Female philosophers are all ugly

[Anonymous No.17803546]

why are they all so fucking ugly? has there ever been even a single female philosopher that was fuckable? fuck philosophers, has there been ONE attractive female author in general? is intellect fundamentally incompatible with fuckability?

[Anonymous No.17803548]

>>17803546
>female
>philosopher

[Anonymous No.17803554]

>>17803546
>judging women's beauty in 2021
>the women range from B.C to the 20st century
Youre retarded OP

[Anonymous No.17803557]

>implying male philosophers aren't ugly

[Anonymous No.17803569]

do you really think Hypatia is ugly?

[Anonymous No.17803593]

>>17803548

i'm not saying they're proper philosophers, ofc they're larping

>>17803554

>he literally doesn't believe in objective beauty

>>17803557

they often are (not always). but i don't wanna jerk off to them so what's your point?

>>17803569

she's not beautiful. maybe no quite ugly but calling her a qt3.14 would be as delusional as calling Oliver Thorn a woman

[Anonymous No.17803597]

>>17803546
Beauvoir looks gorgeous there

[Anonymous No.17803613]

>>17803597

t. incel that wants to fuck anything female

[Anonymous No.17803625]

>>17803593
Point is that good looking people don't usually partake in philosophy

[Anonymous No.17803661]

>>17803593
>objective beauty
>lives in a time where everything is plastered with big ass whores, with caked on make-up
>the time where fetishes has become publicly known
>the time where "beauty" has never been more diverse
No I don't you fucking mong, who the fuck could objectively decide what beauty is?

[Anonymous No.17803672]

>>17803625

>young Baudrillard

are you kidding me?

[Anonymous No.17803683]

>>17803661

me motherfucker.
imagine using big butt sluts with caked on makeup as an argument against objective beauty

[Anonymous No.17803687]

>>17803613
>using the tumblr propaganda word in 2021

[Anonymous No.17803700]

>>17803546
u wanna know how i know that your entire frame of reference for women is based around porn stars and anime girls?

[Anonymous No.17803709]

Shut up nigger.

[Anonymous No.17803711]

>>17803683
Okay you're a little kid, your whole argument is "my dick doesn't tingle when I see these female philosophers, also I am the objective observer of beauty, so therefore all female philosophers are objectively ugly."
Its so mindnumbingly stupid an argument.

[Anonymous No.17803724]

>>17803700

yes please. tell me. you're wrong about anime though. insert instagram thots in place of anime if you want

[Anonymous No.17803731]

>>17803711

true. yu're just too retarded to understand it. so you call it midnumbingly dumb. to true retards, brilliance seems stupid

[Anonymous No.17803762]

>>17803711

why don't you point to an example of a cutie female philosopher

[Anonymous No.17803763]

>>17803546
All philosophers are ugly anon. Why else do you think I would be interested?

[Anonymous No.17803784]

>>17803554
This

[Anonymous No.17803794]

>>17803557
this except camus.
Idk about you but I would def love to fuck diotima

[Anonymous No.17803795]

>>17803548
Fpbp

[Anonymous No.17803801]

>>17803784

NOOOO YOU CAN'T HAVE BEAUTY STANDARDS: THAT'S EXCLUDING UGLIES: YOU'RE FASCIST

[Anonymous No.17803822]

>>17803546
OP is a woman. These women are regular, and the only reason to complain about their appearance is because a woman can get enough cookies, want to be passably smart to get more cookies but can't go beyond the value of her sex holes to achieve more cookies, and now are lashing on better women falsifying the vainest pretense of it all, they're not being pretty enough.

[Anonymous No.17803825]

>>17803724
consider how handsome the average guy you know is, yknow, friends, family, teachers, yourself included. now imagine a similar sort of distribution for girls. if your only frame of reference is the small top fraction of women who are attractive enough to get paid for it, and everything that falls below that is instantly branded ugly, the majority of women are gonna be ugly. since intelligence doesnt really give a shit about looks, the distribution of good philosophers is not gonna be within your narrow porn/instagram one, hence the majority is gonna be branded ugly.

[Anonymous No.17803828]

>>17803546
>intellect fundamentally incompatible with fuckability
pretty much. most pretty people are successful/bonkers and too busy loving/hating life to think much about it; good on them desu

[Anonymous No.17803862]

>>17803825
>small top fraction of women who are attractive enough to get paid for it

that's true hyperreal beauty though.

also hedy lamarr was pretty intelligent and i jerk off to her as furiously as i jerk off to the clermont twins. so intelligence can fall within that narrow range of beauty

[Anonymous No.17803876]

>>17803546
de beauvoir wasnt ugly

[Anonymous No.17803894]

>>17803862
yea i fully agree, didnt want to go on a whole rant about hyperreal beauty vs beauty coming from character and personality, but I dont think many of the women OP labelled ugly are actually ugly, especially when one wouldve met them in person.

[Anonymous No.17803908]

>>17803894

the thread title is obviously provocative but in my opinion: not ugly =/= beautiful

[Anonymous No.17803949]

>>17803876
de Beauvoir was a total slut, she slept around with many men.

[Anonymous No.17803961]

>>17803762
>a cutie philosopher
It doesn't matter what makes your dick tingle faggot, your brain is fucking spammed with porn and 2D anime big booba futa cowgirls to be able to judge whatever "objective beauty" is

>>17803731
How the fuck is "reeee these female philosophers don't look like muh porn stars" brilliance to you? Are you dense?

