The philosophical desire for writing: a gender trouble

In this article, my attempt is to relate the structuring of the love desire and the structuring of the philosophical desire for writing. Immediately, we can think that there is not exactly a relationship between these two ways of desiring, i.e., that the way in which we experience love is independent of the way in which we experience philosophical writing. But, if we stop to think about with authors such as Helene Cixous, Michel Foucault, Judith Butler, Paul B. Preciado, Margareth Rago and Audre Lorde, we will realize that the phallic-patriarchal structuring of desire for love also configures the structuring of desire for Philosophy, determining what it is and how we should philosophize. The close articulation between violence linked to heteronormativity in the love field and in the philosophical field, allows us to understand that the universality and objectivity of Reason, which traditionally operates as the engine of philosophical action, is nothing more than a presumption, since the logos purified from feeling and imagination corresponds to the materiality of a certain type of body: in general, sovereign, white, heterosexual, healthy and seminal bodies. Based on this, in this essay, I seek to offer some historical-philosophical clues to understand why women were and are relegated to the margins of Philosophy, understood as afield of teaching, learning, research and production of knowledge, that is classically anchored in love of wisdom. My intention is, therefore, to understand to what extent the normative configuration of this love nourishes and is nourished by a violent dynamic that explicitly or tacitly detaches women from the scope of Wisdom.