/lit/ - Literature

>>12422145
The woman by default. How is this even a question?

>>12422145
*sharts on you*

What dialogue is this reviewing?

>>12422151
Symposium

>>12422148
FPBP.

Plato is highly problematic.

>>12422145
Plato is literally never in the wrong

Plato

>>12423226
I didn't like him calling women inferior, desu. That legitimately made me depressed, because Plato is like a second father to me in every other regard, a spiritual master of whom I view myself as pupil. So reading that line from him legitimately upsets me, because I think women are equal to us in their intellect and virtue. I guess this is like that saying of "don't meet your idols" or something, because you've built up a conception of them in your minds which they'll eventually burst somehow or another.

>>12422148
>How is this even a question?

Because no one takes incels seriously.

>>12423455
He called everyone who wasn't rich or a philosopher inferior.

>>12423455
He was pretty fair to women in the republic. Where does he call women inferior?

>>12423465
Rich, too? I never saw that one.

>>12423470
He says they can, if educated properly, rule like men can, but that they are still inferior to men in all the major areas. Depresses me so much, and reminds me not to get too close to outside figures. My own views are my only guide.

>>12423470
In the Republic. He says that although women are less inclined to be guardians, theres no reason why those few women with the right disposition should be prevented from being so

>>12423486
Just upper class

>>12423486
What if women REALLY ARE inferior though? What if Plato (and many other great thinkers for that matter) are right, and YOU are wrong?

>>12423455
>because I think women are equal to us in their intellect and virtue
You are wrong, Plato is right. Women, being burdened with the gross task of propagating the species, ARE inferior. Nature forces them to be less sublime, less principled, and more inclined to mating and all the foolishness that entails. They are objectively inferior, when it comes to philosophy.

>>12423502
I am right because it doesn't make me feel good and it gives me a bad feeling

>>12423502
>>12423503
>because I think women are equal to us in their intellect and virtue
>because I think

It is possible they are, and if so, then Plato would clearly be the correct one. But I don't believe it at present, or believe I have present reason to believe it either, but if it were true, as difficult a pill as it would be for me to swallow, I would have to try my best to. I just love women a lot and I think people seriously undervalue how incredible they are, because the one's doing the valuing are themselves men, who are often accustomed to filtering in women through the lens of male ego. And to the bottom anon, please discard your cringy >le NATURE makes them inferior because they hab to hab the BABBIES. You have no appeals to "nature" for any human behaviors beyond those of survival, like the creation of art.

>>12423517
Hmm I did not consider that. It appears that you are correct after all

>>12423502
Many other great, "male" thinkers, friendo. Think you forgot that part. Maybe the perspective is inherently biased against the side it speaks of? Not deities dealing out divine summaries on human beings, but individuals doing so through the filter of their own prejudices?

>>12423525
Women have inferior physical abilities and their hormonal states conduct their mental and physical states in a way different to men. What do you think about that

>>12423525
>And to the bottom anon, please discard your cringy >le NATURE makes them inferior because they hab to hab the BABBIES. You have no appeals to "nature" for any human behaviors beyond those of survival, like the creation of art.
Did you ever have a single emotion in your life, you unbelievable brainlet? Did you never feel a flush of attraction in your youth?

This is what women experience their entire lives. Humans are vats of chemicals held in by skin, and sublime endeavors like philosophy are hindered by these animal urges unless especially set aside; by vows, or castration, or drugs. Fertile women can compete in the intellectual arena, but they do not and have never dominated it. Ergo, they are inferior in that capacity. I never said they were inferior overall. Propagating the species is no less important than the pursuit of truth.

>>12423525
That's cool man, just don't give those that believe women to be inferior a hard time. It is by no means a settled matter and a lot of very smart cookies throughout history also believed it to be the case. It's not at all difficult to empathise with the position

>>12423465
And he was right, still is right too

>>12423528
Why would men actively desire for women to be inferior? Woman is man's cooperator, not competitor. What's more likely to be the case is that these great thinkers are simply describing a perennial pattern in found in nature.

>>12423538
Their IQ is higher than the male average, and their libido far more contained than that of a man's. From the outside, women appear the more sophisticated of the sexes.

>>12423541
>vats of chemicals held in skin
materialists pls go

Is this really what you hold to? That because women experience emotions, that they can't into intellectualism? Men have ten times their libido, and we do quite fine in these intellectual domains. What prevents women to? Well, let's see, for the past 2000 years the answer has been man. But now that they're gaining power, we'll see if their hormones, emotions, and whatever other factors of physiology you point to will bar them from reaching great heights in the realms previously dominated by men.

