[ 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: 38 KB, 600x338, 5562A5F0-D5DA-4F74-9894-F5997D4C1512.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13368047 No.13368047 [Reply] [Original]

If they were so smart, how come they had such trouble getting laid?

>> No.13368072

>>13368047
Because they expected more of women than women expect of themselves.

There's only so much a great intellect can do with the equivalent of an adult child with childish views, childish ways and childish actions.

>> No.13368080
File: 153 KB, 991x491, ---.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13368080

Sexual release has adverse effects and fogs the mind. They knew this and chose to lead mostly celibate lives.

>> No.13368090

>>13368080
Schopenhauer was a womanizer in his youth.

>> No.13368094

>>13368090
So he was a baldcel?

>> No.13368102

>>13368047
If they were so smart, how come they went to Hell?

>> No.13368212

>>13368047
>So the way I see it, you can really find no better candidate for a short-term tryst than yours truly. Let us run through the qualifications typical of a matter such as this: generally those qualities sought for include marks signifying a) attractiveness b) intelligence c) physical health and d) wit, et cetera. Excusing my modesty but do you not realize that this very minute you stand before one fine exemplary representative of not one but all four of these qualities? If you will indulge me I will can go into further detail as to why I should be an ideal candidate for such an affair as that which we are now considering. On the first characteristic, namely, attractiveness, there clearly is little which I do not possess. For this category is fulfilled by the particulars of adequate height, symmetry of the face, broadness of the shoulders, and so forth, all of which as you can plainly see describe me as though I were their original model. Now as for the secondary characteristic, intelligence, I think it will be an easy matter to show, for not only have I intelligence but I can map out in a short few minutes if you should give me a pencil and a paper which should subsequently prove that I am to intelligence what a medicine man is to medicine. Consider: the business of logic begins by extracting from judgments all content leaving only the form and these will be found to fall into three categories, namely, the categorical, the hypothetical, and--wait, where are you going? You have not left me sufficient time to make my case! I think you will find that no one would be such a fool as to pass up an opportunity as fortunate as the one from which you now flee for reasons unknown to me. If you would only listen--

Hmm I wonder why

>> No.13368238

>>13368080
just make a vasectomy

>> No.13368246

>>13368090
That's what led him to make the statement
>The devil's laughter is heard after copulation

>> No.13368249

>>13368238
get a vasectomy

>> No.13368258

>>13368238
>>13368249
Moron cumbrain that doesn't understand how any of this works.

>> No.13368262

Sex is INCREDIBLY overrated.

>> No.13368278

>>13368258
dilate

>>13368249
yikes

>> No.13368291

Schopenhauer was a philanderer and all around chad, Nietzsche was just an autistic faggot that got panic attacks at the sight of hookers

>> No.13368293

>>13368080
That's literally pseudoscience, and the brahmins were shit.

>> No.13368305

>>13368293
Proof that it is pseudo-science!

>> No.13368459
File: 49 KB, 850x400, quote-in-heaven-all-the-interesting-people-are-missing-friedrich-nietzsche-21-44-94.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13368459

>>13368102
God doesn't like independent thinkers.

>> No.13368648

>>13368459
There is no interesting or uninteresting in heaven. Then again, how can someone who is so lost in his vain philosophies understand heaven and God?

>> No.13368683

>>13368648
I bet they understood him mor than you will.

>> No.13368686

>>13368648
we can guess how hell is like but heaven never, its always meh, complete boredom

>> No.13368708

>>13368080
False, Nietzsche literally orbited a chick and got dumped by him. Before he died he painted a picture of a man hugging a woman implying that all he really wanted was for someone to love him.

>> No.13368714

>>13368293
>that's literally pseudoscience dude. I'm gonna need a source. Source? Source. I need a source.

>> No.13368744

>>13368686
Yea, I mean, complete bliss is different than absence of suffering

>> No.13368814

IQ is correlated with less sex, more social ineptitude, and much later ages of losing virginity. It's been said that for every IQ point you gain you lose a social point.

>> No.13368824

>>13368714
kek

>> No.13368825

>>13368708
Prove?
Where's this picture

>> No.13368834

>>13368648
Anyone who has followed all the commandments at all times in his life to avoid an eternal sentence in hell is guaranteed to be a boring motherfucker. You don't have to be a philosopher to realize that.

