/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6008125]

>Of Women

When I first read it, I thought it was a crock of shit, then I started seeing what he was talking about everywhere.

It's actually pure truth--there is not one thing incorrect in it. Take for example, this:

>It is because women’s reasoning powers are weaker that they show more sympathy for the unfortunate than men, and consequently take a kindlier interest in them. On the other hand, women are inferior to men in matters of justice, honesty, and conscientiousness. Again, because their reasoning faculty is weak, things clearly visible and real, and belonging to the present, exercise a power over them which is rarely counteracted by abstract thoughts, fixed maxims, or firm resolutions, in general, by regard for the past and future or by consideration for what is absent and remote. Accordingly they have the first and principal qualities of virtue, but they lack the secondary qualities which are often a necessary instrument in developing it. Women may be compared in this respect to an organism that has a liver but no gall-bladder.9 So that it will be found that the fundamental fault in the character of women is that they have no “sense of justice.” This arises from their deficiency in the power of reasoning already referred to, and reflection, but is also partly due to the fact that Nature has not destined them, as the weaker sex, to be dependent on strength but on cunning; this is why they are instinctively crafty, and have an ineradicable tendency to lie. For as lions are furnished with claws and teeth, elephants with tusks, boars with fangs, bulls with horns, and the cuttlefish with its dark, inky fluid, so Nature has provided woman for her protection and defence with the faculty of dissimulation, and all the power which Nature has given to man in the form of bodily strength and reason has been conferred on woman in this form. Hence, dissimulation is innate in woman and almost as characteristic of the very stupid as of the clever. Accordingly, it is as natural for women to dissemble at every opportunity as it is for those animals to turn to their weapons when they are attacked; and they feel in doing so that in a certain measure they are only making use of their rights. Therefore a woman who is perfectly truthful and does not dissemble is perhaps an impossibility. This is why they see through dissimulation in others so easily; therefore it is not advisable to attempt it with them. From the fundamental defect that has been stated, and all that it involves, spring falseness, faithlessness, treachery, ungratefulness, and so on. In a court of justice women are more often found guilty of perjury than men. It is indeed to be generally questioned whether they should be allowed to take an oath at all. From time to time there are repeated cases everywhere of ladies, who want for nothing, secretly pocketing and taking away things from shop counters.

Katie pretty much fits this description to a tee.

[Anonymous No.6008132]

>>6008125
That's gonna make an awesome term paper, OP. The Cultural Marxists in the teachers lounge are gonna be BTFO man!!!!!

[Anonymous No.6008147]

>>6008132
I actually pissed off a lesbian TA with my reference to Shaupenhauer's essay. She gave me a bad mark and I despised her for it--but I didn't care, I stuck to my guns.

[Anonymous No.6008157]

>>6008125
I've never seriously read Schopenhauer but literally everything I've come across by him is spot on.

Where should one start with him?

[Anonymous No.6008161]

Does Continental philosophy actually argue with logic, or do they simply make decrees of what they say is the truth, like religious prophets? I hate women too, but damn continentals, I can't even understand how people try to defend that shit as a discipline.

[Anonymous No.6008180]

>>6008161
Sometimes continentals are able to decree truths that can only be learned and affirmed through life experience. It makes truth deniers angry, but they can suck cock (cus that's what they do best).

[Anonymous No.6008188]

" Nowadays we can already hear women’s voices which—by holy Aristophanes!—are frightening. They utter threats with medical clarity about what woman wants from man, from start to finish. Is it not in the very worst taste for woman to prepare like this to become scientific? So far, enlightening has fortunately been a man’s business, a man’s talent—in the process we remained “among ourselves.” In dealing with everything which women write about concerning “woman,” we may finally retain a healthy mistrust whether woman really wants enlightenment about herself—or is capable of wanting it. . . . Unless a woman by doing this is seeking some new finery for herself—so I do think that dressing herself up belongs to the eternally feminine?—well, by doing this she does want to arouse fear of herself:—in that way perhaps she wants to dominate. But she does not want the truth. What does a woman have to do with truth? From the very beginning nothing is stranger, more unfavourable, or more hostile to women than truth—her great art is the lie, her highest concern appearance and beauty. We men should admit it—we honour and love precisely this art and this instinct in woman, we who have a hard time of it and are happy to get our relief by associating with beings under whose hands, looks, and tender foolishness our seriousness, our gravity and profundity, seem almost silly. Finally I put the question: Has a woman ever herself conceded that a woman’s head is profound, that a woman’s heart is just? And is it not true that, speaking generally, “woman” up to this point has been held in contempt mostly by woman herself—and not at all by us? "