>>12423566
Come on now, if you're talking about IQ difference between sexes then you should at least know that men are far more likely to deviate. There are a lot more idiots and a lot more geniuses. I suppose your excuse for this and the fact that there have been approximately 0 great female geniuses in art, science, philosophy, statesmanship, warfare etc. on brute male opression of the more sophisticated sex.

>>12423566
That doesn't make me a materialist you absurd canker, it is me acknowledging reality. Humans have different intellectual capacities at different ages. Just so, also at different genders.

I'll freely admit women have been held back. They have. But that doesn't mean they've been capable this whole time, or that they are now.

>>12423564
Oh definitely, men have never once shown problems of a thing known as "ego", and the superiority complex it fuels in them. And everyone's a competitor to someone with an ego-complex. Your post could just as easily replace "race" for "women" and be as equally naive:

"Why would X men write about the inferiority of other races? Other groups are in fraternity with X men. What's more likely to be the case is that these great men..."

>>12423455
>needs daddy to tell her she did good
this is exactly why women suck lmao

Why am I so attracted to cold looking woman? This picture turns me on a very sensual way.

>>12423619
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jItbWZY9SwQ

>>12423584
Yes, I'm well-aware of the deviancy. And yet, even that deviancy could only take account the small window of time in which women have been emancipated, and even so, the fact that they are on average more intelligent than men (by thr IQ metric) is indisputable in itself, a statement which thereby nullifies anyone who'd come along and say "women are inferior to men intellectually" speaking of a population, since the answer would actually lie on the women's side. But beyond this, we have to wait and see if they can also close the outlier gap too.

>>12423595
Your complete denial of any spiritual reality does indeed make you a materialist, by the definitions of the terms we're using. Read your lovely line about "chemicals in skin" again and tell me what other conclusion is to be taken from it. And sorry, your conclusions aren't well-connected to your arguments - your position is naively reductive and thus far not anything I can rebut, having no substance within it to refute. If your position is some insanely simplistic "female physiology equals more stupid, it's just reality you dummy" then I really can't reply.

>>12423619
pretty sure that is a man

>>12423619
you're gay and you actually like men

>>12423624
if women are so smart why'd they get dominated by men for millenia lmao
why did men invent and innovate every single thing of worth lol

>>12423624
>Your complete denial of any spiritual reality does indeed make you a materialist,
you don't know what i believe. you're telling me what i believe because you're just enough of a mongrel brainlet to assume and too ignorant to stop yourself.

here's a tip, dumbass: physics and metaphysics are not mutually exclusive.

>>12423625
That's obviously a woman.

>>12423631
: (

>>12423622
: ( (

>>12423635
Checkmate women
Inb4 WE WUZZING all great inventions of man

>>12423624
The material is subservient to the immaterial. The former processes from the latter. Women are only physically inferior in that they are spiritually stunted.
>emancipated
Freed from tradition and a meaningful existence, only to be enslaved by capital. Great job girls!

>>12423635
based. if whitey's so bad, why did he conquer so many people all over the world?? chekmare, feminists

>>12423646
Here's a tip for you too: instead of expecting I somehow know your soul and every position therein, you explicate what those views are in the comments you write to me so that I don't have to naturally call you a foolish materialist for leaving laughable comments like "humans are vats of chemicals held in by skin", which clearly defines the human as entirely and only material in nature. Can you do that for me, anon? Writing out your actual beliefs, instead of ones that by nature demand to be laughed at which you subsequently claim "a-aren't my actual b-beliefs, dumbass"? Try it with anyone you talk to on the internet as well, because sadly none of us can read your brilliant mind, you have to share each insight with us sentence by sentence. And regarding your lovely comment on metaphysics, it would seem simply that you don't consider any of these "metaphysics" relevant to the functioning of either sex, who operate entirely by the physiological components in their respective flesh, which dictates the nature of their creative capacities in our world.

>>12423676
>Here's a tip for you too
You needn't have to know my entire mind to not assume I'm a materialist. You only have to refrain from generalizing about others, uninformed.

>>12423455

You honestly typed this thinking we would believe you were a guy?
As shown in your post, ironically or not, women will always appeal to emotion and an entitled sense of "fair", without every bringing reason into the situation.
This is why the majority of women are inferior philosophers.

But I've read the Republic, and concerning women, "Socrates" argues that women should be allowed into the ranks of the ruling strata if they meet the requirements.

Guess who very rarely meets the requirements?

>>12423689
"Humans are vats of chemicals held in by skin" Maybe don't open and undergird your entire argument with such definitively-spoken statements that point only towards reductive materialism, then?

>>12423697
Do you see how this has become an argument about how *I* failed *you*, and how that made you make a fatal mistake? Do you see that we are no longer discussing the point?

This is why women are bad philosophers.

How fucking gay is this board man?
>>12423455 that fag would be laughed out anywhere else and yet people engage him as if it weren't embarrassing bullshit. Yikes, fellas, you disappoint me.

