between the two sorts of human being
In Kant's world (1724-1804) the idea that a person, male or female, would participate in actions that would go against typical gender norms, is unfathomable to Kant. Kant cannot imagine a women making contributions to science.
restless ones who didn't have ababy around to enliven their life, or skill in making or cooking orsinging, or very interesting thoughts to think, decided to slope offand hunt mammoths
implying that, other than hunting, pre-historic men did not contribute much to society in pre-historic times.
it wast't the meat that made the difference. It was the story.
That story not only has Action, it has a Hero. Heroes are power-ful. Before you know it, the men and women in the wild-oat patcha nd their kids and the skills of the makers and the thoughts of thethoughtful and the songs of the singers are all part of it, have allbeen pressed into service in the tale of the Hero. But it isn't theirstory. It's his
Men got to venture out and hunt and, therefore, make up stories and songs of the "Hero" and his actions. Women stayed in camp and "gathered", decreasing their chances to make the same stories and songs as the males.