/lit/ - Literature

I..I do.

Love the scop

Why a forested Europe with temperate climat would have more "parsimony of nature" than the fucking Africa shithole ?

Guns, Germs and Steel, faggot.

>>1985629

I meant the book by Jared Steel.
You should give it a read sometime.

Germans gonna germ.

>>1985627
Because back when humans were primitive and acted like animals the cold climate of Europe would actually kill you.

In winter they would literally freeze to death without proper preparations or starve if they didn't save enough food and rationed its consumption.

Yes I want to wrap my lips around that bald on his head. I want to make circles around it with my tongue.

The Chinese evolved to make gunpowder before the Europeans, seriously, that's how evolution works. It's because of all of their rivers and the steppes of Mongolia.

>>1985578
No wonder the nazis had significant inspiration.

Much of Europe was pretty desolate and backwards until they were civilized 1500 years ago or so.

Also, there's no proof that Incas and "rulers of the South Sea" were "fairer". Brahmins by and large are typically "fairer" only in the south.

Taking the opinion of Schopenhauer based on a 19th century understanding of history and science is meaningless. I mean, he was quite significant in advancing his misanthropic philosophy(this guy fucking hated people, much more so than Rand ever did, but he loved animals) but his historical outlook is meaningless.

>The highest civilization and culture, apart from the ancient Hindus and Egyptians
That's never a good start to an argument.

Also, I like Schopenhauer, but that doesn't mean I don't think he's an idiot.

Liberal leftfag here, I see nothing wrong with his statements as there is truth in there. Certain environmental conditions require certain abilities to be selected for. Cold and harsh environments would require a certain type of cognitive and social ability to be selected for in ''primitive'' humans.

>>1985656

Shut up, American. Your opinions don't count.

>>1985656
>Cold and harsh environments would require a certain type of cognitive and social ability to be selected for in ''primitive'' humans.
So how come the cradle of civilization is in the Middle East?

You are now aware that Schopenhauer died the year after Origin of Species was published.

>>1985656
My google says it started getting warm in Europe 130000 years ago.
And Inuits didn't really get selected to be smart, though I reckon they didn't have the time.
I sustain that it is the fact that we thrived in resources that allowed us to turn our mind toward art and culture and all that shit.
It's supported by the fact that most of the best civilizations like Egypt/Greece happened to be near the sea, to fish, and near a lot of water, to drink.
But it's also a combination. Nords had to be strong to survive in the cold, and nice culture came from Roma/Greece, then they mixed in Europe to give something awesome.

I prefer his misogyny. Some of it is fucking hilarious.

>Only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex: for it is with this drive that all its beauty is bound up. More fittingly than the fair sex, women could be called the unaesthetic sex. Neither for music, nor poetry, nor the plastic arts do they possess any real feeling or receptivity: if they affect to do so, it is merely mimicry in service of their effort to please. This comes from the fact that they are incapable of taking a purely objective interest in anything whatever, and the reason for this is, I think, as follows. Man strives in everything for a direct domination over things, either by comprehending or by subduing them. But woman is everywhere and always relegated to a merely indirect domination, which is achieved by means of man, who is consequently the only thing she has to dominate directly. Thus it lies in the nature of women to regard everything simply as a means of capturing a man, and their interest in anything else is only simulated, is no more than a detour, i.e. amounts to coquetry and mimicry.

Still, incredibly important philosopher. Continentals just do this sort of thing a lot.

>>1985633
>Germans gonna germ
Protip: Scientific racism was common throughout the western world in that time.
The British justified their Empire that way, Americans justified slavery that way and even Marx had these views in his writings.

And it was actually the French who developed the idea of an Aryan race.

>>1985678

I don't know how you find that amusing, it is totally correct.

>>1985678

sigh
i agree with this
am i a bad person

>>1985678
And this is why I am a homo.

>>1985686
No, you just have some common sense

>>1985702

but how can i be sure of that? what if my mild misogynistic tendencies are a result of some deeply set problem with women? or what if i have an extremely skewed perspective of the world via the conditioning of my life experiences?

>>1985578
Are asians/inuits/persians considered among the "white races"?

Just wondering since he called it races.

>>1985711
In his time (and it still exists to a certain extent today), nationality and race were far more intertwined as an idea. I basically just read that as "Europeans," and included Americans, Australians, Afrikaaners, etc. because they're of European descent.