>>12423712
No, you're merely backsliding now because your entire stance on the subject rested on a childishly reductive view of physiological determinism that does not now serve your position further, but you haven't given out a new position either, so you're now trying to make it seem like I'm the one at fault here.

>>12423693
Plenty of other arguments were given if you read the whole thread, but it seems you read one post and went "Aha! A woman wrote this, how stupid of her to even try to compete with us men!"

>>12423724
Again, terrific argument here too. It's just obvious fact that woman are the productive inferiors of men, don't even have to say another word on it.

K, I'm out now. If you guys want to think you won, do so. I don't really care. At the end of the day, regardless of which sex is better at what, you yourselves certainly aren't attached to the achievements of whatever "great men" have shown us of men's superiority over women, so don't feel prideful over the trophies won by others.

>>12423729
>she still keeps making it about herself
How can I backpedal when we aren't even talking about the argument anymore?

Women were a mistake.

>>12423745
Shannon from Goodreads BTFO

>>12423745
I wasn't making an argument, you retard.

>>12422145
Hawt lesbian sex is always in the right

>>12422156
>rainbow flag
>name starting with s
Maybe it was Sappho?

>>12423745

You literally filter out every relevant word and carry on with your persecution complex.

This entire thread is a testament to what Plato and every other sane individual knew and still knows.

>>12423672
from this very same tree of logic stems my hate from obesse people, but nevertheless, I'd like to see this point discussed with someone born with crippling genetic dissorders that under a traditional understanding dont "impair their intelligence", I recon they would not agree.

>>12423455
>I think women are equal to us
absolutely hilarious, both the first time I read it, and twice as much in hindsight.

>>12423693
sigh.... fucking this. This is basically the conclusion that all smart people come to.

I mean, imagine a woman applied to be on the SWAT team and, let's just say for the sake of argument, she was super fast and strong, had nerves of steel and was an absolute ace marksman(woman). Imagine she could bench like 300 lbs and squat like 500, which is probably more than the average SWAT team member can lift anyway.

Do you think anyone would have a problem with such a woman being on the team? Even the most conservative and traditional among us would probably not argue she should be banned.

Just as I don't hear anyone arguing that women should be literally banned from leadership positions. But if you have a brain, and eyes, and ears, and if you've been alive for a couple of decades at least, you start to notice shit. Very few women push themselves to get into leadership positions and very few women are actually as capable as men when it comes to physical prowess. The fact that you don't like these things doesn't make them any less true.

>>12423502
Only common sense post.
How do people objectively look at history and see that women have contributed nothing of value to philosophy/science/history etc. and still think that they are equal to men in intellect and capability?
Even since their emancipation and their being given equal rights with men, women STILL fail to compete with men in any fields of STEM, philosophy, literature, business etc.
Women need to be constantly celebrated, uplifted and given concessions and diversity hires in order to create the illusion that the sexes are equal.
Women cannot be content with their natural role of birthing and raising children (why do women reject this role and demean it as pathetic? Where the hell would any of us or any of the great men throughout history be without our mothers?)
Sad to see women reject their natural identity and roles and try to replicate and adopt the natural identity of men. All the while they fail miserably and blame everyone else for their failures.

>>12423455

>>12423455
Search the origin of the word virtue.

>>12423525
>>12423455
Pure s 0 y

>the female mind

>>12423525
>You have no appeals to "nature" for any human behaviors beyond those of survival, like the creation of art
>babby doesn't know about peacocking

>>12424135
Jack London is part of the Neo Nazi Anti-semite Right Wing™ conspiracy?

>>12423982
>Very few women push themselves to get into leadership positions
Maybe because society pushes boys and not girls into being competitive and assertive? *sighs*

>>12424162

Society is the product of men. Women are the product of society. Who should be the rightful rulers?

Internalise this, sweetie.

The fuck is this "materialism is wrong" meme? You all need to read Bueno

>f*moids

>>12424167
Men do not rule anything, only the Jews do.

>>12423982
deep fucking sigh

Simone Weil is based tho

>>12422145
based shannon

>>12424233
Identity politics is nothing but a tool to adopt witless youths into the party with a feeling of belonging. Prove me wrong.

>>12423455
>he said slavery is good and women are inferior
>HE SAID WOMEN ARE INFERIOR!? HOW DARE HE

bruh

>>12423455
It’s vir-tue

Not fem-tue

>>12424135
>the only people who have ever abolished slavery for moral reasons are white Europeans
But that's true? Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe still have massive human trafficking markets.

>>12424233
"In a way, the world-view of the Party imposed itself most successfully on people incapable of understanding it" (from 1984)

>>12424518
Well, you're right. But that's the same with religion.