/lit/ - Literature

>>8342521
he was wrong about women

>>8342521
he was wrong about women

>>8342523
>>8342541

I knew you he couldn't be right, he's just a depressed misogynist.

>>8342550
More than that, he made a virtue of depression.

>>8342550
We get it, you hate women.

/r9k/ is filled to the brim with people of similar persuasion, so maybe you should make the thread there instead.

he was right, pretty much everyone realizes he is right. the difference between how you approach the truth is whether you're bitter about it or not.

people who get laid a lot derive some benefit from women so can basically get over it and not care too much. people who don't get no benefit from women so only focus on the negatives.

He was half-right. He was correct in his analysis but had no proposition to solve the problem. Nietzsche was righter and made sensible proposals.

>>8342521
You cannot, and I repeat, cannot rope-a-dope the Schope.

>>8342521
>>8342523
>>8342541
>>8342550
>>8342608
>>8342618
>t. feminist cucks

take the redpill, sheeple

>>8342608
>mad a virtue of depression
elaborate?

>>8342550
He is right; anons are just aware he was also right about you being a manbaby and sought to coddle you.
>>8342674
Re-read the essay, m8. Nietzsche isn't more right, and doesn't call his proposals sensible at all.

>>8342748
He supposes a will-less state as the ideal, allowing transcendental perception of the great Will-As-A-Thing-In-Itself (fucking German) and freedom from suffering.

This can be construed as echoing the stoic apathy in a denial of selfishness, but the state itself is readily achieved by severe enough depression: the denial of the will to live, another core concept.

>>8342794
wut? His argument for tolerance and patience and generally treating your neighbour like a fellow sufferer or inmate is nothing like depression. Freedom from suffering as an ideal state is really hard to claim when his first notes on suffering are that to view suffering as anything other than the natural state is misguided shit, and if you can't get over that you should go pay a priest or pseudphilosopher to lie to you.
Schoppy's still a Kantian, so spending your time trying to an hero or thinking about it are just futile distractions with their own suffering, and themselves no better than ordinary suffering, just more self involved in their "solutions" and so more often compound suffering for oneself and others.

>>8342794
legitimate question: are you retarded?

just because a state of stoic apathy mayb be achieved in severe enough depression does not mean that he is advocating depression or making a virtue of it. Moreover, depression is quite far from the state of being a stoic which is one devoid of passion or suffering. it is a state of calm acceptance and minimal grief due to one having acquiesced to the state of things and not worrying about it or feeling sorrow about it. stoic apathy is QUITE far from a state of depression. it might be achieved after severe depression or before it but the states aren't same. moreover, making a virtue of stoic apathy is not equal to making a virtue of depression.

>>8342634
>Dicide on lit because need something different
>about people getting laid or not
Is 4chan just a breeding ground for bitter virgin losers no matter what board wer on ?

>>8342523
i read his essay : "on women".
i feel as if someone as intelligent as him couldn't have written that work. he had to have written it out of spite and bitterness as opposed to out of a rational/reasonable line of inquiry or philosophical investigation.

>>8343574
>he insulted my favourite vanities of men
>they must be kept alive
>we'll pretend he was just insulting the women
uhhuh sure buddy

>>8342843
>>8343522

Good posts, guys

>>8343583
I don't understand. Have you read the essay? Are you claiming that he was being sarcastic or using those statements ironically to insult male vanity instead of women?

pretty bold statement there senpai.

>>8343622
I'm saying your vanity for "intellectual" feats and "philosophical investigation" is one of the many things that Schopenhauer slights men for in the essay, along with their immaturity. I've read the essay without my brain blacking out for the bits that address male faults, so it's not a bold statement; it's a sign of basic comprehension of the text.
He wasn't being sarcastic at all about how male faculties rarerly if ever mature before they're in their late twenties, and he certainly wasn't as lacking in nuance as you would like him to be.

>>8343683
men > women

Take the redpill, kid

>>8343694
yawn

>>8343683
how the fuck does him insulting male vanities take away from the insults he heaped on women? are you this stupid? that from his entire essay you only comprehended those nuanced sleights at men instead of the glaring indictment of women that runs through most of the text? do you want me to literally link or quote all the stuff that he wrote? are you this fucking deluded?

>>8343823
>b-b-b-but girls still lose! I-I still w-win!

>>8343901
i don't understand what you're trying to insinuate here.

In my post here>>8343574, I literally questioned if someone intelligent enough as schopenhauer could have written something so vitriolic against women because his indictment of women seemed grounded not in reason/rationale but in anger and spite. I am being skeptic of schopenhauer precisely because i don't think that a reasonable, rational human could arrive at the insults that he heaped on women. i suspect that he was so critical of women not because he had philosophical reason to but because he was bitter and spiteful.

You are literally the stupidest moron white knight I have come across on this board because you are too dumb to understand basic arguments or statements. go back to tumblr.

>>8343917
Don't bother with that retard. It's probably a roastwhore. They are too emotional and can't properly think

Schope's a dope who loves to mope,
Schope's got rope but got no hope,
Sad old Schope's a misanthrope—
Wash old Schope's mouth out with soap!

>>8343556
you could dicide on killing yourself. that's something different

>>8343556
Yes. Well maybe not some of the very slow boards.

>>8343939

it would be a nice rhyme if "misanthrope wasn't pronounced as "miss-anthro-pee".

also, what does washing his mouth with soap mean? suffocating him with a bar of soap to end him of his misery?