>>1985710

The female stereotype hasn't changed much and many people still perpetuate the stereotype.

>that feel when you have never been laid or had a gf but are not a misogynist

>>1985711
To give you an idea of what I mean, the Irish and Italians were both heavily persecuted in America and were each considered their own race. Today, with the exception of small racist fringe groups who consider Italian Catholics non-white, they're seen by everybody as white people.

>>1985711
He meant skin color. The idea of a race was still kinda vague in his time (I think).

>>1985717

which stereotype are you referring to? and to what extent does it hold truth to the actual thing? and how the fuck can we even know

>>1985728
>which stereotype are you referring to?

This one:

>Neither for music, nor poetry, nor the plastic arts do they possess any real feeling or receptivity: if they affect to do so, it is merely mimicry in service of their effort to please. This comes from the fact that they are incapable of taking a purely objective interest in anything whatever, and the reason for this is, I think, as follows. Man strives in everything for a direct domination over things, either by comprehending or by subduing them. But woman is everywhere and always relegated to a merely indirect domination, which is achieved by means of man, who is consequently the only thing she has to dominate directly. Thus it lies in the nature of women to regard everything simply as a means of capturing a man, and their interest in anything else is only simulated, is no more than a detour, i.e. amounts to coquetry and mimicry.

>and to what extent does it hold truth to the actual thing?

To some extent.

>and how the fuck can we even know

Through observation.

>>1985711
He did not talk about races.
He would for instance say that China/Japan are more culturally developed and have a whiter skin color than South East Asians because they lived in the north and had a colder climate to deal with.

>"[our] innocent black brothers whom force and injustice have delivered into [the slave-master's] devilish clutches...belonging to the blackest pages of mankind's criminal record."

Schopenhauer wasn't racist, he was just realist. He's cool in my book.

>>1985740
>christfag
>realist

>>1985740

Is that a pun?

>>1985736
>To some extent.
Stereotypes are generalizations and this sort of qualification of them is meaningless. You might as well say
"All birds fly."
And when somebody brings up penguins, emus, ostriches, etc. say
"Well, yeah, of course there's those, but to some extent, it is true, all birds fly."

>>1985737
Not to mention he personally references his debt to Eastern philosophy a billion times. And talks about how the Upanishads or whatever the fuck are vastly more important than Aristotle.

>>1985750
>"Birds fly."
>And when somebody brings up penguins, emus, ostriches, etc. say
>"Well, yeah, of course there's those, but you know what I mean: a great deal of birds do fly"

FTFY

>>1985753
You do realize that's not at all a refutation and only confirms my point that it's a meaningless statement, right?
Just so we're clear, you're proving me right.

>>1985748
Racial realist.

>>1985747
Doubt it.

>>1985762
>Implying he knew what race was
>Implying he wasn't talking about skin colors

>>1985748
Schopenhauer was an atheist.

>>1985740
So he's anti-colonialism and anti-slavery?

>>1985759

It's not meaningless, it's a GENERALIZATION. Generalizations can always be expressed as a straightforward proposition but often aren't in order to make rhetorical point.

>>1985750

"A woman's preaching is like a dog's walking on his hinder legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all."

Without the higher powers of the imagination and reason, no eminent success can be gained in many subjects. These latter faculties, as well as the former, will have been developed in man, partly through sexual selection,- that is, through the contest of rival males, and partly through natural selection,- from success in the general struggle for life; and as in both cases the struggle will have been during maturity, the characters gained will have been transmitted more fully to the male than to the female offspring. It accords in a striking manner with this view of the modification and re-inforcement of many of our mental faculties by sexual selection, that, firstly, they notoriously undergo a considerable change at puberty, and, secondly, that eunuchs remain throughout life inferior in these same qualities. Thus man has ultimately become superior to woman. It is, indeed, fortunate that the law of the equal transmission of characters to both sexes prevails with mammals; otherwise it is probable that man would have become as superior in mental endowment to woman, as the peacock is in ornamental plumage to the peahen.

>>1985776
Congratulations, you can't follow a point made past two posts.
Saying that a generalization is "to some extent true," is a meaningless qualification.
Generalizations themselves are not meaningless. That's not what I said, although I would argue that generalizations do not hold up to any close scrutiny; even this itself is a generalization, and can be proven wrong when held up to close scrutiny. It's a case-by-case scenario, and I would wager a guess that the number of variables involved effects how well the generalization holds up. Therefore a generalization made about an entire one-half of the world's population of human beings is probably not going to survive much investigation.

