/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.23092873]

What makes him so appealing to female Philosophy undergrads?

[Anonymous No.23092898]

>>23092873
He’s conventionally attractive. Not exactly rocket science.

[Anonymous No.23092933]

>>23092873
He writes good. Not the greatest french postwar philosopher, but he's definitely more fun to read than deleuze or baudrillard or whoever.

[Anonymous No.23092943]

>>23092873
>good looking
>charming
>popular
>successful
>"i can fix him!"
Checks all boxes

[Anonymous No.23092950]

>>23092898
>>23092933
are women really this simple minded?

>attractive
>decent prose

"Welp, I guess I've found the Philosopher I'll base all my opinions off!"

[Anonymous No.23092977]

>>23092950
Is this some kind of stereotype? I loved Myth of Sysiphus when I was 16, but I'm male. Most people don't want to read 500 pages of kants autism, and if you don't think communication skills matter "in the real world" then you're going to be in for a surprise

[Anonymous No.23092992]

>>23092977
>Is this some kind of stereotype?

Yes it is, it's a very accurate and real stereotype. Ask any woman in her late teens/early twenties who their favorite philosopher is and watch them fawn over Camus for like 20 minutes straight.

[Anonymous No.23092993]

>>23092977
If Kant looked like Chris Hemsworth, I guarantee there would be college girls with (abridged) copies of his works. It's just how it works, and I'm not trying to be sexist. (Although Camus being a tortured writer still gives him an advantage)

[Anonymous No.23093013]

>>23092977
>Most people don't want to read 500 pages of kants autism

Except Camus himself, because I'm pretty sure he would of read Kant.

[Anonymous No.23093019]

>>23092993
Kierkegaard looks great and women don't give a shit about him, opposite thing with Foucalt.
There might be a chicken and egg thing where ugly people like Schopenhauer repel women through their life, they grow bitter from rejection and write woman repellent philosophy, and then later people accuse women of only liking attractive philosophers

[Anonymous No.23093030]

>>23093019
>There might be a chicken and egg thing where ugly people like Schopenhauer repel women through their life, they grow bitter from rejection and write woman repellent philosophy, and then later people accuse women of only liking attractive philosophers

This is gargantuan cope.

What's more likely?

Women having a tendency to read Philosophers who are physically attractive?

Or a small handful of Philosophers who wrote vaguely misogynistic passages conveniently being ugly, and consequently women read their work less?

[Anonymous No.23093377]

>>23092993
ahem

[Anonymous No.23093390]

>>23092977
The biggest issue with “social skills” is they’re not a very indicator of morality, usually they’re inversely correlated

[Anonymous No.23093422]

>>23092873
his books are short, shallow and easy to read

[Anonymous No.23093445]

>>23093019
>write woman repellent philosophy
what does that even mean? most philosophers throughout history held misogynistic opinions, but I fail to see how that makes a philosophy "woman repellent". unless you're assuming that women are spoiled children who can only read authors they completely agree with

[Anonymous No.23093456]

>>23093445
>women are spoiled children who can only read authors they completely agree with

Yes. Correct.

[Anonymous No.23093462]

>>23092993
bitches love Nietzsche, explain that one

[Anonymous No.23093466]

>>23092873
he's taught in undergrad. same reason everyone dicksucks plato, he's taught in general courses to every college student

[Anonymous No.23093477]

Should I get the new Pléiade editions or the old Pléaide editions?
The old ones are cheaper and widely available used but contain no notes from what I understand

[Anonymous No.23093480]

>>23092950
>are women really this simple minded?

Yes.

[Anonymous No.23093482]

>>23093445
Alright, then you must be reading radfem literature about how all men are rapists/pigs, right? Wait, you aren't? Maybe men are the spoiled children here

[Anonymous No.23093484]

>>23092993
Rousseau was really fucking handsome IMO

[Anonymous No.23093486]

>>23093484
Maybe in Finland or something

[Anonymous No.23093492]

>>23093482
Sucks to be you moron, because yes, I have read radfem literature.

It was utter torture, but I subjected myself to Andrea Dworkin and Valerie Solanas.

[Anonymous No.23093493]

>>23093482
I unironically read radfem philosophy and literature for it’s unintentional entertainment value, it’s the most Freudian writing that I’ve ever seen

[Anonymous No.23093496]

>>23093482
>strawman

Reading literature that differentiates from one's ideological beliefs is not the same as reading books from people who literally want to genocide your gender.

[Anonymous No.23093502]

>>23093492
Then you probably get why women dislike reading misogynistic philosophy, right? I get theory of mind is tough for autists but even you probably understand by now

[Anonymous No.23093505]

As a woman,
It is true that women like him because he is good-looking. Also, many women get depressed. His books speak to them because they like to read things that make them feel better. Some of them also like to aestheticize things to appeal to potential mates. That's all.

[Anonymous No.23093506]

>>23093462
he is the quintessential womeme philosomemer.

[Anonymous No.23093509]

>>23093506
They should listen harder.

[Anonymous No.23093521]

>>23093509
why would they listen?

[Anonymous No.23093671]

>>23093502
You've shifted the goalpost twice buddy.

You started off saying women won't read women repellent philosophy and named Schopenhauer as an example.

Another anon responded by saying women are spoiled children because they refuse to read literature that deviates even slightly from their worldview.

You responded to that with a complete straw-man by saying men are hypocrites for not reading rad fems who think all men are rapists.

I responded with "Yes I have read rad fem literature", proving you wrong.

And now you're changing gears to argue that because I've read rad fem literature, I should understand why women don't want to read deeply misogynistic literature, which is not consistent with your initial example of Schopenhauer.

You are an utter retard. Please stop talking forever.

[Anonymous No.23093692]

>>23093502
>misogynistic philosophy
Funny how you still didn't bother to explain how a philosophy could possibly be misogynistic.

[Anonymous No.23093709]

>>23093493
give me recs

[Anonymous No.23093727]

>>23093709
If you want utterly hilarious radical feminism literature, Andrea Dworkin always gives me a good belly laugh.

[Anonymous No.23093736]

this thread was originally about Camus, wtf have we done here

[Anonymous No.23093738]

>>23092993
Sartre looks like pic related and female undergrads love him. Your argument is flawed.

[Anonymous No.23093740]

>>23093738
idk what female undergrads ur talking to.

all the ones ive interacted with hate Sartre and think hes a misogynist

[Anonymous No.23093757]

>>23092873
His vapid navel gazing and saccharine prose. Doesn’t hurt that he’s easy on the eyes.

[Anonymous No.23093789]

>>23093738
>>23093740
Satre and Beauvoir were popular about 10+ years ago, but their unfathomably based views on lolicon have gotten them (and most other 20th century French intellectuals) posthumously cancelled by the current generation of undergrads

[Anonymous No.23093799]

>>23093019
I cannot stand you r/redscarefags, stay on reddit with your faggotry

[Anonymous No.23093831]

Aren't Camus and Sartre the philosophers you are supposed to agree with? The ones a current year college professor will talk about as if they were right?