These could include the aim of her studies, the programs she joins at college, her friends, and her romantic pursuits. The point is that the philosophy of love is explained by Plato in such a way as to make it accessible to men and women, college students, and feminists alike. The same principle holds true for the works of Thomas Aquinas, whose writings focused much on the nature of God and his interaction with human beings. Much of this of course is based within the principles of Christianity, and the anti-feminist notion of the submission of the woman to the man. Nonetheless, like Plato, there are many elements of this philosophy that concerns humanity in general rather than the genders in isolation.

In the first part of the Summa for example, Aquinas considers the nature of God, creation and the free will that humanity operates under. According to Aquinas, the power to know, like all other things, is given by God. The object of this will is then the universal good. This is reminiscent of Aristotle's philosophy of the pursuit of the "good" life. This ideal is expounded in the second part of the Summa. The end that is pursued should be the ultimate good, which is attained through a chain of acts. These acts are chosen by means of free will, which serves the principle of appropriate actions to reach the good end. The good is determined by means of human reason.

The way in which Aquinas pronounces the difference between good and evil as having its root in moral habit. This is also an idea reminiscent of Aristotle. The moral habit would then result in pursuing a good end rather than an evil one gladly. The moral habit in its turn is rooted in theological virtues imparted by God. The will and reason then work together to choose for rather than against the theological virtues. One of the virtues, which is reminiscent of Plato's writings, is abstinence from physical lust, of which women are the object. Women, according to Aquinas,...

This also is an act of reason and will.
It appears then, that although Aquinas appears to be focused on men when citing the divinely inspired virtues, he does acknowledge that women also have a choice that they can make by means of reason. Of course in the terms of the regular 21st century female college student this appears absurd. It must however be acknowledged that according to the standards of his day, Aquinas did acknowledge the existence and the power of women. He, like the other philosophers, did this according to the norms imposed upon him by his culture. Many of his theories however are applicable to common humanity rather than to men alone. His theories on free will and the ultimate good, as well as how these interact with divine nature for example can be used not only by Christians, but also by other religious thinkers in order to springboard their own ideas.

This is also applicable to the other philosophers of the canon, including Descartes, whose theories on the nature of humanity are certainly applicable to all of humanity rather than to men alone. Surely the concept of reason is culturally accepted to be the domain of men, while women are perceived to be more emotional. This is a paradigm that holds true to at least some extent even in modern society. When this is recognized it is easier to accept that many of the apparently sexist views in the canon, together with the fact that only male authors are featured, is culturally inspired rather than by the all-important concept of reason. It also needs to be recognized that there are some positive views of women represented in the canon, most notably those of Plato in the Symposium. In conclusion then, perhaps feminists should seek ways in which to supplement the canon with new, culturally accepted philosophies, rather than rewrite what already exists.