/lit/ - Literature

>>17115651
All the good ones.

The best, except the greeks, they were probably slaying.

>>17115651
You would be better of asking which philosophers weren’t romantically challenged

Philosophy is for incels. Chad doesn’t need or, nor does he care

>>17115651
me desu
>>17115710
this is true

>>17115651
It's really cringe how this faggot comic artist always depicts men as bumbling dorks and women as permacorrect, dignified sages. Has he ever met a woman in real life?

>>17115722
If I'm not mistaken existential comics is done by a woman

>>17115756
No, it's done by some soilord

Didn't Stirner have plenty of affairs?
Also, op on your actual question
Spinoza and Nietzsche
Kant was surprisingly successful with women in his youth despite looking like a goblin but he ended up going volcel
Even the most hideous looking philosophers like Sartre were swimming in pussy
Greeks all had their fair share of affairs as did the Romans
Medievals were church people so you know what they did with who
Heidegger was fucking Arendt and was married

>>17115786
What was Nietzsche's problem? Was he a mentalcel?

>>17115786
>Didn't Stirner have plenty of affairs?
Don't think so. Stirner was mostly an autist? But that account of Stirner's private life is fairly unreliable because it is told by a woman turned catholic who hated his guts.

>>17115678
slaying bussy u mean

>>17115786
>Sartre
His wife trafficked children for him. A kind of Epstein situation.

>>17115832
How did he even find a wife?

>>17115836
He was kept around to scare the little girls into lesbianism

What is the joke here?

>>17115912
Woman good
Man dumb

>>17115832
Did anybody in the know at the time point out the contradiction between feminism and molesting young girls and then handing them over to someone living in Celine's anus to Simone?

>>17115722
It's not even just this comic, ever since feminism took off and with the help of the "women are wonderful" effect men are always putting themselves down in front of women. Women are ALWAYS correct and smart, everything is the guy's fault and she can do no wrong.

>>17115797
Check Lou Andreas-Salome

>>17116125
That's an enigma. At least Keats' oneitis was very hot, but Salome? Not only did Nietzsche and Klee orbit her, but she married her husband just because he threatened suicide were she not to accept him.

>>17115651

Several, in my modern philosophy class the professor noted in passing that Berkeley (IIRC) was the only person we were reading who ever married.

Of course, one can have sex/romantic relationships without marrying, but the two were more closely linked to each other back in the day.

>>17116156
>Keats
I meant Yeats.

>>17116363
Kierkegaard almost did, but relapsed into being a failed normie.

>>17116363
>Several, in my modern philosophy class the professor noted in passing that Berkeley (IIRC) was the only person we were reading who ever married.
What about Whitehead?

>>17116363
What about Plato, Socrates, Aristotles?

All except for this Chad.

>>17116363
What about Guénon?

Schopenhauer had many mistresses and even an illegitimate child. He also threw his landlady down the stairs

>>17116428
>>17116435
"Modern philosophy" usually refers to Descartes to Kant.

>>17116428
>>17116435

The class consisted of Rationalists -> Empiricists, concluding with Kant (Prolegomena to whet appetite) and Halting before Hegel. We used those standard readers on Descartes/Spinoza/Leibniz then Locke/Berkeley/Hume.

>>17116444
INCEL! iNcEL!

>>17116363
Hegel was married

Married philosophers belong in comedy

>>17116444
He was also rejected by most women and couldn't find a wife

>>17116002
No contradiction there, the basis of feminism has always been misogyny and exploitation of young women

>>17115797
Nietzsche had a severe case of oneitis. He was also in love with hook nosed Cosmia Wagner for some reason

>>17116481
He was rejected by two women and it was because he tried to find a wife as an old man

Schoppy was a chad by philosopher standards

>>17116481
>He was also rejected by most women
Are you really afraid of hearing NO?

>>17116496
The Incel Wiki disowns him

>>17116500
I'm afraid of inceldom

>>17116511
>I'm afraid of inceldom
I'd argue the process of getting women involves getting rejected sometimes. Take it like a chad and go to the next.

>>17116481
>He was also rejected by most women
I would like you to justify this claim. Where do you get this from? What does "most women" even mean? How do you quantify that?

