/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22688490]

Why did Schopenhauer say women are the unaesthetic sex? Was he just gay? I agree with him on everything else about women but I can't deny they are much more beautiful than men.

[Anonymous No.22688497]

Weininger said the same thing and I also don't get it

[Anonymous No.22688499]

>>22688490
Because he most likely never saw cute asian women in his life. White women look like men compared to oriental princesses

[Anonymous No.22688508]

>>22688490
Schopenhauer was right though. Women are basically malnourished males, like he pointed out. We only think that women are naturally prettier because industrial society normalized the use of makeup, plastic surgeries etc. The modern woman is a proto-tranny, as there is no clear distinction between flesh and plastic in its body.

[Anonymous No.22688561]

>>22688508
I find makeup disgusting. Girls are the most beautiful when they are candid and natural. The slim lanky body type is the most aesthetic one for both genders.

[Anonymous No.22688568]

They don't mean aesthetic as in "make my peepee hard" they mean aesthetic as in Greco-Germanic big spirit world giga-feeling-knowledge soul-as-body-as-soulbody-toward-death-as-spirit-as-age-as-man-within-time-peering-at-himself-outside-time-from-within-as-being which is the feeling all real men get when they look at a mountain or when the music kicks in when playing minecraft.

[Anonymous No.22688577]

>>22688490
I disagree with Schopenhauer on everything important but he's right that men are more beautiful than women.
You need to separate esthetics from sexual interest. We often call women "beautiful" when we mean "sexually attractive" even though they are two separate things that need not go together.
You can easily understand the issue by looking all around nature. Lions, peacocks, birds of paradise, etc, just to name a few. All monkeys and apes for that matter and closer to humans. It's virtually universal that males are more esthetic than females and humans are no exception.

[Anonymous No.22688579]

>>22688561
>I find makeup disgusting
That's not true. You just think that you find makeup disgusting. Here's the catch: good makeup is supposed to be unnoticeable. What you think is natural beauty might not be so natural, you know? Just saying.

[Anonymous No.22688582]

>>22688490
He is talking from an outside point of view without male sexual impulse. Men are far more imposing and defined (when they take care of themselves) while women are soft and amorphous. What's more aesthetic, the male or female peacock?

[Anonymous No.22688585]

>>22688579
Men genuinely find women without makeup more naturally attractive than most women think they do and claim this to cope, even if there is some truth to it. Now, there are women who rely more on makeup than others, who your claim is more true of, but these women will be especially jealous of those who genuinely look attractive without makeup, which is more common than women like to make out, and is especially the case for younger women.

[Anonymous No.22688594]

>>22688577
>>22688582
>What's more aesthetic, the male or female peacock?
This is sidestepping the issue for humans.
For the absolute peak of masculinity I can step aside from my personal sexual desires and see how they might be regarded above most women in beauty, but children without any developed sexual impulse will regard girls as the more beautiful gender generally and this makes sense unless you're appealing to some kind of higher order sense of beauty of proportion.

[Anonymous No.22688611]

>>22688490
They are disgusting have you ever lived with one?

[Anonymous No.22688617]

>>22688568
>when the music kicks in when playing minecraft
I don't understand why do I find mystical beauty of the female form more inspiring and pleasing to the eye. I am not talking about sexual attraction.

[Anonymous No.22688620]

>>22688490
Women need makeup, men don't

[Anonymous No.22688690]

Start lifting weights and you might get it.

[Anonymous No.22688698]

>>22688690
You become gay when you lift?

[Anonymous No.22688717]

>>22688490
Valuing "cuteness" is an extremely recent phenomenon that comes from Asia and spread west. Look as recently as Baywatch from the 80s to see how different beauty standards were. The ideal woman was often square-jawed, buxom, and tall, sort of like a gender-swapped version of gigachad. Nowadays though it's reversed. As society has become feminized, we idolize cuteness, passivity, and soft features, which is why femboys are so huge now

[Anonymous No.22688730]

>>22688490
The reason why you are unable to appreciate the aesthetics of the male body is the same reason why autogynephilia is so prevalent nowadays. No, I will not elaborate further.

[Anonymous No.22688739]

>>22688508
>We only think that women are naturally prettier because industrial society normalized the use of makeup, plastic surgeries etc. The modern woman is a proto-tranny, as there is no clear distinction between flesh and plastic in its body
Nigga you're just gay
I loved women even as far back as highschool before the girls started wearing makeup.

[Anonymous No.22688752]

>>22688739
Now that I think about it, I preferred the look of the adult female form even before I went through puberty

[Anonymous No.22688770]

>>22688752
It's called the oedipus complex and it only proves my point. Industrial society retards mental growth, thus women are perceived as prettier.