>But an examination of his life reveals a yearning for marriage frustrated by a train of rejections. In the year 1831, Schopenhauer fell in love with a girl named Flora Weiss. At a boat party in Germany he made his advance by offering her a bunch of grapes. Flora’s diary records this event as follows: "I didn’t want the grapes because old Schopenhauer had touched them, so I let them slide, quite gently into the water." Apparently, she was underwhelmed.

>>8343823
here we see the braindead feminist whose primary concern is with whether a text is "sexist" or "problematic"

>>8342634
i get laid a lot and i fucking hate women

getting them to lick your balls doesn't make it any better, trust me. i was just hanging out with a drug dealer last night, who gets laid a lot despite being 600 pounds because he deals drugs, and we were talking about this. when they're sucking your dick you just want to hug them and have a real woman like the disney movies told you exist.

you just want to be like "stop that, and be my wife!" and all they ever know how to do is either cheat on you because they perceive your genuine feeling or desire for genuine feeling as beta, or to be like WHY?? I LOVE DRINKING YOUR CUM, MASTER!!

women are fucking worthless. it is impossible to hate them more than you do after having sex with a lot of them.

if you want the real experience of what it's like to know women deeply and intimately, to have seen inside their soul, try to imagine a 6 year old with all the emotional fickleness and entitlement of a 6 year old, and then wrap that in successive outer layers of spoiled rich brat young adult. their most "real" moments are just the 6 year old coming out, and once in a great while that can be kind of endearing or something, but the emotional maturity is still on a 6 year old level no matter what you do. and 99% of the time they are just the equivalent of a spoiled, feckless, directionless rich twenty year old anyway. the latter is their social persona, and the former is their unconscious. it's a child wrapped in a douche. that's all a woman is.

have fun trying to love that. it's great! your stupid fucking male brain keeps going I WANT THIS BEAUTIFUL SPIRITUAL BEING TO BE THE MOTHER OF MY CHILDREN.. and all they know how to do is be a disgusting slavish womanchild or to be a backstabbing exploitative whore. they really are the most spiritually awful thing ever created.

>>8343954
when a little boy in america said something dirty his parents (back in the day) would wash his mouth with soap as a punishment

you are mistaken about the pronunciation of 'misanthrope'

>>8343971
no i don't mind if he heaped insults on women. i just am curious if they were well thought out.

i mean i don't give a shit about feminism and trust me i give 0 fucks about political correctness but even by those standards, his essay on women was pretty far out there. just read it. if you have then come back and tell me if you didn't think it was a bit excessive and unreasonable.

>>8343987
kys

>>8343954

Is English your native language?

everybody knows men>women (if you pick one woman and one man at random from the world population and were asked "who do think is the better (swimmer, thinker, writer, businessperson, whatever)?", and you had to bet your life savings on the answer, what would you do?).

But it's annoying even for philosophers to talk about it. It's like reminding people that hot smelly shit falls out of their ass daily. Everybody knows that but we all ignore it and base our society around pretending it's not true because this makes things less sad and more fun.

All I'm saying is that there are billions of people who are better than me at any given thing (in some cases only millions, yay!), and that slightly more of them are men than women. Still millions of billions of women beat the shit out of me at most things.

>>8343988
sorry. i have been pronouncing misanthrope wrong all this while. probably because i never heard it said out loud by anyone apart from me and no one ever corrected me. my bad.

>>8344013
no.

>>8343954
>miss-anthro-pee
Wtf

>>8344018
>millions of billions of women

>>8343995
Excessive?
Yes
Unreasonable?
No

>>8344008
i've had sex with more girls since january than you will in your entire life

what do you think of that faggot

>>8344023
misanthropy is also a word, and a lot of greek loanwords do pronounce the final "e" that way (synecdoche), so it's an easy mistake to make

>>8344026
>Hyacinth.jpg
Good taste.

>>8344023
we all make those kinds of mistakes. you should have heard how I pronounced Camus one time. it's especially funny because I knew enough about French pronunciation to know better

>>8344023
I think they didn't correct you because they thought you we're referring to misanthropy

>>8344029
>what do you think of that faggot
That it's not much of a feat.

>>8342705
Are you that anon that keeps telling the rest to take the redpill? Did you come from pol?

>>8344034
Camel?
Kamusse

>>8344040
take the cucking red pill you fuck

t. literally Hitler

>>8344040
Don't.

see the thing that i do not understand when people claim that women have some inherent flaws is that they never provide any explanation of where those inherent flaws come from.

"women are stupider". but what makes you claim that? do you have an understanding of the female brain and have you seen any scientific journal claim that female brains are smaller or lack neurons or are somehow less evolved?

"women are shallow". again, what proof or evidence do you have for this claim?

almost every time someone makes a claim about how women are inherently less intellectually capable or have certain personality traits it is because they seem to have made a generalization of their niche observations ignoring that men have just as much capacity to exhibit those traits.

i mean women are people, men are people and people are shallow and stupid. i don't understand why women get targeted critique when there is no concrete evidence to support that their brains are inherently inferior.

i'd be on board if someone claimed "most women prefer dicks to vaginas" because that has basis in their biological/psychological makeup and is a reasonable thing to assert. but i just don't understand where most other statements on their personalities come from.

