Perhaps especially HN. The language of philosophy isn't just unfamiliar, it's specific to particular authors. You can't discuss de Beauvoir without reading de Beauvoir herself, and the things that de Beauvoir was reading.

HN readers tend to be inspired by the model of science, which is more settled in its vocabulary, and concepts are less immediately tied to the speaker. That is, you can study relativity without knowing a word of German. It would sound absurd to tell somebody to read Einstein in the original in order to understand it. Quite the contrary: later re-formulations are preferred, as they benefit from later developments in framing the questions. The numbers it yields are identical and therefore at least as good.

This is a challenge for anybody studying any philosophy. HN readers are generally smart enough to understand it and even be interested in in it, but the way discussions are framed tends to put them off.

> HN just isn’t the correct forum for a meaningful debate on existentialism.

What is the gender composition of HN readers? Do we have any information about that?

I read HN almost every day, going on 10 years now. I have a sense, judging by when gender issues get discussed and women such as myself pipe up obviously, it's in the low 10s or at best 20% but more likely on the lower side.

My note on Beauvoir, I read plenty of her when younger and her mix of intellectual rigour with fierce independence was illuminating for me, definitely she influenced how I live as an independent thinker. She focused on facts and historical analysis to get her arguments across, without appeal to emotion. She also lived a true life of love and courage, and fought hard for her beliefs. Would recommend her biography to anyone interested in the history of 20th c feminism.

I’m more interested in how many people have a background in philosophy, existentialism, and psychoanalysis.

How many folks on HN have strong views on whether “existence precedes essence?”

It would be interesting to have an HN census