[Anonymous No.22688780]

>>22688730
It's because of the death of virtue. If men are more possessing of virtue than women, then the standards by which a person is beautiful are set by the male. Physicality is an adjunct of this. It's from this perspective that women are inferior: smaller, weaker, misshapen, and flowing from those things all of the worst vices in men.

[Anonymous No.22688787]

>>22688508
>>22688568
>>22688577
>>22688579
>>22688582
>>22688582
>>22688620
>>22688717
>NOOOOOOOOOO! YOU CAN'T PREFER THE FEMALE AESTHETIC
>YOU HAVE TO FAVOR MUH HECKIN STOIC BARA MUSCLE MEN, HYPERBOREAN GRINDSET, LITTLE DARK AGE

[Anonymous No.22688795]

>>22688787
Yea lots of closeted homosexuals in this board

[Anonymous No.22688797]

>>22688730
>you are unable to appreciate the aesthetics of the male body
I appreciate beautiful bodies of both genders. I just feel more drawn to look at females because looking at other guys is gay.

[Anonymous No.22688803]

Schopenhauer was a bitter retard. It’s true. He would write something purely out of resentment, without any considerations as to whether it is true or not. He even wrote a whole essay about why people should be whipped for making too much noise as they ride their horses past his house. And also he was a complete physicalist who believed that physiology had proven that the soul is reducible to the physical brain, something which doesn’t even make sense in comparison to his other viewpoints. He was a contradictory mess. He even changed his opinion on women and started simping after the sculptor Elisabet Nay impressed him. His original opinion was borne out of pure spite. Hegel will always eternally mog him.

[Anonymous No.22688809]

>>22688787
You can prefer whatever you want, anon. No one ITT said otherwise, so calm down.

[Anonymous No.22688813]

Eye of the beholder. The form of a female emphasizes internal organs while the form of a male emphasizes the skeleton. It's the same for most mammal forms as well. Males skeletal frames are more prominent while females are smaller and more round in shape and body. It's because the two are not the same that neither are naturally unaesthetic compared to the other. That was always a fallacy of an incompetent and unscientific mind incapable of proper observation and reflection in studying the world around them.

[Anonymous No.22688836]

>>22688787
>>22688795
Muh bara doesn't explain anything. Old men, (moderately) out of shape men, etc, can have a great variety of (positive) esthetic qualities to them. Women are stuck to the quasi-beauty of sexuality.

[Anonymous No.22688843]

>>22688836
It's down to coolness IMO
Women just aren't cool

[Anonymous No.22688845]

Prime Lachowski mogs all women. Schope was right.

[Anonymous No.22688849]

>>22688836
I believe the reverse is true

[Anonymous No.22688994]

Women are angels!!!

[Anonymous No.22688995]

>>22688490
>>22688499

[Anonymous No.22689000]

>>22688568
>giga-feeling-knowledge soul-as-body-as-soulbody-toward-death-as-spirit-as-age-as-man-within-time-peering-at-himself-outside-time-from-within-as-being

Hypocritical spirit

[Anonymous No.22689048]

>>22688813

I'm a transgender girl, and I think that this post is objectively correct. Schopenhauer would agree with this and find it wise. The reason why it goes unsaid is that it's simply a tough opinion to lay down without first dropping the pretense of male-female competition.

To add to that anon's opinion, I'll state that Women and Men are beautiful for different reasons, and trying to compare them is a falsity: The most beautiful thing to see is a man-and-woman in love through time.

From the day of their union when they are young and whimsical, and all the ages spent raising their family, to when they are very old and frail; that is beauty. It is not just a single snapshot at a single moment of their lives, like when the man is standing proud and strong, or when a woman is young and beautiful and breedable, but rather, it is a man-and-woman through life that is beautiful. It is how they have a family, and it is each moment when the man is working, the woman is cooking, the kids are playing and learning, it is when the family is laughing together, playing a game together, such as classic Mario Party, or when they're outside doing household yardwork together.

The moments that are REAL are the moments that matter, and in any one snapshot, you cannot truly observe the sweat upon the brow of the most glorious Greek statue of a man, nor can the most beautiful Roman statue of a woman give you a tender smile and then move to hold out her hand for you.

It is only living humans through time that have true aesthetic value: Anything without movement is either dead or not alive. And the more movement we observe, the more time must pass. So it is life from beginning to end, and including Love as well, that indicates Life. And it is life that is the root of aesthetic, for when it comes to form and function, form is a slave to function. That which functions logically and usefully will possess beautiful, aesthetic form.

