Any fair reading of Spelman's critique of Plato's privileging of mind over body and male over female must concede that her interpretation of the pernicious uses to which Platonic dualism has been put makes sense--but not perfect sense. The purpose of this research is to explore Plato's discussion of the mind-body distinction and then to assess the validity of Spelman's interpretation of Plato on that point, in comparison to the interpretations by other feminist commentators.
In the Phaedo, Plato develops the idea that intangible attributes--such as beauty, justice, knowledge, and truth--are absolutes or ideals that can never be experienced in the physical world but that can only be approximated. Sense experience can never reach truth; the closest one can come to it is through the soul, which is itself accessed through the mind:
And thought is best when the mind is gathered into herself . . . not allowing when in the act of thought the intrusion or introduction of sight or any other sense in the company of reason (Plato).
As Spelman explains, Plato's attitude toward the body is that it interferes with the soul's experience of the absolute. That is problematic because Plato also mentions in various dialogues that women are preoccupied with bodily things. The inescapable logic is that women do not have reason. That is supported in the Phaedo by the fact that Socrates has sent away the women who were crying because they do not want him to die, and a man (says he) should be able to die in peace. Spelman argues that because this implies that women cannot control their behavior, they do not have the reasoning capacity of men, and she notes that the dialogues "are riddled with misogynistic remarks" (51). That gives philosophical support for patriarchal social organization and metaphysics, as well as the full range of injustices that women have experienced throughout history.
As long as mind is associated with reason, reason with m...