[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 41 KB, 657x527, 658368965.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11561700 No.11561700 [Reply] [Original]

>Women could be called the unaesthetic sex. Neither for music, nor potery, 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.

I am inclined to agree.

>> No.11561703

>>11561700
based and redpilled

>> No.11561707
File: 4 KB, 295x171, images.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11561707

But i like women

>> No.11561709

>>11561700
>it is merely mimicry in service of their effort to please
Says the guy who got buttmad that Hegel "pleased" more people.

>> No.11561715

>>11561700
cringe and bluepilled

>> No.11561717

>>11561707
Some of them are pretty to look at for a little while but usually they get fat old and ugly much faster than men

>> No.11561719

>>11561709
lol i guess Schoppy isn't immune to the feelgood feel of approval from others and jealousy.

>> No.11561720

>>11561700
tons of ladies like pottery

>> No.11561726

>>11561715
>>11561707
>This it lies in the nature of women to regard everything simply as a means of capturing a man (instagram whoring for example), and their interest in anything else is only simulated

>>11561717
Yes, the book says the following about aging:

>In the girl nature has had in view what could in theatrical terms be called a stage-effect: it has provided her with super-abundant beaty and charm for a few years at the expense of the whole remainder of her life

>> No.11561732

>>11561726
It also says soemthign about how women turn ugly after 1 or 2 child births because their beauty might work against them while raising a child

>> No.11561765
File: 268 KB, 809x443, 1532028256679.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11561765

>women doesnt have fee-

>> No.11561773

>>11561765
the fuck :DDDD

>> No.11561798

>>11561765
>google her name
>only known for milkers

>> No.11561803

>>11561765
She's well rounded alright.

>> No.11561825

>>11561765
>wahh im depressed can i get some likes
:,( xoxo

>> No.11561870

>>11561732
I think that's more a subjective thing. Women who are already in marriage become less attractive to men seeking it

>> No.11562313

They have no passions or more like, taste in art. A hobby is running through a highway like a fucking retard.. women do shit like that.

>> No.11562347

>>11561720
-t unaware of preference falsification brainlet

>> No.11562369
File: 246 KB, 500x375, 1509601769690.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11562369

>>11561700
But do all men possess this same passion, or just a few? Do all men seek out or appreciate aesthetics, while women as a whole do not?

Women have hobbies, but it never evolves to the level of mastery, from what I've noticed. There is always a social element to their interest and seeking out attention and a sense of "community" for the things they do is a high priority for them.

I would suggest that most men operate on this lower level as well, but only a minority of them aspire to surpass pleb-tier anything.

>> No.11562432

>>11562369
The way I always think of it is that men are on a spectrum (the autism spectrum, you could say) of engagement with any hobby or vocation, and it's always generally expected/rewarded that they do well at it. So that yes, there are shitty men, lazy men, weird men who just don't care, but generally speaking even those men have some connection to the spectrum and the cultural norms associated with it.

For example I am a do-nothing autism baby but I randomly decided to go to a tabletop gaming store just for the sake of some social contacts a few years back, and I ended up meeting some people and getting into the hobby for real, and even though I'm nothing special I'm pretty good at it and have spent thousands of hours researching it, talking about it, and practicing it.

The reason I put thousands of hours in was because it was exactly related to the amount of friendship and engagement I received back from the group, on some unconscious level. The better I got, the more respect I got, etc. Women seem to post ":((( my hair hurts" and get 6,500 likes in two hours. So why would they go spend thousands of hours on having real interests or a personality? It's a bad investment for them, if all they care about is attention and validation.

>> No.11562590

>>11562432
>Women seem to post ":((( my hair hurts" and get 6,500 likes in two hours. So why would they go spend thousands of hours on having real interests or a personality? It's a bad investment for them, if all they care about is attention and validation.

Why do you fags believe this? This only happens for good-looking women. Plus, it's not as if most of those likes are genuine. I personally don't understand how people can be validated by fake attention. None of those people want to help you, they just want to pretend that they do in order to get something from you.

>> No.11562684

>>11561765
>my social life
good.

>> No.11562708

>>11561700
Where do women go to discuss literature/philosophy? Any websites? I'm curious to see what they talk about

>> No.11562719
File: 72 KB, 960x709, xgEsXAJ.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11562719

>>11561765
wow I hope she feels better

>> No.11562721

>>11562708
/lit/
most of us here are women larping as /pol/tards

>> No.11562722

>>11562708
>what is feminist theory

>> No.11562779

>>11562722
Is that really all they talk about?

>> No.11562782
File: 90 KB, 960x960, RS5De8s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11562782

A E S T H E T I C

>> No.11562794

>>11562347
What is this?