[Anonymous No.6008192]

>>6008161
Usually, but I never understood that criticism with Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.6008200]

>>6008188
>And is it not true that, speaking generally, “woman” up to this point has been held in contempt mostly by woman herself—and not at all by us? "
Fucking truth.

[Anonymous No.6008209]

>>6008180
>Sometimes continentals are able to decree truths that can only be learned and affirmed through life experience
So Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a continental philosopher?

[Anonymous No.6008212]

>>6008147
>I despised her for it--but I didn't care

[Anonymous No.6008216]

>>6008192
I have never read Nietzsche, I will probably never will. I'm fairly convinced that they're just like talking heads for people who want to feel posh, it's not a serious discipline to discover truth.

[Anonymous No.6008245]

>>6008188
" To grasp incorrectly the basic problem of “man and woman,” to deny the most profound antagonism here and the necessity for an eternally hostile tension, perhaps in this matter to dream about equal rights, equal education, equal entitlements and duties—that’s a typical sign of a superficial mind. And a thinker who has shown that he’s shallow in this dangerous place—shallow in his instincts!—may in general be considered suspicious or, even worse, betrayed and exposed. Presumably he’ll be too “short” for all the basic questions of life and of life in the future, and he’ll be incapable of any profundity. By contrast, a man who does have profundity in his spirit and in his desires as well, together with that profundity of good will capable of severity and hardness and easily confused with them, can think about woman only in an oriental way: he has to grasp woman as a possession, as a property which he can lock up, as something predetermined for service and reaching her perfection in that service. In this matter he must take a stand on the immense reasoning of Asia, on the instinctual superiority of Asia: just as the Greeks did in earlier times, the best heirs and students of Asia, who, as is well known, from Homer to the time of Pericles, as they advanced in culture and in the extent of their power, also became step by step stricter with women, in short, more oriental. How necessary, how logical, even how humanly desirable this was: that’s something we’d do well to think about for ourselves! "

Asian women > crazy western feminist, even nietzsche agree on that.

[Anonymous No.6008248]

>>6008216
If you just looked at the quotes you might think it so, but exerts from his private letters aren't the same as published essays on baseless female claims

He was pretty logically consistent on denying the metaphysical, the impossibility of truth independent from man, and the ultimate conclusion of hedonism to nihilism

Really only the last bit was original, but I don't know how to get across that he isn't the most baseless continental and is fairly influential

[Anonymous No.6008255]

>>6008157
Most people just read his last work, a collection of essays called Parerga and Paralipomena, most of which is in English by Penguin under the name Essays and Aphorisms. If you want to seriously read all of him, start with Kant.

[Anonymous No.6008259]

>>6008248
>He was pretty logically consistent on denying the metaphysical, the impossibility of truth independent from man, and the ultimate conclusion of hedonism to nihilism

Only a dumb faggot waste of space would say something so ridiculously stupid--lemme guess, you like "hex magic"?

[Anonymous No.6008266]

>>6008248
But his opinion on women in continental philosophy is treated as just as valid as his logical arguments. So continental philosophy allows actually using logical arguments and theories, but that doesn't mean they're needed for people to go "wow deep man, mah nigga." Even if you bring up a logical argument, you could just get referred to something without logic as a valued counter to what you brought up.

Bunch of fucking hacks.

