ITT: Philosophers who Scare the Hoes

[Anonymous No.22121033]

[Anonymous No.22121046]

Otto Weininger
Actually an underrated genius for being so frank about the true nature of women and Jews, and doing
so without hating them. Of course, his natural conclusion was to become an hero. Uncle Alf called him the only good Jew.

[Anonymous No.22121064]

>>22121046
Is Sex and Character hard to digest?

[Anonymous No.22121070]

>>22121033
Every normie I've talked to hates Plato

[Anonymous No.22121082]

>>22121070
All they know about him is
>theory of forms is stupid!
>haha chad Diogenes behold a man virgin Plato!

[Anonymous No.22121099]

Pretty much any reactionary. Modern women are bothered by the suggestion that the current age is an abomination.

[Anonymous No.22121146]

>>22121070
women love plato

[Anonymous No.22121152]

>>22121033
Is this the antinatalism thread?

[Anonymous No.22121153]

>>22121033
Carlyle and Nietzsche. Heroic masculine vitalism scares women; they'd just roll their eyes at misogynists like Schopenhauer et. al.

[Anonymous No.22121295]

Obligatory

[Anonymous No.22121311]

>Schopenhauer
It's not even that they're scared by him. They simply cannot fathom his place in intellectual history and debase him because of petty social reasons.
>https://www.reddit.com/r/CuratedTumblr/comments/pyrz7t/his_own_mom_wrote_him_that_letter/?onetap_auto=true
This is exactly what I mean.
>woahhh he was le unlikeable, totally roasted by his chad mom (who was a very successful writer btw! So successful that we only know about her because of her son who she hated- wait!)

[Anonymous No.22121321]

>>22121153
This.

[Anonymous No.22121534]

Me.

I am proud to belong to a race of explorers, conquerors, inventors, artists, who bequeathed the world over the products of their innate beauty, sublimity and genius and, swing they yet to this very day high upon the fiery wings of glory - nowise did they demand recompense; so overcome were they by the selfless trance of their genius. I am proud to be a coloniser: forsooth, I was thrust from the very bosom of this Earth to oppress and subjugate all weaker stock for the benefit of myself and my race. Verily, our imperium knows no end! Parcere subiectis - the perpetual servitude of lower races to my will: this is my clemency - et debellare superbos - setting fast the yoke of my religion, order and culture upon barbarians - this is my severity. I am proud to be an oppressor, a subjugator, a coloniser; a bringer of order, beauty and the sublime where hitherto there had only reigned chaos, ugliness and an inborn ignorance of the transcendent. Witness our beneficience in on the Dark Continent, pulled out of the swamp of unfathomable ignorance by the spirit of our religion, liberated from primal indolence by the designs our commerce; witness our ingenuity in the land of the Hindoos, decorated with the feats of our harmonious architecture, ennobled by the jewel of our civil code. And I concede that the Dark Continent is, despite our efforts, perhaps beyond salvation - it will be the burden of the Hyberboreans to bring our modest beginnings to their fullest fruition; but the Crown Jewel of the Empire? With what skill we have perfected the Law of Manu! Never again shall a Brahman be cursed with the wretched countenance of the Untouchable. I say to you: without us, they would be nothing. The measure of debt they owe us for our undying fire, for our Promethean gift, is truly unpayable.

[Anonymous No.22121872]

Julius Evola.

[Anonymous No.22123468]

>>22121295
Hoes love this kike thoever.

[Anonymous No.22123524]

>>22121099

I just completed pic related. The last piece I read was Cioran's lengthy essay on de Maistre, collected in the bottom volume but originally written in 1957.

In the piece, Cioran is unconventionally conventional in his assessment of de Maistre. Despite his personal admiration for de Maistre's rages and pitiless analysis (Cioran's favorite thing in any work is real passion, lyricism, no matter what its subject matter), he almost writes like a respectable mid-century liberal type, also pointing out de Maistre's internal contradictions in an even-handed way. Cioran is fascinated by the man, and actually wants to communicate him to a wider audience despite rejecting some aspects of his worldview, but nevertheless enjoying his style.

The other thing that comes across is how de Maistre absolutely "failed". The "progress" took place and there was absolutely nothing that he could do about it. Protestantism spread. Monarchies either fell or were reduced in their hard power. "Reason" took hold. Etc. A modern woman could possibly read de Maistre with delight at the total failure of de Maistre's wishes for the world, as some bad old dead (white) man who abjectly lost the game of history, and even Cioran finds something pathological and deeply cynical in his vain repairs to mystery (read: bullshit) in defense of the Ancien Regime, whether temporal of ecclesiastical. Cioran himself says it, and here I will paraphrase, without misrepresenting, his meaning: what makes "conservatives" so much more fun to read than leftists is that conservatives are constantly and forever losing cultural battles. Therefore, they have a lot to seethe about and to be unhappy about (Mein Kampf is the extreme example). It gives them style, and it gives savor to their hatreds, real flavor to their imprecations, execrations, insults. Meanwhile leftists trudge blithely along, eventually winning all the while and knowing that they will, thereby experiencing what Hardt and Negri called "the lightness and joy of being communist" which, although a depraved sort of inner peace, nonetheless bankrupts its victims as possessors of literary merit.

It is also perfectly clear to me now that the ideas in the essay immediatley informed History and Utopia, as the two were written closely together: Ancients/conservatives identify Utopia in the past, moderns/leftists place Utopia in the future.