>> No.11562796

>>11561765
Why does it seem only hot girls are Bi-polar? Is it because they are constantly talking about it for attention, or because nobody cares about people who aren't good looking? Or is it just an excuse for them to cheat in relationships and act like a crazy person whenever they want?

>> No.11562799

>>11562590
You're making too strong a dichotomy between fake and not fake. If you're a woman, you look at all the examples of obvious, egregious sycophancy and pandering, and making the (easy to make) logic error of: "I wouldn't let him do that to me." But what you are not seeing is, obviously, all the stuff you don't see - anything that doesn't show up on your radar as egregious is reported as "not egregious," i.e., as normal.

Women are systemically treated better in a billion subtle little ways than men. Men are constantly faking entire social relationships and friendships with you just because you're a woman. They aren't thinking (again, as this would be egregious) "I'll trick her into liking me, so I can fuck her." That's not how it works. Instead, it's sublimated and distributed systemically across their behaviours and across the culture, so that even they don't realise they are kissing your ass and being obsequious, so that they are being sycophantic phonies even when they have no hope of fucking you. Why? Because men are hard-wired to think "GIRL AM IMPORTANT" and "ME WANT BE NICE TO GIRL" and "ME WANT GIRL BE NICE TO ME." It's not at the level of conscious strategy. It's constant.

The greatest tragedy of being a woman is that they can never escape from this. Even relatively reflexive, self-reflective men are often big untangleable bundles of psychopathology when it comes to women, because they have been handed a conflicting mess of desires ("I want to lick that person's holes even if she has a bad personality"), social cues and cultural norms ("I'm apparently supposed to be nicer to this person all the time because she's frail and weak and needs constant help, but also she's a strong powerful superhero who don't need no man?"), and other shameful admixtures of emotions, drives, desires, and norms ("I want this girl to be my mommy because I'm tired of having to be strong all the time," "I hate her for being a slut but I also want her to be a slut," "Am I gay for liking women too much?," "I was so nice to that girl and it felt so nice to be her friend in that way, but then I feel humiliated by her fucking another man, and when I mention this I get called a misogynist monster piece of garbage for presuming that I 'deserve' sex even though I'm really just confused in my gay little feelings"), and so on. The net result of all these insane malformed desires and thoughts is that men objectify women as something strangely inhuman, capable of bestowing the ultimate grace and escape from life's drudgery (sex), but also capable of obliterating men in an instant by judging them unfit, and even humiliating them if they feel like it.

The average man has this entire complex bubbling and frothing and fractally expanding in his unconscious when he talks to a woman, which makes it very hard to interact with her on the same level as he would a fellow man. And it applies to all women, not just the hot ones he positively and consciously wants to fuck.

>> No.11562841

>>11561700
literally every young woman I've ever met has only ever had passive hobbies (i.e. watching TV vs. woodworking or art)

>> No.11562845

>>11562799
Human society was a mistake.

>capable of bestowing the ultimate grace and escape from life's drudgery (sex)
Testosterone's a hell of a drug.

>Men are constantly faking entire social relationships and friendships with you just because you're a woman.

Human beings are insincere by their very nature due to their need to serve their own ends, but my post was questioning why women weren't more openly aware of this. I personally believe because the lie is more comforting than the truth.

With that said, I think that it is possible to be aware of these thought processes, but one must constantly vigilant and that can be very exhausting for the untrained mind.

>>11562841
The art scene is filled with women, so that's a personal problem of yours.

>> No.11562874

>>11562845
sure if you count "basic workshop participation without ambition". I'm in the art scene and first hand all I see is women creating unoriginal works aping common pop culture or self-inserts rather than becoming a master of their own art, usually the women attach themselves to people living the "art life" and find that enough.
Hobbies aren't mandatory, hobbies are outside of education, their purpose is to be learn by the self and not by others, which here is not the case. There is no drive to be more than just "amateur", that's not a passion that's a sporadic activity

>> No.11562876
File: 64 KB, 614x767, hhhe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11562876

does appreciating womans aesthetic form count as feminism?

>> No.11562900

>>11562799
That's interesting. And I don't mean this to be hateful. But perhaps that has much to do with women being incapable of genius or high achievement. There is no effort expended to make themselves important because of the innumerable ways they are already made to feel important simply for existing. The other cause is perhaps their attachment to having and nurturing children, which is obviously so important that Nature would cut off any possibility women would really want to do much else.

I considered the idea that historically women were discouraged form pursuing interests outside of home and children. But this is simply not true at all. Women were allowed considered freedom to pursue their interests, to the extent they had any. Emily Dickinson and Jane Austen could stay at home and write poetry and novels while their fathers worked. They might have turned their attention to number theory or the study of conics like Pascal did. They could have done a great deal of things. And women were a very powerful force in what was called "society" as opposed to "business."