>> No.13368862

>>13368834
This notion is such a fucking meme. Sin isn't some hyper interesting affair, its literally the plebeian's notion that a sinner must be interesting and a saint must be boring, or that to be interesting one must sin.
There are tons of complete degenerates out there who live rather painfully boring, vice-driven lives. As examples of people who embody their chosen moral codes unflinchingly and are highly interesting people see Jesus Christ, Buddha, Zarathustra, Lord Chaitanya, really any big name religious figure who was also a philosopher.

>> No.13368877

>>13368862
>There are tons of complete degenerates out there who live rather painfully boring, vice-driven lives.
Yeah, but all the people who WERE or ARE interesting, have sinned. Guaranteed. Because to be interesting, you have to think for yourself occasionally, and you have to have seen some shit, which 9/10 times means you're gonna sin.

>> No.13368884

>>13368862
>>13368877
Also,
>Jesus Christ, Buddha, Zarathustra, Lord Chaitanya, really any big name religious figure
>interesting

>> No.13368889

>>13368877
burning heretics on a stake is not a sin yet interesting

>> No.13368892

>>13368708
>They knew this and chose to lead mostly celibate lives.
>mostly

>> No.13368905

>>13368889
>yet interesting
Wrong.

>> No.13368919

>>13368714
Evidence is for faithless bugmen, I agree.

>> No.13368925

>>13368877
Kek, no. As an example of someone who is found highly interesting but is thought to have never sinned, again see Jesus fucking Christ nig.
The critical error you're making is that you're confusing moral character with dogmatism. They aren't the same thing.
>Because to be interesting, you have to think for yourself occasionally, and you have to have seen some shit, which 9/10 times means you're gonna sin.
This simply isn't true lmao
>>13368884
I'm talking about who is found interesting by the majority of humanity, not who is found interesting by some autist on /lit/ who is heavily incentivized to manufacture his opinion on the subject in order to try and win some online debate. Regardless of your opinions on these figures or even my own, they are widely considered to be among the most interesting humans to exist, both from religious and non-religious perspectives. The amount of thought, written work, and talk that goes into analyzing Jesus every year is fucking staggering. No one is putting even a significant fraction of that much time into analyzing Mariquis de Sade even though his big schtick was bucking established moral code.
You're simply wrong. Lose the brainlet notion of "sin is interesting!" unless you want to write comic book characters.

>> No.13368938

>>13368047
Women hate intelligen men because they can't fool them easy.

>> No.13368942

If they were so smart how come they're dead?

>> No.13368959

>>13368942
This post could be 200% better with a image of Homer Simpson.

>> No.13368965

>>13368942
>>13368959
SNEED

>> No.13368970

>>13368925
Nothing is interesting about Jesus Christ because we barely even know who the fuck he was. What's interesting is his legacy, which, for all we know, has next to nothing to do with him.

>I'm talking about who is found interesting by the majority of humanity
Good for you. I'm talking about someone who I find interesting. I don't care what the masses think about this, because they aren't interesting.

>> No.13368983

>>13368970
>Nothing is interesting about Jesus Christ because we barely even know who the fuck he was
From a firm historical perspective or personal basis then yes, but I'm talking about Jesus as a character, i.e. how we believe him to be and how he is seen by most people. They find him highly interesting even though nearly everyone sees him through the sinless lens. You have to be able to parse this shit in order to have an effective conversation.
>Good for you. I'm talking about someone who I find interesting. I don't care what the masses think about this, because they aren't interesting.
Kek, alright. Why even have a debate then? Is this whole debate supposed to be us arguing about who you find interesting? Lmao, I don't give a shit about your subjective claims on shit which are probably severely ideologically influenced and a front to some degree.

>> No.13369006

>>13368983
>I'm talking about Jesus as a character, i.e. how we believe him to be and how he is seen by most people.
We barely know what he did or what he really said. He is the opposite of interesting. He's a phantom. If you think he is more interesting than someone like, say, Cesare Borgia, then you are a damn bore yourself.

>Is this whole debate supposed to be us arguing about who you find interesting?
It's about who WE find interesting, obviously.