Also to go back a bunch of posts, Schopenhauer said something about women not being suited to manual labor which was just fucking ignorant even for his own time. Go look up how they did laundry in the 19th century and tell me that wasn't manual labor. Then go look up pioneer women in antebellum and post-Civil War America.

>>1985799
*affects

>>1985782
I'm not female.

Cranial capacity increases in human groups specialized for colder climates.

>Aww shit, nigger.

>>1985748
>LOL ALL CHRISTFAGS ARE STUPID HURR DURR
I fucking hate you aggressive atheists.

Nearly all great philosophers and scientists were religious to some extent until the late 19th century.

Before Darwin no one could explain how humans and and all other lifeforms on this planet came into existence
No one could explain why humans were the only intelligent creatures around or how the mind works.

It is easy for you to make fun of the religious people of the past, because today everything can be explained with science.
We know how the brain works, we know about DNA, we know how and why the world is as it is.

And we also know about the rest of the universe, we know what our sun is made of and we know that it will one day turn into a red giant and the earth will crush into it, destroying all life.

Knowing all of this makes it fairly easy to doubt the existence of god.
Back then the knowledge simply didn't exist.

So yes, you can make fun of the religious people of today all you want.
But you do not have the right to ridicule some of the greatest most genius people humanity has ever produced, simply because they lived in different times.

>>1985748

>>1985799

I meant to be incredibly vague and imprecise when I said "to some extent" because "and to what extent does it hold truth to the actual thing?" isn't a question that I can entertain seriously. In my view, it commits too many philosophical errors.

Women can't lift heavy things, that's what he meant. Deal with it woman.

>>1985828

And no it is not meaningless. I intended to say something with the phrase and I'm sure someone is capable of understanding me.

>>1985821
Do you understand how much "we" don't know?

This false meme that the realm of science has answered all questions is ludicrous.

Starting to think that this is forced to get people away from religion.

Science will never find all the answers, and a lot of the ones they have arrived at will be changed.

>>1985841
Believe what you want, but to me my scientific knowledge has made it it impossible to believe in any meaningful definition of "god".
I am able to appreciate pan-theism or god as an "idea" to learn and understand yourself better, but that is more of a philosophy than actual belief in god.

However, that does not mean I dislike religious people at all.
In fact I believe that they tend to be more kind and live happier lives than others.

I actually envy you in a way, because there is nothing to be gained from total disbelieve and it tends to make your view on life more cynical and nihilistic.
But my mind just doesn't allow it, no matter how much I would like to believe.

I absolutely love Schopenhauer, but that doesn't mean I agree with everything he said.

>>1985841

Just because we don't know doesn't mean we won't know.

>>1985821

I fucking hate you aggressive Christians.

Nearly all great philosophers and scientists were pagan to some extent until the late 1st century.

Before Christ no one could explain how humans and and all other lifeforms on this planet came into existence
No one could explain why humans were the only intelligent creatures around or how the mind works.

It is easy for you to make fun of the pagan people of the past, because today everything can be explained with the Bible.
We know how the brain works, we know about the one true God, we know how and why the world is as it is.

And we also know about the rest of the universe, we know what our sun was made by the one true God to give us light.

Knowing all of this makes it fairly easy to doubt the existence of the pagan gods.
Back then the knowledge simply didn't exist.

So yes, you can make fun of the pagan people of today all you want.
But you do not have the right to ridicule some of the greatest most genius people humanity has ever produced, simply because they lived in different times.

>>1985919
>implying Christians didn't value the pagan philosophers and scientists
>implying church doctrine and theology was not based on the works of Aristotle and Plato

Ever heard of Thomas Aquinas?

>>1985942

I was just trying to make a point about how our knowledge changes over time. We're just as sure about what we know now as they were about what they knew then.

>>1985578


>Implying civilisation did not take off in the Middle East.

OP, that has to be the most retarded bullshit I've ever read. It is not only obviously false, but it is also megalomaniacal.

>>1985957

He said this between 1800-1860. Darwin hadn't even written On the Origin of Species at that point in time.

>>1985821
Anaxagoras who lived 500 - 428 BC already had a materialist world view and claimed that the gods were only mystical abstractions.

Deal with it, religious people are and were trash. All of them, no exceptions.