To the extent that women as a group were too burdened with duties to be able to pursue their interests, the same could be said of men. I find, in short, no evidence that women were differentially oppressed relative to men. Men simply occupied the public sphere and women the private sphere. It seems to have suited everybody just fine. A group of people you are actually oppressed, know they are oppressed and seek to immediately put an end to the oppression. Think black slaves or concentration camp inmates. But women during these periods of history appear to lead happy contented lives. Or at least they are no more miserable than their male peers. In fact probably they are better off really.

>> No.11562963

>>11562874
>rather than becoming a master of their own art

What does that look like these days? Can you name a man who fits such a description?

>>11562900
Some women have been oppressed, considering that slaves and concentration camp inmates were both male and female. It makes little sense to say women as a whole have or have not been oppressed as a group, since many women have not been spared from oppression due to belonging also to other other oppressed groups.

That said, women as a group have been repressed, in the sense they have been discouraged from certain pursuits and confined to the sphere that seems natural to them.

>But perhaps that has much to do with women being incapable of genius or high achievement.

You say this and then mention Emily Dickinson and Jane Austen? Are they not women?

>But women during these periods of history appear to lead happy contented lives.
Slaves appeared happy at times too, should the western nations have kept slavery as an institution because not everyone suffered from it?

>> No.11563080

>>11562963
Reminiscent of the time of Glenn Gould, wherein someone would dedicate their best interests in art wholly.
Emily Bronte is one of the few like this who has "shown her workings".
> Can you name a man who fits such a description?
What is every Silicon Valley mogul

>>11562963
Oh and what oppresses women now in the 21st century? Instagram, modern worker bee men? private mercenaries?
The oppressed cannot have "power" because that implies the victim chooses to not wield his power in a masochistic manner. You can't have your cake and eat it. Take responsibility for yourself, you are accountable for your own denial machinations. The only thing repressing you is the fear that you might not be oppressed and will therefore have to show your workings (I bet all that passive hatred paid off and you can cook in a Michelin star restaraunt huh?)

>> No.11563100

>>11562845
>the art scene is filled with women
Michelangelo, Da Vinci, and Botticelli are laughing.

>> No.11563104

>>11561765
why does she look kind of unattractive here but attractive everywhere else

>> No.11563105

>>11561709
As someone who still gets mad whenever someone mentions H*gel in an age where he's less relevant than Schopenhauer, I can only image how furious Schoppy was that the pre-eminent philosopher of his day and age was the immediate mediation of the Absolute Sophistry of Spirit.

>> No.11563117

>>11562963
>women as a group have been repressed, in the sense they have been discouraged from certain pursuits and confined to the sphere that seems natural to them.

The same could be said of men.

Women have contributed virtually nothing to culture and civilization. There are isolated instances, but the main point holds. Please don't be pedantic. It's a sign of weakness in argumentation.

>Slaves appeared happy at times too, should the western nations have kept slavery as an institution because not everyone suffered from it?

Don't be ridiculous. The condition of women was far superior to the condition of slaves. And every reasonable well-imfored person knows that. Not only that, the condition of men was as good (or bad) as that of women. Men had to slave away at sometimes dangerous and brutal jobs o support their wives and children, many of whom had a higher quality of life.

Read Edith Wharton or Jane Austen or Emily Dickinson. I can expect these ladies to depict the world as they saw (given that they were great personalities), and I see absolutely no indication that women as a whole were any more miserable than men. Or more burdened with the social expectations of the time. Those are the facts. Not the ideologically motivated fantasies you seem to ascribe to. The relations between men and women today are perhaps the worse that they have ever been. Women are more unhappy than they have ever been since we have kept record. And the principle drive is a media committed to a gender war. You think ascribing victim status to a group of people whose status in society is remarkable only for how comfortable, coddled, and protected they are is going to go well? These women are desperate to feel like women, but things have been arranged such that to do so is to admit failure and inferiority. Who do you think is responsible for that? It isn't men. Men like women to be women, not imitation men. Men don't see femininity as inferiority. They see it as a very desirable and complementary quality. It is something they actively seek in a woman.

>> No.11563187

>>11563080
>What is every Silicon Valley mogul

That's what you call a master? Someone who achieves for financial gain? And the original subject was art.

>Oh and what oppresses women now in the 21st century? Instagram, modern worker bee men? private mercenaries?
Fascinating how you refer to all women as a group while mentioning things relative to western women, as if all women everywhere are well acquainted with such things.

And I said that women have been more repressed than oppressed. Those being repressed can have "power" but be taught that they do not have any or that they do not need to use it. The latter is exactly the argument that was used to keep women from voting.