>> No.13369113

>>13369006
>We barely know what he did or what he really said
All of this is simply based on belief. Without getting into a tiring conversation about which "evidence" you find more credible, which imo is retarded, who you believe Jesus to be is of the same order of who you believe Borgia was. Many people believe these religious figures were morally upright people, which is literally all that matters for establishing the veracity of "interest". For our purposes it doesn't matter in the slightest who these people *actually* were, or even if that question (who were they actually?) can be reasonably answered.
The character of Jesus is easily the one that has captured humanity the most in terms of fascination and attempted explanation. No one comes close, but other religious figures of a similar character and archetype are next in line.
> If you think he is more interesting than someone like, say, Cesare Borgia, then you are a damn bore yourself.
A completely meaningless statement.
As a side point, if sin = interest, then every homeless bum who goes around raping dogs and trying to mug people for drug money would be insanely interesting. But they aren't, instead they're mostly just gross and even, dare I say it, boring.
>It's about who WE find interesting, obviously.
What does that mean? What objective statement are we trying to talk about here?
If the statement is "Let's argue about who I find interesting" then its not even a debate because that's a purely subjective (in the actual sense of the word) category. There's no functional way to argue about it. Ditto for who I find interesting.
What does it even mean to say "who WE find interesting"?
The term "interesting" is non-objective. That's why I'm trying to engage through the similar question "Who has most of humanity found interesting?" or "who has managed to generate the most interest and focus in elite circles of human thought?"

>> No.13369198

>>13369113
>For our purposes it doesn't matter in the slightest who these people *actually* were, or even if that question (who were they actually?) can be reasonably answered.
Then who is it you find interesting? Your imagination? Yourself? You don't seem to be talking about interesting people, but interesting ideas instead, which means you're not talking to me, you're talking past me.

>As a side point, if sin = interest, then every homeless bum who goes around raping dogs and trying to mug people for drug money would be insanely interesting.
Not everyone who sins is interesting. But everyone who is interesting sins. This is very basic logic.

>What does that mean?
We as in literally us two shmucks on an anonymous imageboard. You are trying very hard to use an appeal to popularity to make your own "subjective claim" appear "objective" and I'm telling you that it isn't working. You've been arguing over an opinion this whole time, with nothing but an opinion. I don't find people who go to heaven interesting and that's all there is to it, bro.

>> No.13369199

>>13368047
Kek!

>> No.13369211

>>13368708
>implying
maybe it's because he was mentally and physically sick and bed-ridden for twelve years.

>> No.13369213

>>13369198
>Then who is it you find interesting? Your imagination? Yourself? You don't seem to be talking about interesting people, but interesting ideas instead, which means you're not talking to me, you're talking past me.
You're missing the point. Whether or not what you believe about a person is accurate has nothing to do with the "legitimacy" of your interest in that person. Let's try and avoid these big-boy questions if we can, but does it make any difference if what I believe about someone like Jesus or the Buddha is accurate to who they were? No, it doesn't. No difference whatsoever.
>Not everyone who sins is interesting. But everyone who is interesting sins.
Restating the claim won't make it true.
>This is very basic logic.
Yikes dude, almost made me drop the convo with this one brainlet line right here
>You are trying very hard to use an appeal to popularity to make your own
Goddamn dude. You have no idea what you're talking about. I WOULD be committing appeal to popularity if I were claiming that "interest" is an objective quality in the first place. But I'm not. In fact I'm claiming the exact opposite!

>> No.13369230

>>13368862
>As examples of people who embody their chosen moral codes unflinchingly and are highly interesting people see Jesus Christ, Buddha, Zarathustra, Lord Chaitanya, really any big name religious figure who was also a philosopher.
Nietzsche agreed with you. "there is only one Christian, and he died on the cross."
He is calling you the coward.

>> No.13369248

>>13369230
I don't consider myself a Christian, I've always liked that quote though.

>> No.13369252

Nietzsche = most reddit philosopher
Schopenhauer = most incel philosopher

>> No.13369271

>>13369198
Also, as a side question what even makes a person "interesting" outside of the idea components of their story? People are interesting because they have a unique psychology to understand that is both similar and dissimilar to your own, or because they give rise to interesting and novel ideas, because they have accomplished something of magnitude, or because they act or think in unique ways. Something for the intellect to find pleasure in understanding must be present for a thing to be interesting. What person is interesting on non-ideal merits if such a concept even exists?

>> No.13369275

>>13368925
>As an example of someone who is found highly interesting but is thought to have never sinned, again see Jesus fucking Christ nig.
>The critical error you're making is that you're confusing moral character with dogmatism.
Classic retard who doesn't understand that the sins and moralities of ages change. Jesus did sin. He sinned against the doctrines of the powers of the age that he lived in, then caused a change in moral values where what was classified as a sin changed.
Therefore, all people instrumental in moral change after and before Jesus would go to hell, which is to say every other person who causes a revaluation of morals. Those who would belong in heaven would be, specifically, only the followers of the morality Jesus created, which is to say only those who attempt to hold the moral character of Jesus.
Holding the moral character of others is dogmatism. Which is to say cowardice.
What is interesting is rare. Cowardice, in this sense, is by definition common. And so too would Jesus find himself in the Hells of the moralities of other idols.