>>8343987
>their most "real" moments are just the 6 year old coming out, and once in a great while that can be kind of endearing or something
accurately describes all "loving" memories I have of women I've dated. I'm looking back fondly on the 6 year old moments, cuz everything else was a cruel farce, like having a giant retarded kitten assigned to be your boss at work and having to figure out what the giant retarded kitten's orders are and carry them out perfectly or else get attacked

if you are a woman reading this please marry me especially if you are batshit insane, I love em crazy, crazier the better

>>8343995
i don't want to read the essay so ill concede that you're probably right

>>8344075
wait so you were accusing me of being sexist because I was critical of a text that you haven't even read? wtf

>>8344027
meant "millions and billions"

>>8343917
His mother literally went around trying to kill him and screw him over, nearly sank the family business, chased after anyone with a willy and a pulse and was generally a bit of a shit. Then when he did the whole "fuck Hegel I'm scheduling my lectures in direct competition" thing, a lot of the foot traffic away from Schopenhauer and toward Hegel were women. It's that whole enlightenment "why can't women think too" jazz.

So I think yeah he had a ridiculous amount of vitriol and it's certainly a candidate for a poorly thought out essay. Even now I'm expecting to find a note somewhere in the spirit of his "I'm not homophobic guys!" note on his Will to Life. It's the misogynist underbelly of the romantic and naturalist period really.

I'm sorry. I know, the truth hurts

>People think Schopenhauer/Nietzsche were women
>They don't realize the nuance which makes it obvious they're referring to the average woman
>They miss the key parts which indicate their clear belief that women can exceed men ceaselessly, if they but remove themselves from the masses

>>8344164
>People think Schopenhauer/Nietzsche were women

>>8344113
thank you for the explanation. i had suspected that it might have something to do with his personal life and his experiences.

>>8344164

>People think Schopenhauer/Nietzsche were women

...wut?

>>8344063
it's the ''womin'' episode again!
I'm lazing my way out of this argument
I claim women are socially inferior to men.
I prove this by a simple experience
Talk to a man
Listen to this conversation you're having
Talk to a woman
Idem
Do this an n rational number of times
Judge the conversations you had with women by the conversations with men standard
This might be anecdotal evidence, but unless you figure out a way to find an answer for every course of n, it's the best way
You'll see that the quality defined of course by yourself lowers in the conversation with women.
Why is that and where does it comes from?
Simple biological explanation.
Women breed and men look to breed.
In that form, the biggest action occurs from the man, thus he's forced to do more.
Woman stands by and gets impregnated.
Take this to our experience; woman put minimal effort in conversations and get the same result as a man, just because we want to breed. I don't truly give a shit what they spew, because it's often banal talk.
There is a inherently difference between a man and a woman.
By a biological society, woman does less, gets more. Man does more, get's less.
That's why they're ''stupider'' and will rest ''stupider''
Because they are shallow, and they're shallow because they were always served and dependent.
>inb4 i know woman deep n' shit

>>8344177
Who thinks that ?

>>8344063
here's the explanation: men evolved to be hunters and gatherers, risking life and limb (sorry I'm hamming this up) to venture out into the great and unknown to bring down wild beasts with invented tools and haul them in teams back to the camp. Meanwhile, women evolved to be semi-sentient milk machines whose only task is to eat the food the men brought back from the hunt and turn it into milk for babies to suck out of their tit spouts.

this evolutionary division of labor has obvious, noticeable ramifications in the realm of men's and women's bodies--they're attuned to their tasks.

why is it so hard to imagine that women's and men's minds are similarly attuned to their tasks? that men took on as much rational intelligence as would aid in their toolmaking and strategic hunting and teamwork, while women were only allotted little more than the amount of rational intelligence required to keep a baby from dying?

Many feminists even implicitly accept this real distinction between men and women and attempt to weaponize it in favor of women by noting women's superior emotional intelligence (makes sense that they'd have superior emotional intelligence since their charge is the care of children), and then claiming that this emotional intelligence is really more important than rational intelligence. In many arenas of life it may be.

But the reason men are "better" than women is that this society we have created, which is the only reference point against which to compare men and women, requires and rewards rational intelligence, and has little place for emotional intelligence (or maybe it does actually need a ton of emotional labor, but doesn't reward it as much). But that could be totally different. A world where women exceed men is totally imaginable

so it's dumb to say that men>women objectively

but it's also dumb to bet on the woman in a math contest, all other things being equal

>>8343823
>how the fuck does him insulting male vanities take away from the insults he heaped on women?
it implies he's a misanthrope not a misogynist.

he claims they're necessary to each other, a complement, and that he has insulting things to say about either and both of them when they are allowed to run freely to their natural flaws without the corrective balance of the other is the point of his whole argument. which you missed because you're sexist.

why are you implying that insults against women are worse than insults against men? he makes both, and you ignore one entirely because you're too busy tending to the honour of the ladies. you're not just mentally defective, you think most women are mentally defective enough to they need more coddling from insults than men, when coddling menbabies is one of their greatest talents according to the essay.

What are Schope's philosophical positions anyway in a nutshell besides compatibilism? I know he said fuck Hegel but what else.

>>8344164

That's a good rap. Wrong on the thalers, though.

>will and representation
Wtf Ameritards. First "emergence from his self-incurred immaturity" and now this.

It's Will And Imagination.

>>8344214

It's actually Will and Idea.