>>11563117
>The same could be said of men.
Then things aren't fair for anyone.


>Women have contributed virtually nothing to culture and civilization. There are isolated instances, but the main point holds.

I'll concede this point, but what does that mean for those who want to contribute, for those who want to do more? Yes, there may be not very many, but why should they be stopped? Why should their be social and legal policies to stop those people from living how they want to live?

>The condition of women was far superior to the condition of slaves.
So, in this instance, only white women are considered to women? Is that the argument? Otherwise, that statement falls apart and you know it. If so, I would even agree with you that yes, white women had an easier time than black slaves(including their women).

The main gist is that white women weren't suffering enough to desire a change in their social standing. Then you claim the oppression of men by stating that their condition wasn't much better; this oft repeated argument doesn't deter from the repression of women. If women can suffer and men can also suffer. let us put an end to their suffering. Women being free to pursue their own financial means allows for less men to be pigeonholed in unsafe and dangerous jobs.

>> No.11563278

>>11563187
desu, there's no point responding to people if you're just going to use the strawman for 500 words

>> No.11563300

>>11563187
>implying what Elon Musk does isn't art
fuck outta here with that gay shit

>> No.11563311

>>11561707
>I am a man, I like women, therefore I want women to be just like men
anon, you're gay

>> No.11563352

>>11563311
>women having hobbies and not being braindead bimbos makes them like men

?????

>> No.11563368
File: 27 KB, 545x496, 1526721144406.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11563368

The fact that Male and Female consciousness views itself as symbolically masculine posits a serious problem with the assertion that men are unique in their attempts to dominate purely by virtue of their masculinity.

>> No.11563373

>>11561700
Women are a decorative sex

>> No.11563408

God, even when you faggots aren't necessarily wrong, you're just such whiny little cunts about absolutely everything that I cannot bring myself to care
What do you want to do, beat the shit out of preteen girls for reading books? Burn down girls' schools like those pakistanis just did? Or whine on the internet like the impotent little nonces you all are?

>> No.11563417

>>11563187
>Women being free to pursue their own financial means allows for less men to be pigeonholed in unsafe and dangerous jobs.

LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

>> No.11563424

>>11563408
>What do you want to do

Repeal 19th amendment, ban all birth control, ban abortion, remove women from public life/public positions, remove women from the workplace and schools, increase wages for men to sustain a domestic economy

>> No.11563431

>>11563424
>ban all birth control
Can we nix that one so that I can still nut in sluts pls

>> No.11563436

>>11563424
Point and laugh.

>> No.11563441

someone post that quote about women authors

it's fucking gold.

>> No.11563453

>>11561700
Based and redpilled, although he clearly states somewhere else in the book that only geniuses genuinely enjoy art and philosophy. Brainlets do it for social hierarchy, pedantry and mimicry as well. Hence 99% of us shouldn't celebrate but be damned at the idea we aren't any better than women, intrinsically.

>> No.11563459

>>11563431
nope, birth control is an industrial idea concomitant with the process of industrialization itself with which all of women's 'liberation' can be traced back to (women themselves had nothing to do with it having no agency of course).

>>11563436
>tripfag

>> No.11563464

>>11563105
>>11561709
>>11561700
>>11562841
>>11563100
>>11563373
>>11563424

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1flcGrb81M&t=87s

>> No.11563489

>>11563459
I'm laughing even harder, now.

>> No.11563493

>>11562369
I don't see problem in keeping hobbies for the social element, and I doubt just how many manly men in the world can continue their "passion" if they don't find their friends soon enough.

>> No.11563494

>>11563368
Actually good post. Where can I read about that?


Also there is never not at least 2 or 3 threads about wemen in this fucking bitter, spiteful board of, suposedly, literature, more than any other topic, so I´d advise to stop embarrasing yourselves pretending to despise or not to care about them.

>> No.11563498

>>11563453
Feels bad man

>> No.11563523

>>11561700
add "in traditional gender roles" after every time he says woman (which was pretty much the only thing schoppy knew) and you'd be right. however i believe that this is not inherently true for all women for all of time. now that we've had god knows how many waves of feminism women are allowed to study and compete and dominate. They no longer delegated to indirect measures for gaining power. i will admit that i think a lot of the remnants of these gender roles are still in our culture, and many women still follow this train of thought (e.g the whole "i dont need to study i'll just marry a rich guy" attitude)

>> No.11563528

>>11563494
Jung. Man and his Symbols would be a good place to start.

But you'll need to study clinical psychology at the undergraduate level to become familiar with the implications of the symbolic associations we make on the narrative level of analysis with respect to the differentiation between masculine and feminine.

>> No.11563534

>>11562590
bad-looking women don't exist.

