Schopenhauer On Women

[Anonymous No.15802751]

>It is only the man whose intellect is clouded by his sexual impulses that could give the name of the fair sex to that under-sized, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped, and short-legged race; for the whole beauty of the sex is bound up with this impulse. Instead of calling them beautiful, there would be more warrant for describing women as the un-aesthetic sex. Neither for music, nor for poetry, nor for fine art, have they really and truly any sense or susceptibility; it is a mere mockery if they make a pretence of it in order to assist their endeavor to please. Hence, as a result of this, they are incapable of taking a purely objective interest in anything; and the reason of it seems to me to be as follows. A man tries to acquire direct mastery over things, either by understanding them, or by forcing them to do his will. But a woman is always and everywhere reduced to obtaining this mastery indirectly, namely, through a man; and whatever direct mastery she may have is entirely confined to him. And so it lies in woman's nature to look upon everything only as a means for conquering man; and if she takes an interest in anything else, it is simulated--a mere roundabout way of gaining her ends by coquetry, and feigning what she does not feel. Hence, even Rousseau declared: Women have, in general, no love for any art; they have no proper knowledge of any; and they have no genius

Hello /lit.

What do you think of Schopenhauers view's on women?

[Anonymous No.15802904]

>>15802751
>I hate you mom

[Anonymous No.15802909]

>>15802751
His mom is more based than he will ever be

[Anonymous No.15803226]

>But a woman is always and everywhere reduced to obtaining this mastery indirectly, namely, through a man
When you don't educate women and don't give them rights, it's natural that they can achieve stuff only through a man.

[Anonymous No.15803336]

Sounds pretty based to me op

[Anonymous No.15803378]

>>15802751
utterly based and correct

[Anonymous No.15803400]

>>15802751
100% correct, simply observing how your mother lives through your father and now lives through you is a proof of it

[Anonymous No.15803409]

women are unfathomably based, actually

[Anonymous No.15803410]

Completely correct. Remember that if a woman replies to criticism of women with any variation of "hehe u cant/wont get pussy if u say that," she is admitting that this image is correct and that she is nothing more than a hole who judges which men are worthy of holes.

[Anonymous No.15803418]

small and spiteful man. like an irritated pimple. i've met some brilliant women.

[Anonymous No.15803423]

when explaining woman you just need to look at biology
they will always exist just as vehicles of reproduction, nothing more, nothing else
if however there are some brilliant woman, I salute them as they will most likely become furbaby moms being bitter cunts after 35

[Anonymous No.15803426]

>>15802751
Later in his life he did complete 180 on women. He said a woman can be greater than a man. Schopenhauer hated normalfagism be it a man or a woman.

>I have not yet spoken my last word about women. I believe that if a woman succeeds in withdrawing from the mass, or rather raising herself from above the mass, she grows ceaselessly and more than a man.

[Anonymous No.15803430]

>>15803426
based

[Anonymous No.15803439]

>>15803418
Imagine being a simp on the most degenerate place on the internet completely devoid of women. You also are easily impressionable, retarded, or just a simp. I've never met a 'brilliant' person much less a 'brillant' women, and I'm certain I've had more oppurtunities than you.

[Anonymous No.15803441]

>>15803439
cringe. grow up

[Anonymous No.15803443]

>>15803426
>>I have not yet spoken my last word about women. I believe that if a woman succeeds in withdrawing from the mass, or rather raising herself from above the mass, she grows ceaselessly and more than a man.
But this seldom happens. Who, the Brontes?

[Anonymous No.15803445]

>>15803441
you may be a roast and post, but you may not roastpost. this is a roastpost.

[Anonymous No.15803559]

>>15803443

[Anonymous No.15803599]

>>15803443

[Anonymous No.15803633]

>>15803443
This woman is peak Schopenhauerian. She's is living the dream of most of the anons on /lit/ and /p/.

https://youtu.be/3oHhw_9bQk0

[Anonymous No.15804007]

>>15803599
Biased

[Anonymous No.15804081]

>>15803426
interesting... comparing to nietzsche: in some of his earlier works (I think in human, all too human) he says similar things about women but then in his later, "mature" works he just goes full on incel womanbashing. prob had some bad experiences lol.

[Anonymous No.15804133]

>>15803426
>Later in his life he did complete 180 on women.
that's because he went full stupid. the 'woman experience' is limited
>no physical power
>no war
>secondary/indirect nature
>no conquering
>no building
>no exploring
seriously, even as an average-functioning man (i.e. not the absolute elite of strength and good looks), you wouldn't want to live a single day in an unprotected, non safe space environment (i.e. not this current civilization), as a version of you but with periods, very weak muscles, broad hips (women can't even run properly) and so on.

[Anonymous No.15804149]

I'm two weeks into nofap and nothing is getting any better.

[Anonymous No.15804153]

>>15804133
those things are not part of your experience either

[Anonymous No.15804155]

>>15804133
>that's because he went full stupid.
Keeeeeek, cope and seeth harder stupid incel homosexual. Schopenhauer was all about intellectual strength. Only retarded insecure cavemen care about muh homosexual body aesthetics.