>> No.13369284

>>13369252
anon = most reddit incel pleb taste clown have sex poltier 4channel epic cringe pseud philosopher

>> No.13369291

>>13369275
>Classic retard who doesn't understand that the sins and moralities of ages change. Jesus did sin. He sinned against the doctrines of the powers of the age that he lived in, then caused a change in moral values where what was classified as a sin changed.
This is obvious and doesn't need to be stated you retard. By "sinless" I mean that he chose a particular moral code and adhered to it without error, which is a definition I already implied in a previous post.
>Therefore, all people instrumental in moral change after and before Jesus would go to hell, which is to say every other person who causes a revaluation of morals. Those who would belong in heaven would be, specifically, only the followers of the morality Jesus created, which is to say only those who attempt to hold the moral character of Jesus.
Who gives a shit who goes to heaven lmao? Not at all what is being discussed here, go tip your hat to a committed Christian and get into an autistic debate with him about it.
>Holding the moral character of others is dogmatism. Which is to say cowardice.
There is no "moral character of another person". Moral systems are best understood as just that - abstract systems which humans either do or do not perceive themselves to be compelling their behavior to.
>What is interesting is rare. Cowardice, in this sense, is by definition common. And so too would Jesus find himself in the Hells of the moralities of other idols.
Epic larp armchair edgemaster
"And so too", lmao

>> No.13369295

>>13369284
dilate

>> No.13369303

>>13368047
autism comes with aprice

>> No.13369322

Getting laid is pretty hard when you're critiqued so much

Ever see those gaming mags? Anything under 7/10 is unplayable, imagine if I told everyone you were a 5

>> No.13369334

>>13369291
>By "sinless" I mean that he chose a particular moral code and adhered to it without error
this is every single person ever created who has ever lived lol.
When people talk of sinning, they talk of sinning against others. The original question was clearly posed to be in relation to christianity. Every person you named
>Jesus Christ, Buddha, Zarathustra, Lord Chaitanya
"sinned" against the moralities of their times.
No one gives a fuck about your own personal defintion.

>> No.13369335

>>13368072
>they expected more of women than women expect of themselves
then they weren't that smart

>> No.13369355

>>13368094
he was baldchad

>> No.13369357

>>13369291
It is amazing how autistic people immediately get when they are called retarded. This guy literally forgot what he was talking about.
>There is no "moral character of another person". Moral systems are best understood as just that - abstract systems which humans either do or do not perceive themselves to be compelling their behavior to.
as if people can escape acting morally.
This is really what were dealing with here.

>> No.13369371

>>13368262
Hard disagree

>> No.13369385
File: 12 KB, 220x215, 220px-Taleb_mug.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13369385

>>13369291
he just completely ignores the last point because it destroys his argument.

>> No.13369449

>>13369334
>this is every single person ever created who has ever lived lol.
Completely wrong. Most people perceive themselves to be living in disobedience to a particular moral code. Read more.
>When people talk of sinning, they talk of sinning against others.
Not always true.
>"sinned" against the moralities of their times.
Kek what? How did Buddha sin against the morality of his time?Do you even know who Lord Chaitanya is? Lmao
For many of these figures, like the Buddha and Zarathustra there was no established overarching "morality" which governed all of local society in a specific, nuanced way.
>>13369357
Unintelligible
>>13369385
What/who are you referring to?

>> No.13369494

>>13369291
>This is obvious and doesn't need to be stated
Why not? It completely obliterated your stance that Jesus was interesting and also wasn't a sinner.

>> No.13369528

>>13369494
Kek, no it didn't samefag. Reread the post until you understand it.

>> No.13369542

>>13369449
>Read more
It doesn't matter what people say. You don't know what morality even is... every single person is always acting, BY DEFINTION OF THE WORD, according to their own morality. Everyone decides what is right and wrong for them just by being alive.