>> No.11563551

>>11562799
>Women are systemically treated better in a billion subtle little ways than men.
>Men are constantly faking entire social relationships and friendships with you just because you're a woman.
I doubt it. I know what you are talking about but I doubt it.

>> No.11563554

>>11562799
Wew lad unironically a great post

>> No.11563576

>>11562799
>The greatest tragedy of being a woman is that they can never escape from this.
>Men are the Matrix of the world that cushions women from Reality
I don't think that's how reality works

>> No.11563586

>>11561700
a friendly reminder that this topic isn't healthy for you. it's probably as harmful as masturbation.

>> No.11563591

>>11562900
>They might have turned their attention to number theory or the study of conics like Pascal did.

the phrasing here makes you sound like a massive faggot

>> No.11563599

>>11563104
Angles

>> No.11563601

>>11561707
lol gay

>> No.11563610

>>11563441
sure: women do not have strong abstract thinking skills and when they do they tend to be oriented towards the mundane or the low complexity issues which one does not need intense abstraction to resolve; women are one plastic surgery procedure and tit job away from losing all integrity; women are all mad that they didn't get fucked into disembodied states every second of the day when they were young; women envy penises because you can rape people with penises and people who have them are strong and control violence; women don't have to fight in wars, they have not collective racial memory of killing others; women are never adepts or mystics so their inner world tends to be dim, gloomy, shallow; women's prose is truly midwit, it never ascends to levels that even pseuds like Nabokov and Proust could manage; women are basically less likely to be geniuses and genius is practically the only way to produce good literature; women do not have a strong individualist inclination, in fact Ayn Rand, an ugly, unimaginative, banal, perpetually earthbound, flightless and weasel worded pseud is the only one ive seen have a "deep" thought to give about the sovereignty of the individual soul; women are afraid of making aggressive critiques of society and their own type; women are perpetually biologically bound to defend themselves and what they do, no woman would ever attack sex and marriage and feminism, there are a number of men who find organic life to be disgusting, its almost inevitable that female transhumanists like animals or that they think female sexuality is beautiful or that a tradfag woman loves being mother, they're incapable of misanthropy, true world-hate or the desire to annihilate the world; women have no understanding of destiny; women are hypergamous; women are lazy; women are emotional to a point of atrophying philosophical and intuitive tendencies, they're not intuitive at all, they're cthonic roiling cauldrons of other people's affects; women cannot affect without using a mediating pathway, they need some type of conduit or channel they're not strong enough to emit force themselves, so they'll use sex and violence to communicate instead in their writing (despite not understanding how sex works at all), no woman has ever properly understood sex they psychologize it into an alien torture ritual for themselves or some form of affirmation of their independence, they don't see the sexual act as truly debased like Men do, and as mentioned above they are incapable of understanding the purpose or impulses beneath hyper violence (hence violence is always a psychotic detachment from one's role in society; women's whole violence pathos is based in psychosis).

That's it.

>> No.11563630

>>11563424
this

>> No.11563642

>>11563528
Can´t I solve it by reading some introductory book?

>> No.11563651

>>11563523
>we've had god knows how many waves of feminism
lold

>> No.11563657
File: 171 KB, 548x568, 1518846504693.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11563657

>>11563424

>> No.11563664

>>11563610

this isn't it.

The quote I'm referring to starts off something like:

'The women author is immediately recognizable from her script, she is basically bereft of all talent or creativity, all her work is banal, *proceeds to shit on Virginia Wolf*, she lacks originality, etc etc.'

>> No.11563667
File: 736 KB, 1372x1943, 1524524282850.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11563667

>>11563642
>Comprehending the quaternary fractionation of the antithetical dichotomy of the symbolically masculine and feminine narrative structures running orthogonally to the anima and animus respectively through introductory material.

If you managed it, I would be unironically impressed, man.

>> No.11563753

>>11561700
>plastic arts
I take the biological lack of physical strength as an explanation good enough. Sculpturing and pottery are heavy labor. I don't blame women for not being able to do it

>> No.11563791
File: 241 KB, 780x438, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11563791

>>11562799
A lot of people here are praising you, so I feel compelled to inform you, and everyone here, that everything you just wrote is equal parts factually incorrect from the psychometric and psychological/scientific perspective, and disgustingly pathetic.

Faggot.

>> No.11563795

>>11561707
Embrace the homopill.

>> No.11563818

>>11563791
>calls people faggot
>is a tripfag

Oh, I'm sure people are on your side broham!

>> No.11563829

>>11562799
When will our creators stop making shitty robots?

>> No.11563844

But he's clearly wrong
So many women draw, paint etc
Much more than men do

>> No.11563855
File: 1.21 MB, 750x1113, 0EAF4FB5-34F9-4DDF-8AC2-CE0DF2126DAB.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11563855

>>11563818
>Appeals to the audience as the arbiter of competency.