>>8344082
no i accused you of accusing the text of being sexist. plz post tits or chastity device

>>8344219
nah, vorstellung is imagination

>>8343917
>I literally questioned if someone intelligent enough as schopenhauer could have written something so vitriolic against
KEKEKKEKEK, I'm the anon you were talking to here >>8343583 >>8343683 and responded here too >>8344205 but now I see you're not an idiot who didn't understand what he read, but simply didn't read at all
>I literally questioned if someone intelligent enough as schopenhauer could have written something so vitriolic against
>questioned if someone intelligent enough as schopenhauer
>could have written something so vitriolic
The answer is Schopenhauer is notoriously vitriolic. He wrote a book on aggressive vitriol and how to spew it effectively on your opponent and everyone they hold dear. His criticism of Fichte is /lit/ in its finest hours level of vitriol tier. He calls all of Hegel's students drooling retards who learn nothing but scribbling. You have either read fucking nothing of his work, or you're legitimately a case for forced euthanasia.

>>8344242
I mean, ffs, his criticisms of Kant are so fucking biting that people think he didn't love Kant.

>>8344205
i only claimed that his insults against women were a bit more far out there than his insults against men. he was more generous with men and much more vitriolic against women.

i also don't understand what basis there is in his insults on both men and women. where does he get the notion that "women are inferior to men in matters of justice, honesty, and conscientiousness".

if you can't see that his insults against women were wayyy worse and that he derided women for being way inferior to men in so many different areas then either you didn't read the text or didn't comprehend it well enough.

he was a misanthrope but let us not kid ourselves. his opinion on women was far worse than that on men.

>>8344241
vorstellung is also representation, as it's the image you project to others.

>>8344199
this is why I love women who are "feminists" because they actually break the mold of a typical woman and want to seek, fight, compete, talk animatedly, create, etc., and are rightly annoyed by people treating them like objects (and do so simply because most women, as you've described, do behave like objects).

and it's why I hate women "feminists" who make a virtue of being objects, condemn action and fighting and seeking as "violent", "embrace their femininity."

And there are so many of the former type. It's like a whole generation of women got into feminism in order to relieve themselves of the burden of their factual equality with men, wanting the ease of being an object alongside the rewards traditionally afforded to men for their action

whatever the world is a giant robot and for all it cares we can just suck each other off and speak in tongues all day

>>8344199
>Simple biological explanation.
Yeah fuckoff stemfag.

>>8344242
he is notoriously vitriolic but one would assume his vitriol would be grounded in reason. his essay and opinion on women seemed to be grounded on anything BUT reason.

>>8344281

>his essay and opinion on women seemed to be grounded on anything BUT reason.

That's wrong though. It was very reasonable.

>>8344263
do yourself a favor
http://www.free-iqtest.net/
post results
I think you're medically retarded
>Philosophers need to be fair

>>8344202

>>8344280

>>8344297
no. i don't want him to be an egalitarian.
i just want him to give a decent fucking argument for whatever it is that he felt. and he fell short. that is my only complain.

>>8344306
I also want Plato to do a decent fucking analogy rather than a stinky cave and some sun.
Fucking dead people man

>>8344263
>i only claimed that his insults against women were a bit more far out there than his insults against men.
And you were wrong. He wasn't generous at all with men, he called all of their "achievements" futile. Everything that you value, he called delusional shit that men like to wank themselves off over because they're blind to reality and desperately vain.

You only care when he insults women because you're a sexist dick who thinks they can't withstand Schopenhauer's criticism, which isn't that harsh when you consider he's kinder to them than anyone else he criticises
>honesty
You cite that they're dissimulators, but considering that he insults men as only being interested in the simulated (like their pointless and sad pride in being creators of art when that is practically tapping out in the first round according to Schoppy). Men preen after their honesty because they lack all cunning; women, even the least cunning, would beat them.

You're kidding yourself that women are the victims of that piece, because the only narrative about women you're comfortable with is when they're raped and bleeding. That's pretty sick, bro.

>>8344291
>women are inferior to men in matters of justice, honesty, and conscientiousness
>women’s reasoning powers are weaker
>Because women in truth exist entirely for the propagation of the race, and their destiny ends here, they live more for the species than for the individual, and in their hearts take the affairs of the species more seriously than those of the individual
>It is only the man whose intellect is clouded by his sexual instinct that could give that stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped, and short-legged race the name of the fair sex; for the entire beauty of the sex is based on this instinct. One would be more justified in calling them the unaesthetic sex than the beautiful.
>This makes them incapable of taking a purely objective interest in anything, and the reason for it is, I fancy, as follows. A man strives to get direct mastery over things either by understanding them or by compulsion. But a woman is always and everywhere driven to indirect mastery, namely through a man; all her direct mastery being limited to him alone. Therefore it lies in woman’s nature to look upon everything only as a means for winning man, and her interest in anything else is always a simulated one, a mere roundabout way to gain her ends, consisting of coquetry and pretence

literally all of this is pure vitriol and zero reason. i don't give a fuck that he indicted women. i just dislike the fact that he didn't justify himself when he made these points. it was basically

>women are x
>women are y
>women can be like z

but he never fucking gave a justification or explanation or reasoning for this shit. it seemed as if he got drunk and wrote a hateful ramble motivated purely out of spite instead of a philosophical investigation. FFS is it too much to ask a philosopher to fucking give an argument or reason for his claims?

>>8344335

>it seemed as if he got drunk and wrote a hateful ramble motivated purely out of spite instead of a philosophical investigation.

Things are never what they seem, dumb shit.