[Anonymous No.22689083]

>>22689048
Gas yourself.

[Anonymous No.22689100]

>>22689048
It's time to grow up. You need to go outside and learn to be normal, you are not special just completely lacking in worldly experience so you life in fantasy land detached from harmony and beauty.

>in response to your reply to this post
lot of words for a porn addict

[Anonymous No.22689119]

>>22689048
No wonder troons are mentally ill when they fetishize relationships like this.
Hint: beauty is just the correct arrangement of your bones + healthy soft tissue.

[Anonymous No.22689125]

>>22688994
I miss this cute jewess
hope she's ok

[Anonymous No.22689127]

oh? you mean the sex that rarely leaves the house without makeup?

[Anonymous No.22689135]

>>22688582
the peacock example contradicts the point you and Schopenhauer are making. The male peacock is more aesthetic precisely because it has more ornamentation and is far more extravagant than the female, while the inverse is true for humans.

[Anonymous No.22689142]

>>22689135
Women have no ornamentations other than a few lumps of flesh that functions as indicators of fertility.
Peacock feathers have nothing to do with that. The closest human analogue would be a beard.

[Anonymous No.22689153]

>>22688490
If women are aesthetic, how come they need
>tons of make up
>plastic surgery
>fake tits/fake asses
>pedicure/manicure
>shape-up clothing, push-up bras, corselets
>complementing clothing/enticing gowns
>fake hair
>hair dye
>fake lashes
>fake tan
>photoshop
>instagram filters
>jewelry
>high heels
In truth, if women did not employ an entire arsenal of deceptive practices to fool your monke senses, very few would ever make it past 5/10. And even then, with the entire scientific-industrial complex of the planet at their disposal, they still smash into the wall at 30 at the latest. That is, if their inherently, unfixably ugly inner worlds won't drive them to become monstrous prematurely by overeating, doing drugs, or aborting babies till their ovaries prolapse.
Modern women are not, in the strictest sense of that word, modern at all. They are the same women who sucked Grog's hairy cock in the caves. It's called Fisherian Runaway effect - in dimorphic species often only one gender enjoys the benefits of selective breeding and subsequent improvement (or degeneration as we see today, nonetheless, dynamism). Women never faced any competition in passing on their genes, so they literally did not change over time. Men got taller, stronger, faster, smarter, our dicks biggers, women remained the very same, only indirectly benefitting from their male fathers in ways they probably didn't want to (such as becoming more mannish and narrow-hipped which led to more problematic birthing).

[Anonymous No.22689616]

>>22688497
?
No he doesn’t. Weininger’s aesthetics are self admitted paraphrasing of Schiller writing under Kant and Schelling’s influence. Aesthetics = subcategory of ethics
>The desire of personal worthiness, the love of perfection, materialize in the idea of beauty
Here he is paraphrasing Rousseau
>and so the beauty of nature is born, a beauty that the criminal can never know, as ethics first create nature. Thus it is that nature always and everywhere, in its greatest and smallest forms, gives the impression of perfection. The natural law is only the mortal symbol of the moral law, as natural beauty is the manifestation of nobility of the soul; logic thus becomes the embodiment of ethics!

>The nature which the artist regards as his teacher, is the law which he creates out of his own being
Literally Schiller’s aesthetic definition of play. This means that aesthetics are only objective in the sense of moral justification as it appears to the idea of a superseding ‘individual’. The individual projects beauty out of this state of play between ethics and logic.

Beauty itself is an attachment of power projected by the individual imbued with the moral law, as is established by beauty’s connection to light. Light represents power in the sense of perfect eminence. Eminence itself represents replication, reproduction and fruitfulness. Therefore aesthetics are only objective in the sense of moral replication as it appears to the personality (the suns connection to the eye). It’s Plato’s eroticism that seeks to ‘win immortality’ for ‘victories of the mind’

Weininger writes that tall, ‘strong’ faced ‘beautiful’ women as an artistic ideal (the virago) only appeared in times of predominately feminine men. If beauty and aesthetics are just a projection from the individual, the idea of the aesthetic male as the height of beauty could only artistically come from a female male’s state of projected aesthetic play. Aestheticism is a state of play seeking replication and the safe guarding of the moral law through the protective form of nature. And, according to Weininger, the highest form of love (on earth) is man’s attempt to give woman his own soul. Therefore aesthetics is a state of play where ‘sharing’ is fruitful or replicating
>as she neither does good or evil, she neither resists nor resents this imposition of the ideal on her personality. It is patent that woman’s morality is acquired; but this morality is man’s, which he in an access of supreme love and devotion has conveyed to her
This is the highest form of aesthetic play.