>> No.11563890

>>11563844
Always put things in context. Women only began to paint when it became a hobby instead of a trade

>> No.11563898

>>11563667
Ok, I see.
Thanks anyway anon.

>> No.11563951

>>11563898
Honestly, jordan Peterson has a bunch of lectures on his YouTube channel from his personality courses that touch on the symbolic duality of gendered connotations. I would recommend you start there if you can't stomach the analytical stuff. I don't blame you, it's dry.

>> No.11564057

>>11563528
>go to university
>’hey if you wanna learn stuff then read this book’
>read book
>don’t go to university
>’hey if you wanna learn stuff than read this book’
>read book
yeah you definitely need an undergrad degree to understand Jung. You just can’t get that deep impenetrable knowledge anywhere else. Im sure you’ll be really happy you spent that money studying clinical psych when you get to spend yet another unit learning about MANOVAs and how to use SPSS. Imagine how stupid you would feel if you just started reading Jung outside of academia.

>> No.11564087
File: 28 KB, 473x436, DhshvXKWAAMcSBr.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11564087

>>11564057
Then why don't you succinctly point out to the good man where, precisely, he can find the answer to his question and in what book, introductory level, of course, he needs purchase to do so?

Retard.

>> No.11564113

>>11564057
And I just noticed I didn't actually recommend university study, simply university level study.

I know that no one else here, nor do I, or anyone who has ever met you, care about you. So this will just be between me and you; I hope the shame you feel further causes you to repress down into your unconscious the very essence of your failure as a man.

So that you may never find it.

>> No.11564237
File: 36 KB, 600x291, B38CD2FE-EDA5-4984-B1BE-20F825E6FB6A.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11564237

>>11564087
>>11564113
>you need to go to university to get information on Jung
I didn’t realise universities keep unpublished tones on Jung that have never seen the light of day. Oh wait I guess they just use books that have already been published and are publically available. So tell me then what are these professors teaching you? Oh that’s right they’re just regurgitating stuff that you can get at the public library for 2 bucks. So then what is the point of going to a university, paying thousands of dollars to maybe have the pleasure of hearing your professor mention Jung once in passing before you get back to learning about neurons and action potentials? Wow what a great use of money and time.

>> No.11564265

>>11564113
>I know that no one else here, nor do I, or anyone who has ever met you, care about you. So this will just be between me and you; I hope the shame you feel further causes you to repress down into your unconscious the very essence of your failure as a man.
>So that you may never find it.
Damn if I was a tripfag that would really hurt.

>> No.11564452

>>11564237

Better yet, save those 2 dollars the ivory tower commies at the library want to steal from you and just google 'Jung'. You'll be an expert on the top 10 facts about Jung that would shock you (#8 will fuck your wife!) and know exactly which archetype you are, all without getting scammed by Big Knowledge.

>> No.11565003

>>11563791
Explain why he's wrong (genuinely curious)

>> No.11565082

>>11563464
The noumenal supervenes on the physical, faggit.

>> No.11565131

>>11561700
if you are not a woman, you will never understand how they feel.

>> No.11565134
File: 26 KB, 300x300, A9FAF509-967F-470A-A557-D645D9115209.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11565134

>>11565131
But what if I imagine a man and take away reason and accountability

>> No.11565177

>>11563424
Have fun with an exponentially shitter society than we have already

>> No.11565180

>>11563523
Men and women experience qualia differently. There IS a fundamental difference between the sexes.

>> No.11565182

>>11563795
Embrace the bipill

>> No.11565183

>>11563951
>implying you're not Peterson himself

>> No.11565192

Between working at hostels for years, hitchhiking for years, and working many jobs in many states and countries, I've communicated on an in-depth level with quadruple digits of people from many different parts of the world, both genders.

Men talk about things, ideas, pursuits, experiences. If their dissonance is pushed upon, they bend or blend. Women talk about people, feelings, worries, themselves. If their dissonance is pushed upon, they attack or break.

>> No.11565201

>>11565131
Projecting your lack of intellect onto others. Many people are perfectly capable of understanding things that they are not. This is the foundation of the sciences. I guess if you're a woman this might be hard for you to understand, given women don't contribute to the sciences and might have trouble understanding things in general including themselves.

>> No.11565207

>>11565131
why would you even want to understand, they never say anything that implies theres somethign interesting going on in there, it's probably opaque to them as well

>> No.11565212

>>11565201
this is just a fact: you can understand other people on some level but you will never completely understand someone who has undeniably different life experiences. in the same case, women will never completely understand the life of a man.

