/lit/ - Literature

this thread is gay

>>5492069
Nice projection.

>>5492069
So what reasons do straight women have to live?

>>5492074
the dick

Truth is a woman and we're all hedgehogs; you've never read or else failed to understand both Nietzsche and Schopenhauer.

Weininger was wrong and Fourier was right. You're no longer invited to the champagne party, just the real pain one, please cease all communication.

That female is delectable.

>>5492069
>i am a beta orbiter

thats what i read.

>>5492080
What does harmonic analysis have to do with this thread?

>>5492094
A point of resonance would lead to deconstruction

>>5492069
i know dude

but nietzsche personifies life as a woman so i don't think you're right that he's wrong

Jesus was the Son of Man.

no wonder homos are so depraved, they are pure illogic

>>5492092
lel no


>>5492080
you're the one who misunderstands. both nietzsche and schopenhauer projected their supreme gentlemen insecurities onto women in their works. while superficially correct, they neglect to take into account the aesthetic, and subsequently purely intellectual, power of femininity. weininger is the only one to acknowledge this

fourier has nothing to do with anything

>>5492127
Schopenhauer makes special mention of women's potential for intellectual superiority, and, Fourier has a lot to do with the foundation of the modern state, modern art, and pretty much all western history since he put pen to paper. So, no, you're an illiterate and uncultured idiot.

>>5492127
>the aesthetic, and subsequently purely intellectual

How is intellectual subsequent from aesthetic?

>>5492127
Justify yourself

>>5492142
wrong again. schop repeatedly states how he thinks it is impossible for a woman to be intellectually 'genuine'. i know this because i just double checked. i think you meant nietzsche's 'perfect woman', who he spends a total of one sentence talking about

but you did get me on fourier, i assumed you meant the mathematician. but since charles fourier is non-canon and i've never heard of him before means that his opinions carry no weight right now

>>5492148
pleasing aesthetics are like the freudian id of intellectualism. this is why i am pretty god, an emissary of physical and intellectual perfection

"From the very first, nothing is more foreign, more repugnant, or more hostile to woman than truth—her great art is falsehood, her chief concern is appearance and beauty. Let us confess it, we men: we honour and love this very art and this very instinct in woman: we who have the hard task, and for our recreation gladly seek the company of beings under whose hands, glances, and delicate follies, our seriousness, our gravity, and profundity appear almost like follies to us."

Yeah, sure sounds like the words of someone who has no aesthetic appreciation for women.

>>5492196
Not wrong, he specifically says that if a woman cover come dissimulation like yours, she is the intellectual superior to men. You cn go treble chck if you're that bad at reading comprehension.
I didn't mean Nietzsche's perfect woman, I was directly quoting him.
Fourier's the first person to use the term feminism, he is canon, and you of course have not heard of him because you're an uncultured and illiterate idiot who even with sources double checked will misread them. Idiot.

>>5492202
*can overcome
And
*can
*check
I figure you'll probably have difficultly reading that even with corrections, but might as well treat you with some sympathy for your inability

>>5492202
>he specifically says that if a woman cover come dissimulation like yours, she is the intellectual superior to men

where

fourier is decidedly non-canon. and how dare you insult me like that. do you know who i am. you are still intentionally avoiding the point of this thread which is the meaning of life, most likely because women find you unattractive

>>5492215
In On Women
Fourier is canon, ask Breton or Proudhon's ghost if you don't want Marx's ghost's smell around.

I find smart women attractive, it's why I can love myself on merits rather than through unfounded delusions like you. Go superficially cut your superficial self and cry to your boyfriend.

>>5492069


Nietzsche's relationship with women was (like with most things he dealt with) extremely complex. He both celebrates woman and wishes to conquer her at the same time.

Schopenhauer on the other hand was unabashed sexist that took no pains to conceal that he though women were biologically inferior to men.

The problem with Weiniger was that unlike the other two who were repulsed by women because of their cultural role in society (that of schemers and gossipers) , Weiniger saw an "inner" and "trancedental" nature in women which was tied to reproduction.
So to be more precise Weiniger traded the biological sexism and racism of his time for the spiritual and metaphysical stereotypes, that lead to the differentiation of quality between the sexes.

>>5492069
I realised this yesterday when I stopped myself from falling in love with a girl I'd been thinking about non-stop for a week.

>>5492222
lel whatever m8, thanks for the deb8, almost got me but i'm too gr8

>>5492244
Then why do you only get double dubs not quads like me? Probably because you're shit.

>>5492246
lel

>>5492246
dude how do you fuck up that badly

like it wasn't even possible for you to get quads there, 2222 had passed and you knew that because you responded to 2244

what the FUCK

>>5492267
>>5492246 is the same anon as >>5492222, follow the quote chain

>>5492272
OH OK IT MAKES SENSE NOW GJ ANON

>>5492267
You're a moron

Come and apologise to quad lord when you think it through

You mean to tell me that life is about sex?????? Mindblowing!!!!!!!!

>>5492498
that isn't what i mean

⇒i finally figured it out anons

Congratulations on figuring it all out. What are you gonna do now after you figured it all out?

>>5493827
>the only reason we have to live is inherent in woman herself

so what does it means?

>>5492069
>life-affirming
But life is the enemy.

>>5493827
If you can use a phrase such as "single most life-affirming thing on earth" ingenuously, then you definitely know nothing about philosophy. You don't even know what you think you are trying to mean.