[Anonymous No.22689620]

>>22688497
>>22689616
Thus, we can see Weininger as more proto boomer hippie beat generation Roussean libertarianism opposed to Nietzsche and Schop’s homosexual fascism as the idea of aesthetic morality isn’t a standard to strive towards but a form of individual play that projects perfection through a distinct super personality. The type of individual genius that supersedes collective homo erotisicm through his own self justification. The individual self justification of a rational being through himself is the ideal of ethics. Schop’s aestheticism is the opposite of what Kant calls ‘reality’ or ‘quality’.

From this we can see that the height of feminine beauty, to the most male masculine individual genius, would be the qualities that have the most affinity to a blank slate of projection. The genius, according to this logic, hates the ‘fertility goddess’ form of femininity. The fertility goddess is the plebeian directive, similar to primitive sacrifice that begs the sky for rain. The fertility goddess is the symbol of the plebeian, as she is one who ‘takes what she can get’. She is a collective creation and effort patched on here and there by nameless and faceless urgings. The fertility goddess form of women is a woman who has developed herself through innumerable natural impressions that she glues onto her being. It’s a effort of desperation that never picks and chooses from an individual standpoint what is actually replicable, but always ‘takes what it can get’. She is the queen bee gorged with honey. The slave of a slave class

The blank slate of femininity is a requirement of the genius. He wants his own personal projection, his own personal nature, just as ethics is always only self justification of an individual rational being. The qualities attuned to this projection are those found in the artistic efforts of the lolicon. The lolicon is the most masculine patrician form of genius that we currently have in art. He is natures master, Jun Maeda

[Anonymous No.22689622]

>>22688497
>>22689616
>>22689620
Japan literally created the lolicon aesthetic as a attempt to sanitize its reputation of cruelty and barbarism. And, it worked. That means that the loli is unconsciously recognized as the ideal symbol of moral perfection, aesthetic play of sharing, readiness and eagerness. But Japan did not invent this, they adapted it from Dostoyevsky. Dostoyevsky, known as histories greatest novelist, is the true inventor of lolicon yuri with the characters of Netochka and Katya. Notice that no one ever accuses Dosto of any real licentiousness or impropriety despite him being one of the most erotic and sensual authors, this is because it’s impossible to accuse someone who was so overtly committed to the moral law. Dostoyevsky is the height of the moral artist, which his why his heroines are always described by their youthfulness. Dosto is unconsciously recognized as being perfectly morally true, perfectly emanating, he is blameless and remains and always will remain so in the eyes of history by his making the loli as his highest symbol of aesthetic, moral and sensual beauty. The unconscious recognition indefensibly proves my point that histories greatest most masculine male geniuses were lolicons.

[Anonymous No.22689624]

>>22688508
You are just gay

[Anonymous No.22689630]

>>22688787
I was answering the question tranny

[Anonymous No.22689633]

If you don't find Jap women cute, I have some bad news for you.

[Anonymous No.22689650]

>>22689048

YOU GODDAMN TRANNNNIIEEEE TROON AIOHFOIJ I HATE YOU I will NOT read your words!! You are literally DEMON

HATE HATE HATE

[Anonymous No.22689657]

>>22688499
The most beautiful Asian women are recognized by everyone as being Japanese and the Japanese themselves see Ukrainian women as the height of female beauty. Every knee shall bow to the supremacy of the Slavs, it is inevitable

[Anonymous No.22689665]

>>22689633
And the news is...you're Japanese

[Anonymous No.22691130]

>>22688490
beauty and aesthics are two different things

[Anonymous No.22691417]

>>22689125
>hope she's ok
oh no no no

[Anonymous No.22691421]

>>22689125
>hope she's ok
Anon... sit down

[Anonymous No.22691425]

He meant women without sympathy for the aesthetic domain, not "aesthetic" in the retarded internet meme colloquial usage. Unaesthetic meaning incapable of making and understanding art.

[Anonymous No.22691439]

>>22691425
No he didn't.

[Anonymous No.22691462]

>>22691439
>Instead of calling them beautiful, there would be more warrant for describing women as the unaesthetic sex. Neither for music, nor for poetry, nor for fine art, have they really and truly any sense or susceptibility; it is a mockery if they make a pretense of it in order to assist their endeavor to please. ... Hence even Rousseau declared: Women have, in general, no love of any art; they have no proper knowledge of any; and they have no genius.

"The sense ‘concerned with beauty’ was coined in German in the mid 18th century and adopted into English in the early 19th century, but its use was controversial until much later in the century."