>>8344265
Repräsentation(representation) is visualization in the Vorstellung(imagination) according to Wikipedia

"Laut dem “Wörterbuch der philosophischen Begriffe“ ist Vorstellung “das im Bewußtsein auf Grund von vorhergehenden Sinneswahrnehmungen und Empfindungen zustande kommende Bild eines Gegenstandes oder Vorgangs der Außenwelt”."

Shitty translation: According to the dictionary of philosophical concepts Vorstellung is the emerging-from-consciousness image of an object or event on the grounds of prior sensory perceptions and sensations.

So
representation 1
imagination 0

Now answer my question >>8344210

>>8344335
That's a sound development.
Please train your reading comprehension
>inb4 sound = true

>>8344346
>trite cliched statement in response to skepticism
gg you moron fuck.
do you sincerely believe that his views on female/male psychology were grounded in reason and philosophical investigation? that someone followed a rational train of thought and logically deduced that "women are inferior in matters of justice, honesty and conscientiousness". that a reasonable person could arrive at the conclusion "women in truth exist entirely for the propagation of the race, and their destiny ends here" ?

if he made these assertions why didn't he bother building up to them? most thinkers/philosophers explain/justify themselves or build up to their claims instead of spewing a bunch of statements. how does one take someone seriously who doesn't bother explaining himself in the slightest?

>>8344346
>Things are never what they seem, dumb shit.
Oh the irony

>>8344335
>but he never fucking gave a justification or explanation or reasoning for this shit. it seemed as if he got drunk and wrote a hateful ramble motivated purely out of spite instead of a philosophical investigation. FFS is it too much to ask a philosopher to fucking give an argument or reason for his claims?
to be fair, Schopenhauer gives a lot of credit to his readers. when he talks about Hegel he doesn't provide reasons; he assumes the reader will know of the Young Hegelians and why he would call them scribblers. in a similar vein, when he wanted to quote the Greeks, he assumed his readers spoke Greek. he gave you the benefit of the doubt that you had met at least several kinds of women, if not in large numbers.

>>8344442
This
Not everyone has to lead you by the hand

Natural/biological arguments about women being inherently inferior or less intelligent are stupid frustrated STEMshit.

All you need to do to prove that women are childish and petty is look at how society treats them and allows them to get away with.

Schopenhauer writes about women as if they were the niggers of Europe. But is it that hard to believe European women around that period were simply god awful because of the way they had been held up on a pedestal? How could you be a continental woman in the early 19th century without being a pampered, uneducated cunt really? They didn't need to know anything about art, so few of them did.

>>8344466
He asked for the reason a priori anon

>>8344466
>How could you be a continental woman in the early 19th century without being a pampered, uneducated cunt really?
By not being a posh woman. Smartass.

>>8344466
finally someone who speaks some sense.

>But is it that hard to believe European women around that period were simply god awful because of the way they had been held up on a pedestal? How could you be a continental woman in the early 19th century without being a pampered, uneducated cunt really? They didn't need to know anything about art, so few of them did.

Not hard to believe at all. However, he wrote about women as if they were "inherently inferior or less intelligent". HE never claimed that "women from europe during me time are so and so".

he never attributes those flaws to the period of time he was living in or the kind of society he was in but he claims that those flaws are inherent in women.

>>8344476
>by not being a woman
fix'd

>>8344466
>How could you be a continental woman in the early 19th century without being a pampered, uneducated cunt really?
m8 at least pretend you read the essay in question.

>>8344489
>19th centurt peasant and proletarian women
>pampered

>>8343955
elliot rodger 1831

>>8344046
ka-muh

>>8344501
This.

>>8344489
>human sacrifice
>pampered
you should stop trying to fix things, billy.

he probably disliked women because he was jealous of their easy life, and not getting laid

>>8344182
He was also a serial womanizer and likely hated himself for being unable to control this animalistic impulse.

>>8344486
>However, he wrote about women as if they were "inherently inferior or less intelligent".
It reminds me a lot of that "generation of men raised by women" bit in Fight Club. The basis of his points revolve around women bearing and raising children.

>>8344501
>>8344512
>proletariat
>educated
how can i hold all these keks

>>8344518
Doesn't sound unreasonable desu.

>>8344486
>However, he wrote about women as if they were "inherently inferior or less intelligent"
>Men’s vanity, on the other hand, is often directed on non-material advantages, such as intellect, learning, courage, and the like.
Are you saying that Schopenhauer, who blew the fuck out of Fichte as someone who either hadn't read Kant or plainly couldn't understand him for denying the thing in itself could exist, is suddenly on the side of touting the immaterial? Goddamn, I did not know retard could get this full.

>>8344524
>arguing for the title of 'lady' in a schopenhauer thread
you need a picture of an aztec or englishman for that.

>>8344543
>touting psychological traits = touting the immaterial

goddamn you are one stupid retarded fuck. consider killing yourself. also kill your parents if they're still alive so that they can't create anything similar to you again.

>>8344554
did you really not understand that schopenhauer quote?
>Men’s vanity, on the other hand, is often directed on non-material advantages, such as intellect, learning, courage, and the like.
does mean that they are touting the immaterial as a point of pride when it is mere vanity. Are you legit that dumb you needed me to explain that sentence to you? kek

>>8344563
>he doesn't understand that non-material can be used in different contexts
>he gets pedantic over a word from an english translation of a text in a different language
>can't seem to understand the distinction between the non-material that schopenhauer uses to refer to when talking about courage, intellect etc and the"immaterial" when denying thing in itself.

just stop. you're embarrassing yourself. it would be better if you found a bridge to jump off and end the huge amount of stupidity that you embody.

