/lit/ - Literature

>>15518670
No.
1) In the case where the truth of the statement cannot be ascertained independently, where I depend on the word of the other, because I do not believe in phrenology.
2) In the case where the truth of the statement can be ascertained independently (philosophy), because, in that case, I ascertain the truth, and there the personal characteristics of the writer are irrelevant, because they do not impact my capability of discerning the truth.

In 1), it could be entertained as relevant. In 2), it cannot be relevant, because you do not depend on the writer at all, but on your own capability in determining the truth of his words.

>>15513434
You must not say "abstracted". If it is "abstracted", that is, has its genesis in experience, then it is a subject of empirical science (in this case, pdychology), not ontology, the subject of which are laws of being, which precede and underlie experience.
Just a correction, I do not mean to be hostile.
As for my own thought, I cannot consider this dynamic as something that corresponds to human perfection, because it leaves both incomplete. The male, the active, has no finish in itself, and cannot be content with itself, because its finish is the satisfaction of the female, receptive part. This leaves the male as essentially incomplete, but still much nearer to the truth than the female, which is lowered to an end without any means, to pure sentimentality (passivity - passion). If this division persists, neither is a complete being, neither is a finished human.
I doubt that this relation has any ontologic ground. It came into being due to causes external to it, and will, hopefully, cease to be in the same way. Unfortunately, it has ceased to be only partially, and at the cost of unrestrained sentimentality, which is horrifying.

>>15511628
Because you do not actually read it.

>>15498269
That is the only thing good about them. Femininity is horrifyingly gay, and I do not like gay people.
Women and men should both be raised like men.