>Mit mehr Fug, als das schöne, könnte man das weibliche Geschlecht das unästhetische nennen. Weder für Musik, noch Poesie, noch bildende Künste haben sie wirklich und wahrhaftig Sinn und Empfänglichkeit; sondern bloße Aefferei, zum Behuf ihrer Gefallsucht, ist es, wenn sie solche affektiren und vorgeben. Schon Rousseau hat es gesagt: les femmes, en général, n’aiment aucun art, ne se connoissent à aucun, et n’ont aucun génie (lettre à d’Alembert, note x x).

[Anonymous No.22691467]

>>22691462
It might surprise you but he wrote more than one passage.

[Anonymous No.22691471]

>>22691467
You are dumb!

[Anonymous No.22691479]

>>22691471
Ok but Schopenhauer still claimed men were more outwardly beautiful than women.

[Anonymous No.22691505]

>>22691479
Where? Large parts of the essay are dedicated to the idea that women are far more beautiful than men in their youth, for a short time, to dupe men into supporting them for their whole lives. He basically says men do everything spiritual, and woman's biological function is to be hot as hell for ten minutes. He does say that women are stumpy and short, so he's implicitly saying men are more beautiful from a certain perspective, i.e. athletic excellence.

[Anonymous No.22691517]

>>22691505
>It is only the man whose intellect is clouded by his sexual instinct that could give that stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped, and short-legged race the name of the fair sex; for the entire beauty of the sex is based on this instinct.
You don't seem to understand the difference between beauty and fertility.

[Anonymous No.22691523]

>>22688490
> women are the unaesthetic sex

i read his essay on women and i don't remember schopenhauer ever saying that. do you have a quote?

i hear conservatives say or imply all the time that women can do laundry, cook and take care of children better than men. i don't think this is remotely true. men are better than women at everything including those things i listed above. The best cooks in the world are all men

the only thing women are good at is being an onahole for a man's dick

[Anonymous No.22691546]

>>22691479

by unaesthetic sex he meant that women can't do art. damn, your reading comprehension sucks

>>22691462

those quotes have nothing to do with women looking more aesthetically beautiful than men

[Anonymous No.22691550]

>>22691546
men looking more aesthetically beautiful than women*

[Anonymous No.22691555]

>>22688499
>face masks
Gonna be a hard pass from me, dawg

[Anonymous No.22691558]

>>22691546
In the infamous essay Schope compares the outward appearances of women and men, which is what OP was referring to.

[Anonymous No.22691561]

>>22688561
You like men, then

>>22688698
Yeah kind of. Look at all the chickenhawks on /fit/

[Anonymous No.22691566]

>>22691546
I mean look at any music written by females. A lot of it’s extremely vapid.

[Anonymous No.22691584]

>>22691558
i don't remember schopenhauer saying that men are more aesthetically beautiful than women
provide a quote

by unaesthetic sex schoepenhauer meant that women can't do art. They lack an artistic sensibility. he did not mean that women are uglier than men

[Anonymous No.22691586]

>>22691584

>>22691517

[Anonymous No.22691603]

>>22689657
korean idols mog jav whores and jpop whores.
most akb48 idols are ugly as shit and all the hot ones are up in front to block your view of the ugly ones

south korea has an endless supply of korean cuties where their entire idol groups are sexy as fuck

[Anonymous No.22691619]

>>22689153
they do those things because of the shit taste of men
those things tend to make women uglier

[Anonymous No.22691659]

>>22691619
>they do those things because of the shit taste of men

worst social myth that nobody believes. it's ritual scarification.

[Anonymous No.22691662]

>>22691603
idk what it is but kpop girls always seem completely sexless to me. They're not as mischievous and sly and they don't have that intelligent look of derision and mockery that the Japanese Stacy has. South Korea just seems like a new country and no matter how modern the Japanese women's fashions might be it still seems like there's some ancient dangerous secret in her and she could instantly transform into some sort of village priestess and she ritualistically sacrifices you.

[Anonymous No.22691667]

>>22691662
Disgusting weeaboo.

[Anonymous No.22692134]

>>22691619
Men have no effect on women when it comes to sexual selection, throughout history women were either forced to procreate with certain men, or chose them from a wide pool, but women never competed for men in a market-like environment. Psychoanalysing modern females is a waste of time since, like I said, they're prehistoric creatures, uncivilised and base.

[Anonymous No.22692149]

>>22691662
>intelligent look of derision and mockery that the Japanese Stacy
Have you ever interacted with a real life Japanese woman?

[Anonymous No.22692158]

>>22692134
>monogamy is so out of fashion that anon forgot it existed

[Anonymous No.22692287]

>>22688490
>Why did Schopenhauer say women are the unaesthetic sex?
Cope.