>> No.11565225

>>11565212
Oxymoronic. How can you understand others enough to presume that they cannot understand others given that it is impossible to understand others? Not surprising you would contradict yourself, considering your view here is based in the presumption that everyone else on earth is as dumb as you are.

"You don't understand me"
--every single woman ever when being told something true about themselves that they don't want to hear

>> No.11565238

>>11565225
you dont have to understand others to understand the extent of ones own experiences. what a pretentious post lmao

>> No.11565240

>>11565225
>How can you understand others enough to presume that they cannot understand others given that it is impossible to understand others?
oh shit son

>> No.11565241

>>11565238
You're right, you don't have to understand others to understand the extent of your own experiences. You do however have to understand others to understand the extent of their experiences. You've contradicted yourself. Do I have to get out a set of pictures to explain basic logical and linguistic principles here?

>> No.11565244

>>11562708
I visit /lit/. But I usually don't post.

>> No.11565268
File: 196 KB, 640x619, 1500916661088.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11565268

>>11562708
>women
>discuss philosophy
I can think of one famous female philosopher and she didn't discuss philosophy enough with other people to work out the reificative flaws in her reasoning

>> No.11565272

>>11562799
Socialization of men to wait hand and foot on women is the latent function to womens' manifest function as sexual gatekeepers. And if you believe that there exists a tabula rasa between the sexes, then you suffer under a delusion.

>> No.11565406

>>11562900
>They might have turned their attention to number theory or the study of conics like Pascal did
There have been a few female mathematicians, anon.
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophie_Germain
She wasn't one of the greats, but I think it's clear that she had a sincere interest in mathematics. She used a male pseudonym when corresponding with Gauss.

>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Gaetana_Agnesi
Another example, although she didn't make any major contributions to the advancement of mathematics.
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Hopper

>> No.11565624

>>11561700
I think he wasn't entirely wrong, but not entirely correct either.
Most people are generally prone to such mimicry, its called social signaling. Its very useful to its own end. That includes men and women. But I would wager that women are much more prone to this than men in general, as an effect of their natural biology. So while women will do this more than men, that's not to say that there aren't outliers.
Something like that I think.

>> No.11565632

>>11562796
Ugly ones are bi-polar too anon. They just have next to nothing to offer at that point and nobody likes them.

>> No.11566093

>>11565624
I concur

>> No.11566098

>>11565406
>not even Noether
t. learned about math from badiou

>> No.11566178

>>11563424
based and redpilled

>> No.11566204

>>11561765
Why does this happen to a lot of girls around me? They are high achieving students and suddenly they drop out of everything once things become too difficult and their dreams of going to university or college becomes just a dream. They had so much potential but I noticed it happen a lot when I was in college and high school.

>> No.11566317

>>11565003
Would you mind giving me a specific section or statement you believe to be profoundly correct or accurate?

>> No.11566331

thats indeed pretty accurate, but it is inaccurate to actually say it.

>> No.11566341

>>11566204
Because competing with men isn't compatible with a structurally sound foundation for mental health in women.

>> No.11566352
File: 36 KB, 721x362, how-does-it-work.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11566352

>>11566341
give it a rest jordie we all know its you

>> No.11566373
File: 21 KB, 510x285, AVT_Arthur-Schopenhauer_7562.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11566373

>>11561707
this proves the quote.

as man wants to attract women, he will do it ''by comprehending or by subduing things'', ie this is not done out of a ''purely objective interest'', but simply to indirectly attract women.

in other words, schopy only tells half of the truth and then fills the rest with his own mumble. the thing would be:

women can only control man, so to get anything else she has to control a man who can get the thing she wants.

man can only control things in the world, so to get a woman he has to control a thing which will get her the woman.

in the end it is just life cycles playing with us.

>> No.11566374

>>11566204
Someone women take longer than others to hear their inner Thot.

>> No.11566376

>>11566352
Clean your room.

>> No.11566410

>>11566376
ive seen your room and it ain't even tidy, doctorb.

>> No.11566424

>>11561700
i guess I'm a woman now

>> No.11566425

>>11561700
I am inclined to think you are a virgin

>> No.11566476

>>11565134
based film

>> No.11566520

>>11563791
>psychology
lmao

>> No.11566577

>>11561765
Why do women and effeminates have to share every aspect of their lives and inner "thinking" to everyone, I mean who cares?

>> No.11566603

>>11562876
only if they're fat and ugly

>> No.11566607

>>11561700
Based and redpilled.

>>11561707
Women are sport. An empty diversion for the boredom of life, a receptacle for libidinal discharge.

>> No.11566612

>>11566204
because they cant keep acting like a man

>> No.11566620

>>11566577
because thats how women process their emotions, by talking it out with other women

>> No.11566691

>>11563791
Not an argument
Fuck off to /b/

>> No.11566705

>>11566425
I'm inclined to think you're an immoral hedonistic slut.