[Anonymous No.17803969]

>>17803801
You have grown up and watched 10,00 porn videos and advertisements of women in certain clothing and with certain makeup, and now you're shocked that women in the past doesn't look like that. Are you this fucking retarded that you cannot fathom this?

[Anonymous No.17803976]

>>17803546
simone and diotima could help me get my rocks off

[Anonymous No.17803990]

>>17803546
I want Diotima to sit on my face

[Anonymous No.17804137]

>>17803969
>>17803961

seethe harder. your 4/10 gfs will never be beautiful

[Anonymous No.17804189]

>>17804137
You fucking faggot, do you think I care what some fucking idiot on the internet thinks of my girlfriend? You think I'm some cuck like you, who is so brainwashed by porn that I must measure my Girlfriends attractiveness by how many boners she can give other men?
Your arbitrary ideas of what beauty is, with the center of course being your own dick feelings, is so mindnumbingly dumb that I am genuinely amazed you're able to type on a keyboard.

[Anonymous No.17804239]

>>17804189

good idiot. now seethe even harder. it's very fun to witness.

you argue from emotion and i pity you for being born so fucked up that you have no idea what beaut is

[Anonymous No.17804249]

>>17804189
>arbitrary ideas of what beauty is, with the center of course being your own dick feelings

point to one single other thing that is useful for defining beauty

[Anonymous No.17804274]

>>17804249
Aesthetic appreciation. I can say a painting is beautiful, without wanting to fuck it.

>>17804239
I know what beauty is, but it isn't confined to whatever makes your limp dick grow.
You're trying to make universal claims and arguments based on your own little feelings, like a brain dead mongoloid. Use your fucking brain and try to reason before you speak, you fucking cretin, else the only thing youre capable of saying is "I like this yaaaay, I don't like this boooo".

[Anonymous No.17804299]

>>17804274

this thread is about female beauty you absolute fucking retard. god, the absolute state of this board.
talk all you want about 'muh inner beauty'. it's meaningless, the world we live in is superficial

[Anonymous No.17804309]

>>17804274
>>17804189
>>17803969
>>17803961
>>17803784
>>17803711
>>17803661
>>17803554

>taking such low quality b8

[Anonymous No.17804337]

>>17804299
Faggot, read the thread and realize you mongoloids are talking about "objective beauty", and my criticism was that you're doing this from your 21st century porn infected, bimbofied standards of female beauty.

>baby compares women from past to the porn stars and models his little dick cooms to now
>is disappointed they don't look alike
>"why are all female philosophers so ugly"
>thinking philosophy has anything to do with beauty

Philosophy doesn't require any fucking expectations on your physical appearance, so oddly enough, most of them aren't models. They're plain and average women who fucking wrote, and you coomers cry about them not looking like your pornstars.
Fucking die in a fire if you try to take your current ideas of "beauty" and put it all over history as some objective truths. Women used to be more skinny, but now it's all about that Kim Kardashian big ass whore stuff you see everywhere, and the next thing will be chicks with small lips or weird skin or whatever the fuck faggots of the future will wank to.

[Anonymous No.17804340]

>>17804309
I should be ashamed of myself

[Anonymous No.17804371]

>>17803546
This one's not bad.

[Anonymous No.17804372]

>>17804337
>objective beauty
objective female beauty you idiot.

>21st century
why the fuck would i use the standards of 4th century south america to judge beauty? do you also use 5th century bc economical views to come to economic conclusions today?

> women from past
it's obvious that you're completely mentally challenged. i don't compare women as a whole. if you had any brains you'd see that the thread is about the lack of beauty of female philosophers. i'm perfectly comfortable admitting that i like to jerk off to depictions women from all periods of history. but that's not the point of the threads

>thinking philosophy has anything to do with beauty
never made such a claim

and again, i implore you to seethe even harder you stupid fuck

[Anonymous No.17804445]

>>17803593
I usually hate people saying this but: reddit spacing

[Anonymous No.17804465]

>>17804372
Then show me objective female beauty you moron. Is your dick the measuring stick for "female beauty", and when it tingles at your foot fetish it means female beauty is located in their feet?

Then tell me what the fuck are you even trying to say? Why are you so fucking obsessed about female philosophers appearance, if you admit that it doesn't fucking matter? Most philosophers have been autistic spergs, but it doesn't fucking matter to the field? It's like me asking why most models aren't philosophers, it has nothing to do with each other you mong.

The whole point is that you're using your arbitrary standards in the 21st century to look at a statue or old photo of a woman and say "ewww so ugly". It doesn't make any fucking sense you imbecile, your taste is situated in the here and now, and you're even experiencing these women through fucking statues and bad quality photographs, and trying to compare it to your 4k VR porn stars. It's idiotic and a stupid fucking bait thread that I'm wasting my time on.

[Anonymous No.17804477]

>>17803969
>10,00
Pajeet detected, opinion discarded.

[Anonymous No.17804486]

>>17804371
>nose piercing
ngmi

[Anonymous No.17804527]

>>17803546
In all fairness Simone de Beauvoir and Mary Wollstonecraft were cuties.

[Anonymous No.17804626]

>>17804465
>show me objective female beauty

there. postmodern, technologically enhanced, super-saturated, hyperreal beauty

[Anonymous No.17804634]

>>17804465
>Is your dick the measuring stick for "female beauty"

[Anonymous No.17804652]

>>17804465
>Why are you so fucking obsessed about female philosophers appearance

i'm not obsessed. i just wanted to see if anons knew of any female philosophers that were hotties.

>arbitrary standards in the 21st century to look at a statue or old photo of a woman and say "ewww so ugly"

i'm not. i already said i like to jerk it to old depictions of women.