[Anonymous No.6008270]

>>6008259
I'm not going to fucking paraphrase philosophical concepts, I didn't assert dick aside that he discussed them in logical and defined manner

Lets use logic for instance, I have read Nietzsche and you haven't, read meaning I opened a book and looked at all the letters and comprehended them. You can not reject my comprehension thus conclusion that he was logical, or test it, because you haven't read Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.6008284]

>>6008125
> On the other hand, women are inferior to men in matters of justice, honesty, and conscientiousness
i dont know if youve heard of the big five personality trait test, but conscientiousness is one of the measured traits, and women generally place higher than males

i dont know what century that excerpt was written, but it seems out of touch with the majority of men

[Anonymous No.6008285]

>>6008270
Okay, which system of logic does he use?

[Anonymous No.6008288]

>>6008284
>women generally place higher than males
Ever read the part where he explains that lies and deception is woman's strongest weapon?

[kitty !kitty/EnNg No.6008295]

>>6008284
>conscientiousness is one of the measured traits, and women generally place higher than males

that's why most of accountants are women, lol

[Anonymous No.6008300]

>>6008288
no. how were all of these assertions even reached?

[Anonymous No.6008301]

>>6008288
I'm not sure you know what conscientiousness is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientiousness

By the way, are you sure we're talking about women? Because it sounds more like we're talking about Jews.

[Anonymous No.6008312]

Its terrible when you're trying it on with a new girl and you think she's making up a story just to see if you'll fall for it.

If you accept it, you're dead, if you call her out its awkward. Its a great way for a girl to ruin your chances.

[Anonymous No.6008315]

>>6008125
>Nature has not destined them, as the weaker sex, to be dependent on strength but on cunning
Of course darling, this child is yours !

[Anonymous No.6008316]

Take for example Katie (who loves classic books and stiching).

She was harassed to the point of closing down her book tuber enterprise, yet upon the suggestion of "anon" she made a wishlist on Amazon to allow the same harassers to buy her books.

Typical conniving behaviour of womankind.

[Anonymous No.6008317]

>>6008315

[Anonymous No.6008318]

>>6008284
Women also play more video game than men!!

It's crazy all the things women can do in a study or in a test!!!

[Anonymous No.6008322]

>>6008301
>By the way, are you sure we're talking about women? Because it sounds more like we're talking about Jews.
No, that's Weininger, the bisexual liar, not Schopenhauer, the autistic poodle lover. You can tell by the hair.

[Anonymous No.6008326]

>>6008318
>play angry birds for 5 minutes once in 2014
>is classed among piss-bottle connoisseur ninja gaiden players

[Anonymous No.6008329]

I can't believe you guys managed to scare Katie off. Fuck you guys, you were supposed to the mature board on 4chan.


Love,
/v/

[Anonymous No.6008333]

>>6008318
Yeah, tests really aren't a very good source compared to Schopenhauer's unparalleled logical arguments here.

[Anonymous No.6008342]

>>6008318
>an observation
yeah sounds good

>a top personality test, translated into many languages, taken across the world, capable of being completed through observation without consent, as well as self-testing
fucking women illuminati!

[Anonymous No.6008344]

>>6008333
Are you being sarcastic? I can't tell if you are

[Anonymous No.6008365]

>>6008125
>caring this much

[Anonymous No.6008376]

>>6008161
A lot of them use reason, but the Schopenhauer wrote a lot of essays outside of his philosophical body of work. He's actually fairly rigorous (within the obvious constraints of rigor given to using reason alone) in his philosophy...to the point of tedium some would argue.

But, yeah, a lot of the polemical stuff is just well written ranting. And there's nothing really wrong with that.

[Anonymous No.6008381]

>>6008285
Not the guy you're discussing with, but God you sound like a giant phaggot, and the ph is there to add to the ammount of phaggotry I'm trying to convey.

[Anonymous No.6008385]

>>6008376
There is something wrong with that when continental philosophy considers well written ranting as valid of of an argument as reason.

[Anonymous No.6008390]

>>6008125
>It is because women’s reasoning powers are weaker
Letrashcanmeighmeigh
This only sounds logical if you've spent too much time on 4chins

[Anonymous No.6008392]

>>6008385
>continental philosophy considers well written ranting as valid of of an argument as reason.

"Continental philosophy" does that? Probably not.