>> No.13369555

>>13369542
No, they don't. Most people perceive themselves as being imperfect moral actors who are failing to live up to a chosen system. Why do you think Christianity, which preaches forgiveness for sins, is the most popular religion today? Most people perceive themselves to be sinners and transgressors of a particular moral system. To suggest that you're not is considering blasphemous by mainstream thought.
tl;dr, you're a brainlet

>> No.13369566

>>13369449
>Unintelligible
of course it is to you, if you understood it you wouldn't have made that error

>> No.13369575

>>13369566
yikes

>> No.13369592

>>13369555
morality is distinction between permissible and unpermissible behaviour. Just by acting, you are deciding what is permissible and unpermissible. To say people do not behave morally is to say people don't act.

>> No.13369593

>>13369199
based Kek!er

>> No.13369597

>>13369592
Completely retarded point of view! You even going to try and prove this, or nah?

>> No.13369630

>>13369528
Jesus was for all intents and purposes a sinner. He brought a foreign, Buddhistic philosophy into Jewish-Roman society, overturned tables on Jewish money changers, and got crucified by the Roman empire.

>> No.13369727

>>13369630
>continuing to miss the point

>> No.13370319

>>13369630
*intensive purposes

>> No.13370325

>>13368648
Nitche probably knows more about your own religion than you. He had a scholarly understanding of Christianity .

>> No.13370328

My argument is that you are gay, dumb, and retarded, and to disagree is to only prove my point further.

>> No.13370334

>>13368047
>tfw fucked prossies in undergrad
What do? Now I am forever stained by my villainy?

>> No.13370806

>>13369322
>Getting laid is pretty hard when you're critiqued so much
Sound like a slave excuse.

>> No.13370814

>>13368862
>There are tons of complete degenerates out there who live rather painfully boring, vice-driven lives.
literally me

>> No.13370853

>>13369727
>this coming from the retard who didn't understand what this post meant >>13368459 right from the start
From the standpoint of the earth, heaven and the people who go there are uninteresting. Whatever it's like "in heaven" is besides the point; it has nothing to do with life on earth and lacks all matters regarding taste and wisdom (which it would need to lack in order for the interesting vs. uninteresting dichotomy to be effectively removed from it).

>> No.13371144

I don't think there's a satisfying answer to that.

>> No.13372243

>>13368714
wtf I hate proofs now?

>> No.13372427

>>13369113
Is having sex with animals a sin?

>> No.13372581

>>13368047
They failed to embrace people for what they were and convinced themselves that normal relationships were beneath them since that's easier than accepting their own limitations. Their conclusions were not entirely inaccurate but they surely underestimated women

>> No.13372993

>>13369284
made me sad when I remembered that it is not 4chan anymore. I wish anyone new had to lurk for three years before posting, it would solve so much.

>> No.13373106

>>13368714
>peer-reviewed only btw

>> No.13373328

>>13368047
nietzsche fucked dudes schopenhauer fucked moods

>> No.13374749 [DELETED] 
File: 893 KB, 660x868, greetings stranger.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13374749

>>13368072
have sex

>> No.13374790

>>13368862
Spoken like a true and utter virgin.

>> No.13375169

>>13368047
>where do you think you are?

>> No.13375315

>>13368459
>Hasn't read Faust
I expected more from Nietzsche

>> No.13375671

>>13368877
Every human is history has sinned except Jesus. Heaven will be full of billions of interesting people.

>> No.13375678

>>13368983
>From a firm historical perspective or personal basis then yes
We know far more about Jesus Christ than just about anyone from before the year 1000.

>> No.13375702

>>13369252
Whats so incel about schop? A lot of philosophers hated women

>> No.13375709

>>13368047
They were ugly manlets

>> No.13376155

>>13369113
why even argue with him? he's obviously some cringelord that goes berserk over people talking about jesus in a positive light

>> No.13376156

>>13368047
shut up

>> No.13376181

>>13368047
despite the impression you may get from the term "survival of the fittest", nature is surprisingly tolerant of inefficient designs

>> No.13376605

>>13375678
>literally 1 line in tacitus is the only valid historical source of his existence and nothing else is known other than christian propaganda

neck yourself amigo

>> No.13376914

>>13369449
>How did Buddha sin against the morality of his time?
by completely rejecting asceticism and essentially BTFOing the early Vedic shit which would go against the doctrines of those whom he felt might guide him
read more

>> No.13377054

>>13376605
there are more sources than that

>> No.13377697

>>13377054
Present them

>> No.13377705

>>13369335
On the contrary, they understood their error and described its root causes.

>> No.13377742

>>13368080
>chose to lead mostly celibate lives
not their choice, honey.

>> No.13377789

>>13368047
lol have sex incel

>> No.13377994

>>13377705
Where did they write that they are whiney, spineless, slave morality ridden faggots?