/lit/ - Literature

Could marrying a cute tomboy have saved him?

>>12384822
all sexuality is immoral
next question

stop having more than one hobby

>Reason has no interest whatsoever in the eternal continuation of humankind. Whoever wants to perpetuate humankind wants to perpetuate a problem and a guilt, indeed the only problem and the only guilt that there are, for the aim is the deity and the ending of humankind in the deity, a pure separation between good and evil, between something and nothing. Therefore, the attempts that have sometimes been made to sanctify sexual intercourse (which admittedly it badly needs) by inventing an ideal sexual act in which only the procreation of the human species is envisaged prove to be an affectionate disguise rather than an adequate defense. For the motive that allegedly allows and sanctions it is not only no commandment and nowhere to be found as an imperative in the human being, but is itself morally reprehensible, since one does not ask a human being whom one fathers or mothers for his agreement. As for the other kind of sexual intercourse, in which the possibility of procreation is arti¤cially prevented, even that extremely feeble justi¤cation loses its validity.

>Thus sexual intercourse in any case contradicts the idea of humanity; not
because asceticism is a duty, but above all because in sexual intercourse Woman
wants to become an object, a thing, and Man really does her the favor of regarding her as a thing and not as a living human being with internal psychic processes. That is why Man despises Woman as soon as he has possessed her, and Woman feels that she is now despised, even though two minutes earlier she was
idolized.

Is he right?

I will try to lay out his argument in simple terms:

FIRST

>Love and sex are opposing forces

Why?

>The reason why there is such a conflict in man regarding these things is because they are opposed
>The more a man loves a particular woman, the more hesitant he is to expose his sexual lust for her and
>The more he is ready to display his animal lust, the less respect he shows towards her

etc etc

Also:

>The men we admire would be degraded were our love for them to be diluted with base lust

ie

>A friendship between two men, which we might call platonic love, does not involve sexual relations because that would harm, degrade, destroy the relationship

Fornication is therefore immoral, because it harms/abuses the individuality of the other person.

SECOND

Woman and man are formed out of the same thread, only they are pulled in opposite directions, the female towards the "Woman" pole, and the male towards the "Male" pole. Therefore, there is no complete Man, and no complete Woman; in other words, man maintains a slight degree of femininity and woman retains a slight degree of masculinity, despite the predominance of the opposite characteristics (masculinity in men and femininity in women).

Out of respect for the "Man" in women (i.e., the individuality, the personality), engaging in sexual intercourse with women is immoral, for the aforementioned reasons.

>Our age is not only the most Jewish, but also the most effeminate of all ages; an age in which art only provides a sudarium for its moods and which has derived the artistic urge in humans from the games played by animals; an age of the most credulous anarchism, an age without any appreciation of the state and law, an age of species ethic, an age of the shallowest of all imaginable interpretations of history (historical materialism), an age of capitalism and marxism, an age for which history, life, science, everything, has become nothing but economics and technology; an age that has declared genius to be a form of madness, but which no longer has one great artist or one great philosopher, an age that is most devoid of originality, but which chases most frantically after originality; an age that has replaced the idea of virginity with the cult of the demivierge. This age also has the distinction of being the ¤rst to have not only affirmed and worshipped sexual intercourse, but to have practically made it a duty, not as a way of achieving oblivion, as the Romans or Greeks did in their bacchanals, but in order to ¤nd itself and to give its own dreariness a meaning.

Thoughts?

>>10245314
good theory but sexual intercourse is immoral you filthy pagan

>Engages in a thorough and honest investigation of the psychology of women
>Searches in earnest for any evidence of intellectual or moral integrity in women, which alone leads to achievements of lasting impact
>Finds that women fall short in this respect, and provides circumstantial evidence in behaviors common to women of all time periods that shows how their race is poorly equipped in regards to the facilitation of artistic genius

>Relates very strongly that the solution to the problem which women face is not their emancipation from men, but their emancipation from their own tendencies as women which reveal that they have a lot of ground to cover in order to formulate their own culture of religiosity and philosophy which men have been exploring for millennia
>For instance, women are more concerned about what men are doing to them, than they are about what their own members are doing to themselves (taking pictures of themselves constantly, wearing makeup, engaging in fashion trends, and so forth, unable to view themselves as anything besides sexual creatures, scorning chaste men).

>Is written off as a misogynist, a homosexual, a pervert, a bourgeois, repressed, etc.
>All critiques are by Jewish Marxists and their feminist progeny attempting to delegitimize him by writing him off as a mere product of the sentiment of society at the time, disregarding the capacity of a man to rise above his time and place.

Has a man ever been treated more unfairly?

And before any of you try to make the argument: "hurr durr, he kilt himself so that must prove that he was really just a repressed homosexual hurr", he killed himself for reasons unrelated to women, having to do with his struggles to live up to his own standards for moral and intellectual consistency.

>>10046803
Sexual intercourse is immoral.

Has lit ever had an Otto Weininger thread?

Well, if it hasn't, now it has one!

> Otto Weininger thread.

I will open with these remarks:

While weininger's remarks on women are distasteful and prejudiced, there is a grain of truth in them. The "moral question" is much more pronounced in men than in women. Men are much more burdened by guilt than women are. Men are more conscious of the reality of sin. Women take a more "realist" approach in matters, they don't think about justice or vengeance, they just "do" what their feelings tell them to.

Hello /lit/izens

I have noticed a trend among the philosophy discussion on this board in which only the most influential or controversial philosophers (namely Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Foucault, Wittgenstein, etc...) are discussed and the others are ignored for the most part.

Are there any other philosophers that you think deserve more attention here or in general?

Has anybody read this dude? Apparently he was so good at figuring out what's going on with bitches that he had to shoot himself. Will be checking him out as soon as I've money spare to buy "Sex and character"

>>1509477
luv you too OP