>>17116518
No, sexual selection is demeaning. I'll get arrange-marriaged.

>>17116444
What? No he was an incel.

>>17116525
>Schopenhauer seemed aware that women usually didn't find him very charming or physically attractive, and his desires often remained unfulfilled.[60]
There you go.

>>17116527
>No, sexual selection is demeaning. I'll get arrange-marriaged.
Not if you have a somewhat high status.

>>17116505
Should I even read Schopenhauer if he's not an incel? I thought I could relate to him.

>>17116543
If you're going to quote wikipedia, at least don't do it out of context. This is the full sentence:
> In their youthful correspondence Arthur and Anthime were somewhat boastful and competitive about their sexual exploits—but Schopenhauer seemed aware that women usually didn't find him very charming or physically attractive, and his desires often remained unfulfilled.[60]
So early adolescent Schopenhauer in his private letters to his close friend said he doesn't get as many women as he wants to. How does this implicate he was rejected by "most women"?

>>17116565
Read his essay On Women. His writings on the insatiable Will might also strike a chord with the sexually frustrated.

>>17116567
Shut up, nigger.

>>17116539
Cope retard. Schoppy banged bad bitches

>>17116567
So what if he was young? In his middle age he tried to find a wife but couldn't.

>>17116580
Waste of space and other people's time. What are you even doing in a literature board? You can't even parse a wikipedia sentence.

>>17116597
He was wooing a 17 years old known for her beauty, and failed. He had affairs with plenty others instead. What is even your point?

>>17116587
How bad? The egirls of his day?

>>17116603
The point is that he was usually rejected and had to resort to quick fucks with lower-class women like whores and actresses, and these affairs were dysfunctional. He wasn't an incel, but definitely a loser for the standards back then.

>>17116630
>O nooo the peasant pussy is somehow worse than that of the noblewhore
Fuck off with you mental gymnastics.

>>17116645
Yes, it most definitely is.

>>17116645
Whores, actresses and maids were below peasants. Peasantwomen often had traditional marriages and well-preserved virginal vaginas, courtesy of their strict, pious fathers. The types of women Schop stooped to were STD hotbeds.

>>17116630
Again, you say he was "usually rejected". Where do you get this from? Your two previous sources where bunk.
> loser for the standards back then
"Standard" was marrying in your early twenties. It wasn't 21st century america getting laid with a new tinder whore every week end. He rejected the standard to remain a bachelor, so your "21st winner-loser sexual marketplace criteria" isn't even relevant here.

>>17116675
The hell are you talking about? Yes, he was a loser. People married early back then, whereas he fucked whores, NEETed and lived alone with his dogs. End of story.

>>17116650
>>17116666
Do you really think the noblewhore/aristocratic-bitches like (schopie's mother) weren't fucking men right and left?

>>17116701
Depends. Johanna was a socialite, which means promiscuous. Others were put on a strict leash by their family.

>>17116692
He doubled his inheritance by meticulous investments (when his mother and sister squandered their share), all the while writing age-defining philosophical masterpieces praised by most 19th and 20th century geniuses. I can't see this man as a loser, and I can't fathom how any sane person could.

>>17116723

Not him but the other guy is operating with the normie "dude the meaning of life is to reproduce also sex sex sex" mentality. Now, there is something to this (loath as I am to admit it), but only to a point.

>>17116731
Even so, he also reproduced and had sex. That anon is complaining that his lovers were actresses instead of noblewomen. I don't know why he would even care about that.

>>17116723
>>17116731
Holy shit, you people are really daft.
Yes, he was a loser in his time.
He was an atheistic NEET who lived alone.
He never married and fucked lowlives.
He had severe family issues and had two stillborns out of wedlock.
His philosophy was ignored during his lifetime. Only a few people praised him.
Yes, he was a miserable sod and the money was the only thing keeping him from being a social pariah.

>>17116772
>He never married and fucked lowlives
B... Baudelaire???
Also, the wealthy bitches nowadays are even more whorish.

>>17116444

>>17116772
Being an atheist is good though. I'm happy to concede the family issues, having a bad relationship with one's mother never works out well for anyone.