>>8344476
Then you were a vulgar, uneducated cunt, innit.

>>8344026
>>8344023
Misanthropy is pronounced as you wrote originally. Misanthrope is not.

>>8344597
>reads Shoppy in english
>responds with the kill urself meme
not same poster but darn, your life is a meme

>>8344535

being blinded by rage and spite, isnt very reasonable

>>8344524
Who are you quoting?

>>8342521
he was wrong about women but he was completely right about life being a needless cycle of addiction

>>8342608
>>8342550

>depression must be a relevant thing because people talk about it on TV

>>8344597
>he can't cope with being wrong
>he wants to pretend women need him to mummy them
you know if you read schopenhauer you could probably come up with a better argument?

I mean, it's pretty hard to argue against vitriol when all you have in your arsenal is vitriol and the hope nobody spots that. Maybe you're American and you're used to a low bar on critical reasoning?

>>8344682
yeah it's why people who are easily triggered by positive or negative reviews of womanhood shouldn't read him. he's also not safe for hegelians. they're very touchy-feely too.

>>8344075
/lit/ everybody

>men are more assertive/aggressive than women
>most men are heterosexual and so the 'otherness' of women is amplified
>this increases focus on their traits as opposed to the traits of their fellow men
>as a result, they make observations about women that are probably accurate in general, but which also manifest themselves on average in men as well but they're less inclined to notice

that's "misogyny." flip it, and you get misandry.

>>8345294
>'otherness'
are you trying to call Hegel a misogynist?

>>8344210
Representation in the Ideal realm is the "veil of maya," an illusory sheen (Schein) rising out of the noumenal realm which Schopenhauer identifies as universal, all-encompassing Will. We "are" the Ideal representations on the surface. Hegel is Absolute Idea, but Schopenhauer is Absolute Will (thing-in-itself).

We can access the Will in certain (especially aesthetic) ways because it's what we actually are and is the basis of our representation/self-representation whatsoever.

>>8343987
>try to imagine a 6 year old with all the emotional fickleness and entitlement of a 6 year old, and then wrap that in successive outer layers of spoiled rich brat young adult.
>all they ever know how to do is ... cheat
>bourgeois women are the only women that exist

>>8345302
>>8345294
>flip it, and you get misandry.
>Marx is misandric
checks out

>>8344202
>pop evo psych
gross

>>8344550
>>8344663
am i having a stroke

>>8344335

All of that is correct.

>>8344202
>but it's also dumb to bet on the woman in a math contest

I'm in math by trade, and this one aspect always puzzled me: how come there are women mathematicians? How come they are better than me? Truly puzzling. Wonder what Schopenhauer would have to say about that, but, sadly, as most other philosophers (and women) he neglected math.

>>8346046
The first one I think is a joke about Schopenhauer's concern for London's massive red light district and its indictment of monogamy as creating human sacrifices of women. The second one could be criticizing anon for i) reading Schopenhauer in English, ii) reading Schopenhauer in just one language, iii) ignoring London's prostitutes again, iv) ignoring Schopenhauer's English is perfected at the age of six, v) ignoring the futility of suicide, or, vi) excessive memery in absence of any point. It really works on many levels but you having a stroke is unlikely to be one of the forerunners, unfortuately.

>>8346077
>as most other philosophers (and women) he neglected math.
2/10, (You)

>>8346099
>muh insular pseudomath
Only responses from fellow mathematicians, please.

>>8346105
>What's yur erdos nummer son
>never you mind why those delta characters keep poppin up, i'm sure once we get past euclidean space we won't need em no more
I'm uncertain you can tell between a delta and a partial derivative.

>>8346099
To elaborate on >>8346105
I don't know what you met by your response, anon, but it is universally accepted among mathematicians that people who can't go on arxiv.org and read any submission in areas like "algebraic geometry," "differential geometry," or, at the very least, "high-energy physics," should never, ever talk about math. Thus, you probably don't qualify. Alternatively, for pre-arxiv era, going back in time, there were works of Grothendieck, Riemann, and Gauss that could acquaint himself with (and must have), which disqualifies most insular "philosophers" like Quine, Putnam, Wittgenstein, and even (gasp!) Bertrand Russell.

>>8346140
met to meant

>>8346129
>never you mind why those delta characters keep poppin up, i'm sure once we get past euclidean space we won't need em no more

I am, once again, unsure of the exact meaning of your words, anon, but no, deltas continue to appear in mathematics once you "get past" euclidean space: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/δ-hyperbolic_space

>>8346140
I'm making a joke about mathematics and philosophy's overlap, especially when it comes to notation. I'm saying you don't actually understand the basic symbols of math. Since you probably read more /lit/ than math, it's equivalent to saying "you can't even letters". You didn't have to go prove it for me by showing me you don't know the notation for uncertainty, difference, a partial derivative, or the significance of euclidean space
>>8346157
(or how dumb it would be to think they disappear after more basic spaces where idiots learn things like "all the angles of a triangle add up to 180degrees:3)
...or an erdos number. This last one is a standard math pissing contest that even the chick in V for Vandetta scores better than you on btw.