>> No.11566710

>>11562799
based

>> No.11566754
File: 363 KB, 1487x1390, GsQQ1Qb.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11566754

>>11562799
Very neurotic. Women are empty caverns, a drain on our being, a burden we bear for propagation. See Juvenal Satire VI:
https://www.purplemotes.net/2014/07/13/juvenal-satire-6/

>> No.11566766

>the plastic arts
what mean?

>> No.11566939
File: 44 KB, 549x633, oyvey.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11566939

>>11566204
>>11566341
>>11566374
>>11566612

>Yes, goyim, where is your compassion?!

>> No.11566956

>>11566939
missing the point you retard

>> No.11566965

>>11563104
>He fell for the women are attractive meme

>> No.11566979

>>11566754
christ you're a miserable fuck

>> No.11567170

>>11566705
>Telling people what to do
LMAO wake up grandpa this isnt 1901

>> No.11567339

>>11562799
>capable of bestowing the ultimate grace and escape from life's drudgery (sex)
all you need to understand this post is the attitude this nigga has towards sex lmao

>> No.11567493

>>11566098
I knew there was someone else but I couldn't think of her name! There's Hypatia and Ada Lovelace but in my opinion they neither of them quite fit the bill. It seemed a bit misleading to describe them as "mathematicians".
Thanks anon, this is exactly the other name I was trying to recall.

She's provides a superior example than the 3 I already mentioned. >>11562900

>> No.11567505

How would a female avoid this fate? Is it possible?

>> No.11567506

>>11565272
you're a sociologist and you think basic sexual instincts are consciously intentional manifest functions? lol , i hope you can get your money back for that degree

>> No.11567510

>>11561700
I've never read him. On what does he base all of this? Was he just sexuall frustrated and butthurt because he was a virgin?

>> No.11567514

>>11561700
Based

>> No.11567520

there;s a 10/10 girl at job that likes new order
and plays guitar


I like her a lot


:/

>> No.11567544

>>11567506
Manifest functions can supervene on the biological. It is a biological fact that men and women hold dimorphic sexual roles, so it is only natural that social functions emerge from material reality. I'm not saying that all social function is inherently materialist, but there are certain features that you can reliably identify contributory causality from biology and evolutionary psychology.

>> No.11567640

>plastic arts
Ironically, Schopenhauer had his bust done by a woman sculptor.

>> No.11567646

>>11567510
nah schoppy fucked. he was a genuine mysoginist.

>> No.11568605

>>11567640
lel is this true? sauce

>> No.11568618

>>11567520
Note: having in interest in primitive "pleasure" activities is not a hobby what so ever

This includes the basic bitches that "like food"

>> No.11568626

>>11567510
>the only basis for sexism is butthurt

He based it on his observations of women lol. Pretty much all men thought similar things about women for most of history except meme machines like JS MIll who was like 'hey maybe theyre the same as us if we give them the chance'. Yeah good job buddy

>> No.11568635

>>11567646
I love the "only incels hate women meme" Ultimate coping mechanism

>> No.11569114

>>11561700
>hobbies

do you even read comprehension? how do 'objective interest' and ' direct domination over things' sound like a hobby to you? the point is precisely that only men can take things to the point of making its investigation their whole life by putting their whole mind and soul into it.

>> No.11569322 [DELETED] 

>>11567493
Ada Lovelace didn't do anything. It was Babbage that wrote the programs. That is a fact. And the achievements of Hypatia can't be substantiated so we can't say exactly how brilliant she was. But people tend to exaggerate the achievements of women. If these achievements were the product of a man, he would hardly ever be mentioned. But because it was a woman, people tend to think "wow what a genius!'

>> No.11569333

>>11561707
faggot

>> No.11569539

>>11561700
>agreeing with a literal incel

>> No.11569591
File: 134 KB, 684x529, fs3.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11569591

>only white males can authentically enjoy things!

>> No.11570940

>>11564452
kek

>> No.11570971

>>11567505
i think the only way this could work is to become a true hermit in the original sense, remove yourself from social interactions even slightly normal. maybe communicate with people on fairly niche forums online to fulfill that need. do not use social media, youtube etc. read a lot, think a lot, explore nature, become content in solitude (a concept unimaginable for most women). allow yourself to become miserable, truly miserable in a sense of rebellion against society and the world. dont concern yourself with people and their relations. write all the time, even if it's mundane stuff, just keep writing. eventually you might be able to produce an average work of literature or philosophy.

>> No.11570978
File: 26 KB, 400x462, 1518200860490.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11570978

>>11561707
cucked and bluepilled