>>17116044
and people wonder why reality sucks. Men make cool shit even if its half delusional its better than a nanny state.

>>17115722
>>17116044
Holy crap you guys have had your brains fried by the internet. The point of the whole "bumbling idiot man and competent woman" is comedy. Since men are generally smarter and more emotionally stable than women they can be portrayed as total buffoons to elict laughter, but the woman ensures they always have a way to reset their situation without having to learn anything for future shenanigans. Just look at literally any boomer sitcom.
But portraying a woman as a mentally stunted idiot incapable of learning from past mistakes isn't funny, it's just reality. Hence, the dichotomy.

>>17118162

t. woman trying reverse psychology and self-deprecation subterfuge to justify existing socially acceptable trope. It won't work, though. Men know the doofus dad TV trope very well, and are generally tired of it. It's simply bad faith to pretend as though the intent is always comedy-much of the time, the woman is an infallible Mary Sue, who always makes the right consoomer choices.

You know that light music they've been playing in globohomo commercials for about 10 years now? The happy ukelele, the happy-sounding xylophone, that type of thing? It's designed to be happy and non-threatening, to appeal to a specific sort of consoomer. The female consoomer.

>>17115651
how is nobody in this thread going to talk about kierkegaard

>>17118162
these are some ridiculous mental gymnastics.
plenty of comedies make fun of women successfully.

>>17118281
I'm not talking about contemporary entertainment here son, I'm very explicitly drawing a line to boomer humor. Everyone Loves Raymond, as an example, Debra isn't a Mary Sue, she's neurotic and bitchy, but Raymond is the dumbass. If you're not literally 12 you should remember back when the peak of TV comedy was "my wife is awful". What I'm getting at is that these comics strike me as being written by someone older than 30, and as such mired in the tropes of 90s entertainment. The new wave of Star Wars esque infallibile women is clearly and obviously distinguishable from dogmatic adherence to outdated comedy tropes. Also please go outside nigger, you could use some fresh winter air.

>>17118528
Making fun of women isn't the issue, the issue is the only time a woman can be stupid in media is when she's a dumb blonde. Making a doofus wife is just not that funny. The closest I can think of is Midge from that 70s show, you be the judge.

>>17116772
And what have you accomplished faggot besides shitposting on a Congolese spear chucking forum?

>>17115832
Doesn’t sound like there was any challenge at all then.

imagine unironically hating women

>>17118611

Kitten, you're really over-thinking this and under-thinking it at the same time. You pretend to draw a line between contemporary and older boomer humor, using a 15-year-old show as an example. The example falls flat because the Oaf Dad runs through the entire history of the television sitcom (Dick van Dyke tripping over the ottoman, Homer, etc). You badly mis-read everything, every which-way. Pick any angle and your take sucks and is self-defeating. When you concede the Star Wars Mary Sue for example, it's just a continuation on the same lines, and you conceded much of your central argument (such as it is) around this point.

>>17116612
Yep, he smashed their tight cunts with his thick prick.

>>17115722
>>17116044
They erroneously believe it's going to pull them pussy.


That said I like this specific cartoon because it shits on spookposters.

>>17115651
>romantically challenged?

How would you define that?
Who isn't romantically challenged in this existence?
Isnt a very significant part of our lives spent looking for "the one" who might never come?

>>17118689
Who cares?

>>17119108
>the Oaf Dad runs through the entire history of the television sitcom
I'm glad we can agree on this. My argument is that in terms of intent, there is the idiot man played for comedy, and there's the Mary Sue played for 'empowerment'. These two are different.
The comic is attempting to be funny, by presenting a man acting incredibly foolish, immediately suffering negative consequences, and then not learning anything from the experience instead choosing to blame the world for his problem.
This is an example of 'dumb man for comedy', because ostensibly the intent is to amuse. The point of view does not follow the woman, she is simply a prop, her leaving is not a free choice meant to show young girls that they can leave an abusive relationship, it's simply an immutable result of Stirner's actions.
To draw a parallel, this is the same exact joke as in the comic of the man riding a bicycle, sticking a pole in his front wheel, and then blaming someone else for it.