>>8346179
Again, completely unsure of what you mean by your remarks on notation, or how "mathematics and philosophy's overlap".
>Since you probably read more /lit/ than math
Perhaps.
>the chick in V for Vandetta scores better than you on btw
Perhaps, although she is not a mathematician, so I don't see how that is relevant.
>idiots learn things
Idiots don't learn things, they go around making snide remarks.

>>8346218
>please spoonfeed the history of math to me from thales and euclid forward
Logic, math, etc have always been intertwined with philosophy. They influence each other so much that you have to learn the same notation to do either at a high level usually. Mistaking a lower case delta for a partial derivative is a common notation mistake in math. It's the type of thing that someone who understood math notation would get as a shibboleth. Instead you tried to double down against someone who knows about Banach algebra and therefore how and when to divide by zero. I'm not surprised you don't know the history of math or philosophy or where they overlap, but you missed all the in jokes for me to believe you can handle more than high school math.

>Perhaps, although she is not a mathematician, so I don't see how that is relevant.
Neither are you, bub. At least she has a publication train to link her to one though.

>Idiots don't learn things, they go around making snide remarks.
>pls explain ur jokes so i can pretend i'm in with the math crowd/philosophy crowd if you explain why i'd need to be in with them too
>i'm sure it won't take a four year degree or anything
>i'll pretend i knew the difference and got the jokes from the start then so i don't have to feel like i was bluffing and that'll totally work
Hm, how about 'no'.

>>8344164
At least in Schopenhauer's case, I interpreted it as saying women suck so much that if they git gud at all they grew enormously.

This thread is painful to read
I wish blue pills were real

>>8343574
Haha how could anyone intelligent disagree with me?

>>8343683
You've misread the essay. He said that the male mind matures more slowly because the final product is superior.

>>8346267
>knows about Banach algebra and therefore how and when to divide by zero

kys

>>8343955
There it is! I've got him!
There's simply no way a genius could put his personal feelings aside, he must be doing exactly what you would in such a situation.

>>8344281
This very thread is proof of his statements. The first response of half the posters in here was to rush into his biography and find out degrading things that had happened to him.
The others say
>durr where'd da argument
As if these things can be discussed and proven with syllogisms.

>>8346482
no. how could someone intelligent make such sweeping claims about the inherent qualities of women and be so wrong.

>>8346504
was he a professional psychologist? human behavior isn't magic. it can be reasoned and explained, neither of which schopie did.

>>8345294
>misandry
nice meme

bump

Consider this: maybe he was largely right about the women of his day, but as humans have culture and are historical, he is not be right about the women of today. Change the environment and you change the human.

Schopenhauer threads are always a shitfest
4 Posters throwing shit at eachother
Underrated posts understood by none
And no actual conclusion

>>8348513
I'm still yearning to understand the mystery of female mathematicians, hence why I bumped.

>>8348513
So just like the Schopenhauer's writings themselves.

>>8348526
women are people.
men are people.
people are good at abstract thought and some people can be intelligent enough to be good at mathematics.
given enough/equal opportunities to both sexes, it is statistically likely for both to have some representation in any intellectual field.
therefore you see female mathematicians.
qed.

>>8348526
I assume this is your post
>>8346077
I have only one rival in my math class and it's a girl.
I never get to btfo by more than 5 points, or she btfo's me by 3 or 4
All since I started.
She works hard and she told me she does so in part because she was in love with the teacher.
A N E C D O T A L E V I D E N C E

>>8348546
>I assume this is your post
It is, indeed.
Well, I do math in part because there's a boy I love also doing it somewhere, and I hope to rejoin him some day on his Parnassus, so it's not exclusive to women.
But thanks, what you shared is pretty cool. I wonder sometimes if there is more than one way to do math, and I'll ever see the other, more sensual way, or if I am to search for it forever.
>>8348538
To be fair, there are some parts of Die Welt that make me cry like a bitch, and little of that tenderness can be found here.

>>8342521
I really love having one of these everyday

All of Schopenhauer's observations about women are essentially accurate. The conclusions he makes and the judgments he pronounces thereon are where the idiosyncrasies of his personal experience crop up.

If he had simply said 'woman is thus and thus, she does this and this', there would have been nothing controversial. But he appends a moral evaluation to these facts that betrays a discreet effort to cast woman in a negative light, when in reality the very same things he points out with respect to woman could quite easily be used to portray women in a positive light, or at any rate not as mendacious little savages (which they are by all accounts, but not necessarily through any particular failing of their own).

In my opinion dealing with women is for the most part a tedious business, especially when the natural attraction to them is not operating with force. Rather like eating when one has no appetite. Women are, as Schopenhauer said, incurable philistines, and as Nietzsche recognized, eternal bores.

>>8348739
>womem are eternal bores
r u a gril

>>8348739
>Women are, as Schopenhauer said, incurable philistines, and as Nietzsche recognized, eternal bores.
This may go for most women, but doesn't it also go for most men? It is silly to make observations about a gender without considering whether the observations are of the "nature" of that gender or of humans in general.

All I can observe is: most humans are not special. Most are both of those things you mentioned. My personal experience is that men are often STEMbro-level autists who believe too much in themselves and women are often shallow and kitschy, very much defining themselves on the level of personal "aesthetic" rather than any substance.

Out of those two stereotypes, I actually prefer the woman, which does share some parts with Scopnenhauers view. There is at least something appealing in shameless pretension.

In addition to this, I do firmly believe that all genders have the capability for greatness.