[Anonymous No.15804179]

>>15804153
exactly. I'm not talking about the average human/man, but the 'highest' experience in an existential/artistic sense (which is what Schopenhauer meant) cannot be attained by anyone not able to do those (i.e. not by women). Can women be just as great as the greatest man in peace time, current 'normal' human civilization? Yes. It's part of the collective nature of civilization, which is perfect for women because they're more interested in people, which is partly why most of them lack even a basic identity (same thing with modern """""men"""" though). You are yourself (i.e. your identity) ONLY when you're completely alone. Women, current civilization and overall the modern zeitgeist, essentially socially engineers everyone to avoid being alone like the plague.

[Anonymous No.15804919]

>>15804133
the 'man experience' is limited
>no pregnancy
>no birth
>secondary/indirect nature (for what purpose do you think men hunt food?)
>no breastfeeding
>no mentoring
>no moon cycle spirit connection with the universe

[Anonymous No.15804927]

>>15804149
breaking the addiction and association of the dopamine release takes close to 90 days, sometimes longer depending on how well you actually channel your energies. i'm what most would consider "successful" and "chad" and I have spent 3 years trying to make it 30 days. This is a self test of your own value, so buckle up for a perspective shift or cave in and spill your masculinity into your hand in the dark like a faggot.

[Anonymous No.15806186]

>>15804919
>pregnancy
the lowest animal does it
>birth
see above
>for what purpose do you think men hunt food?
should've mentioned I was talking about celibate/non-married men. people who marry or have children are not the ones I was talking about.
>no mentoring
um.. you think the greatest teachers (regardless of subject) ever were women?
>>no moon cycle spirit connection with the universe
woo-woo bullshit

[Anonymous No.15806206]

>>15802751
Should consider the circumstances women lived in at the time when reading this. They could only really exercise agency through manipulating men, so of course they seemed to not care about the things they used to do the manipulating.

[Anonymous No.15806215]

>>15803226
Astute observation

[Anonymous No.15806244]

>>15803400
she was a very succesfull writer. she was famous before shopenhauer. in fact shopenhauer only became regarded as brilliant when he published his "self-help" book.

[Anonymous No.15806541]

It's stupid on many levels.
Firstly, women have achieved a lot in the arts: one only needs to read a book by Jane Austen or any of the great female authors to simply blow away his assertion that women have no sense for art. As to the claim that women are not susceptible to art, is is also untrue. In my experience women feel more heavily and acutely, in general, than men, which translates to a deeper emotional appreciation for art, in a lot of cases. Men on the other hand might have a more acute appreciation for the formal aspects of art. Of course these are generalisations, and I picked Jane Austen as an example because she is a very formal writer.
Secondly, it is true that women have achieved less overall than men have in the arts, but that is only a consequence of their socio-biological status. Before feminism, women were simply not allowed to be educated to the same degree as men. This was the case in classical times, in medieval times, and subsequently until roundabout the 1960s. That is thousands of years of European history wherein women were restricted from the basic educational opportunities that would have put them on the same level as men.
But why was this the case? It was the case for precisely the opposite reason Schopenhauer states! Indeed, insofar as 'women want to conquer men', men want to conquer women 100x more, and had the power until recently to do it. This is probably the result of an evolutionary urge implanted in men, who had to protect women when they were pregnant and vulnerable, and also had to make sure that the child belonged to them and not someone else. This plus the fact that it used to be normal to have 5+ children, who had to be taken care of by the mother, more than explains why women have lagged behind men in the arts.
Lastly, his appraisal of women is done from a grossly phallocentric lens. He calls them 'undersized' -- but in relation to what? Men. He puts women's entire existence to a desire to 'conquer men', because he as a man likes to think that women only exist in relation to him; and for this reason he doesn't believe women when they express a genuine affinity for art. He chides women for not appreciating art, but he himself would be unwilling to question his phallocentric standards and become receptive to more feminine varieties of art. On the whole his argument is myopic and callous.

PS.
To disprove his idea that women are not more beautiful and graceful than men one only needs to compare women's artistic gymnastics with men's.

[Anonymous No.15806563]

>>15806541
Didn't read

[Anonymous No.15806618]

>>15806541
tldr: cope

[Anonymous No.15806630]

>>15806563
>>15806618
Interesting philosophical dialogue /lit/bros

[Anonymous No.15806659]

>>15803226
except its true even in primitive and modern societies.

[Anonymous No.15806687]

>>15804081
Except he literally admits he's no expert on women and says to take his opinion in them with a grain of salt you utter fucking moron

[Anonymous No.15807920]

Which books of the World as Will and Rep should i read?

[Anonymous No.15808423]

>>15804133
The world isn't divided into "protected, safe space societies" (ours) and "brutal arenas of death where you need to be genetically elite to live" (all others). By definition, most men of average genetics in past and present societies get along averagely well through cooperation and contributing to the team. That's what they evolved for.

[Anonymous No.15808629]

>>15807920
pls respon

[Anonymous No.15808631]

>>15808629
all of them

[Anonymous No.15808685]

>>15802751
Based but I hate this scary demon looking faggot

[Anonymous No.15808723]

>>15808631
can't find them in stores, they only released books 1 and 2 and im afraid ill be missing out on stuff

[Anonymous No.15808992]

>>15808723
Get an e-reader or go to some public library, the volumes aren't even that big and the appendixes not that important.