>>17115722
>>17116044
>>17119277
check'd

>>17115722
>>17116044
I dunno I think its just a joke man

>>17120124
see
>>17115912

>>17119277
Damn bro, she's fucking hot.
I'd like to do her.

This constant retreat to the "but did he fuckin slay the puss bro" line of thought is really dumb. I get where it comes from, but holy shit. In the current era of infinite postmodern materialism is really tiring. If you're balls deep in contemporary materialistic nihilism, it makes sense in a way that you'll retreat to natural law in your attempts to stave off the existential wolf at the door. If all else is infinitely relative, then why not tie your value system to an arbitrarily pinpointed, naturalistic function of the phenomenal world? This is the only rationale I can detect from the incel/sex-haver debate. It ultimately just boils down to two groups of people arguing different implementations of the same fallacious appeal to nature. It's got no rigorous argumentation behind it. There are just two variants of retards: those who have sex and irrationally base their worth as a human being on sex and those who don't have sex... yet irrationally base their worth as a human being on sex. Both sides of the dynamic read like a pamphlet advertising the dangers and speed traps of the modern world. Revolt, revolt!

>>17115912
Evil man wastes away what doesn't belong to him, gets annoyed that woman doesn't just forgive him.
It's no wonder people don't get it, the whole "joke" falls so flat it was like it slipped on a pile of banana peels.

>>17120152

What do you recommend

>>17120152
have sex

>>17120165
Why?

>>17120167
I think he's hitting on you.

>>17120173
Unfortunately, I'm not particularly interested.

>>17120162
I'd recommend breaking down your belief system, finding the assumptions behind your obsession with sex, and challenging them to see if they're actually all that rational. If it sounds like hard work, it's because it is, but if there's any one thing that trends towards truth in life as a human being in current year, it's that nothing worthwhile comes easily.

Fixed

>>17120225
>>17120204
>>17120202
Well that is a little better. Has this guy ever gotten a philosopher right though?

>>17120149
i fucked her, she was alright

>>17115651
butt

>>17115651
> His character is best illuminated by the fact that no woman was able to hold onto the undemanding man. The first died, the other went to another country. He confessed to me once that he had acquired an aversion for his first wife as soon as he had caught sight of her
naked. She had once unconsciously uncovered herself during sleep, and from this he was never able to touch her again.
Stirner

Why are there no female philosophers?

>>17116772
It seems like you’re more concerned with holding your point than allowing alternative views that are equally fair. Your part as judge seems very questionable and moves me to disagree with you. You’re attacking schopie as if he’s not a de facto philosopher in the western canon. He was successful. Your appraisal of his social wealth and experience are also pathetic. You’re just drawing attention to what a shitty judge of character you are.

>>17120489
I'm not attacking him

>>17115651
>men's right
Create shit
>women's rights
Judge men's creations as you like

>>17116044
That's because you all allow it to happen. Just openly dismiss anything a woman says irl. What's she's gonna do? Act dignified? You know how it goes.

>>17116565
He is the incelchad. Incel in mind, Chad in spirit and in actual acts. Killer simpcels.

>>17116612
>The egirls of his day?
Yes, the actresses and socialites.

>>17120618
That doesn't work, it creates an antagonism which can only be resolved by sex, annihilation or submission and God knows it'll be a forever cycle through the first and last because we're thankfully not that retarded.
You just have to get rid of men and women's rights and judge them equally on the merit of gender (unless they take up some women's rights shit then shove in their face the uselessness of the category).

>>17120635
Yeah but this is too much common sense and expectation of integrity (from both parts) for this age to be passed as something more than a mock on naivity.

According to John Mackey, they both just squandered their fortune drinking and smoking. The problem is that the only account of their marriage life is from the wife herself. However, she turned into a raging Christian full of hate, who is unlikely a reliable account.

>>17116573
tits or gtfo

>>17120647
Thankfully ethics isn't separate from metaphysics and it's easier to destroy feminists or any other terribly-defined group. There're more tools with being right

>>17115836
He let her fuck dozens of other men everyday. Not joking