>>8346485
He says they're immature for longer, and that finding such maturity or the worth that comes with maturity before any male is 28 is so rare as to be negligible.
Sure, you could argue that after 28, some do mature to a finer product, but you'd have to wait until you're at least 28 to do that. Or claim you're such a special snowflake that Schoppy left you out of the essay.


There is no finer product until you mature, and that is a long stretch between 18 and 28 where you're more immature than every girl you meet. There is no guaranteed fine product for males either; those that mature earlier are as stunted in finesse as grills, and those that mature at 28 are only finer than an 18 year old girl. You're trying to pretend that the final product of the male mind is always superior, and it's really not. It's why he lambastes many finer male intellects than you as childish scribbles. His other writings (when he's more mature and therefore of finer intellect) say women can unendingly surpass males too if they focus on that, which gives them again a further head start.

>>8346488
kek, not him but that's a great joke. i dunno why he's bringing all his /sci/ trash talk on /lit/ but i'm stealing that one.

It's not women I'm worried about; it's the damn spooks!

>>8348845
that's because you're a silly little scribbling hegelian milk boy.

>>8342521
as schoppy sounds like your typical jaded single dad. why's he so lauded again?

>>8348842
Explain, but if your explanation contains words like limits, distributions, or whatever the fuck it is you retards understand by "division by zero" (which is impossible in any ring, Banach algebra or not, unless it's a retarded dream like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_with_one_element)) then don't bother and just kys

>>8348864

Schopenhauer fucked bitches and got money. You shitpost on a Bavarian basket weaving forum

>>8348893
>computer geeks freaking out
that's why it's such a good line. there's a reason most Banach algebra, and some Riemann etc, has the phrase "for every non zero point" you tard: dividing by zero is necessary at zero points. this isn't even endless spheres math, it's basic uni shit.
you're a humorless fuck if you knew that and didn't get the joke, kys.

>>8348950
>what is maximal ideal
>what is valuation ring
>what is Zariski topology

kys

>>8348978
>there's only one topology
wow retarded. i see why the other guy left when you posted wikipedia as your source.

>>8342521
It's weird how redpill types attach themselves to him even though he was an anti-nationalist anti-natalist animal rights activist atheist etc. etc. I have the feeling that if they read anything other than On Women they'd think of him as a bluepill cucklord numale sheeple who wants to destroy the white race.

>>8348996
>he thinks there are multiple "Zariski topologies"
>I bet he hasn't read Zil'ber though

>>8348864
As boy grows into man he realizes that daddy was right about most things. He realizes not to relax around blacks, women mindless bores who are only good for to things (those being screwing and bringing dinner), and when in doubt, blame the Jews. This is the result of dad logic, and dad logic is the pinnacle of all things knowable.

>>8349052
m8, you're the one who thinks Zariski is the only topology and i must have been talking about that when talking about Banach space tests. i hope the other guy wasn't just passing through because you're making /lit/ look dumber than Deleuze on topology.

>>8349257
>Zariski is the only topology
And where did I say that?

There isn't a single place in math where you need to divide by zero, Banach algebras or not. It's really simple to prove, actually:
Say, for a non-zero a,

a/0=b
(a/0)*0=b*0
a*(1/0)*0=b*0
a=0

Contradiction. No need to get topology involved, no need to bring in non-zero points.

Non-zero point, and only G-d knows what meaning you were putting into these words, could mean a point a where a function f doesn't assume the value of 0. At such a point, you may still take the limit of g(x)/f(x) as x approaches a. Such limit may or may not be valid. Sometimes you may notice, however, that the values of g(x)/f(x) get "closer" to each other as x approaches a. If the space in which g(x)/f(x) is valued is a Banach space with respect to the metric according to which we defined "closeness", then the sequence of values g(x)/f(x) must converge to a point within that space. Now, if an algebra is also a Banach space, and the norm of the product is less than or equal to the product of the norms (the relationship between the norm and metric is like the relationship between a square and a product, more on that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarization_identity,) then it is called a Banach algebra. Nowhere in this discussion do we need to divide by zero, or use the concept of topology.

Now, Zariski (or Grothendieck) had a great idea to start with a ring and define a space, on which this ring can be viewed as a ring of functions. This space is the space of prime ideals of a given ring, endowed with Zariski topology, which essentially is a way to say that if a function vanishes at a particular point, it must belong to a particular prime ideal (prove this, say, for continuous functions on the real line.)

Still doesn't bring us any closer to the phenomenon of female mathematicians, or what Schopenhauer would say about their existence. The above, by the by, can be connected, through the works of Kummer, to Sophie Germain, a contemporary of Schopenhauer, of whom he, apparently, knew nothing, harboring, like most philosophers, a great disdain for mathematics.

>>8349361
>>8349361
>There isn't a single place in math where you need to divide by zero, Banach algebras or not.
no, you do need to at zero points in most of Banach algebras and in some of Riemann too. you also have to do it in the endless spheres problems that come from Banach-Tarski.
>>8348893
>Explain, but if your explanation contains words like limits, distributions, or
and now you would like your explanation to contain limits and distributions? kekekekekek, you must get eaten alive on /sci/
you didn't get anon's joke, it's okay. i don't really care about your math-peen because i know it won't be in any 600 course

>>8343574
i feel that a bit of it ways write out of spit and the ways he put it where hard , but most was his own philosophical thoughts on the matter

bump