[Anonymous No.6008404]

>>6008385
How decadent of you to want logical argument at any price

[Anonymous No.6008429]

>>6008404

plebs did not receive training in rhetoric

[Anonymous No.6008433]

>>6008429
what in gods name do you think that has to do with anything

[Anonymous No.6008448]

>>6008433
Rhetoric is always important, and importance is always rhetorical.

[Anonymous No.6008450]

>>6008404
I don't have to have it, but without it you might as well be Glenn Beck.

See, like this: Nietzsche doesn't make an argument, and he's being ridiculous. Be Socrates time, the "pleb" already could vote, even those without property. He's also wrong that argumentative conversation was repudiated, since characters who are noble in both drama and epics are shown arguing regularly. Socrates was out to ask us if the things we took for granted really led to our better well being, Nietzsche right here says ever actually questing society makes you a buffoon, yet Nietzsche is questing his own society and thus has no right to insult Socrates.

One chooses logical argument because other methods have shown to be retarded in discovering actual truth. You can force people to accept bullshit as "facts", but by and large we've found that as unproductive because someone will always eventually come out an say authority is lying even if they have to go to prison for it, and shit will eventually catch up. The Scopes Trial.

How does Socrates express ressentiment? That's fucking retarded. Plato is one of the only philosophers I've read, mostly because he's on Bloom's canon, and Socrates never expresses ressentiment in any form, that's ridiculous buzzwording.

That you accept this Glenn Beck tier argument as valid, just because the prose is good, shows that your brain is bankrupt.

[Anonymous No.6008451]

>>6008216
Truly you are wiser than all those silly non-analytical philosophers, from whom there is nothing to learn.

That is, after all, what you're saying.

[Anonymous No.6008460]

>>6008450
>characters who are noble in both drama and epics are shown arguing regularly

lol wut. like who?

[Anonymous No.6008463]

>>6008451
According to Socrates definition of wisdom---which is realizing the limits of your knowledge and not getting infatuated with the idea of knowlege beyond what you actual have--yeah, I am much wiser. I might not know nearly as much, but because I don't think I know a ton of horseshit that isn't really knowledge, I'm wiser than they are.

[Anonymous No.6008466]

>>6008460
Like Agamemnon and Achilles in the beginning of the Iliad, you dumb fuck.

[Anonymous No.6008469]

>>6008466
that's not a logical argument, you retard. you have no idea what you're even arguing for or against.

[Anonymous No.6008479]

>>6008469
Oh, so arguing wasn't "repudiated in good company", just argument based on logic? Well Nietzsche might have said that then.

[Anonymous No.6008584]

>>6008450
Nietzsche wasn't having a go at Socrates himself. Nietzsche has thrown away the ladder but still pontificates and analyses from time to time. He wants to ask what happened here that power gave way to dialectic as a means of convincing?

Not it's not about getting at truth. When Nietzsche says something like logical argument is the recourse of the weak he is just being descriptive, it IS the recourse of the weak.

And he didn't say that Socrates was actually showing resentment, he only asked if that was an appropriate way to see the situation. It would require more analysis to answer.

Honestly I think he's spot on and I'm wondering how people continue to misread Nietzsche time and time again.

[Anonymous No.6008605]

>>6008584
>Nietzsche wasn't having a go at Socrates himself. Nietzsche has thrown away the ladder but still pontificates and analyses from time to time. He wants to ask what happened here that power gave way to dialectic as a means of convincing?
Not that guy, but Nietzsche was very confused about society. He thought the Delian dialogue was the normal moral outlook, when in fact it would be like calling Hitler's political philosophy the normal outlook of the 20th Century.

Persuasion was used since forever in politics, diplomacy tablets survive from ancient Egypt. It's just a more practical way to resolve things than trying to kill everyone who disagrees with you, or strong arm into agreeing with you, especially within your own community (don't shit where you eat)

[Anonymous No.6008610]

>>6008605
Seems he's just an ignorant git then.

[Anonymous No.6008613]

>>6008284

>I don 't know what century

of course you don't, you hipster faggot

[Anonymous No.6008618]

>>6008610
Well, no, he could read and write Greek and he taught philology. It's just that he was autistic and couldn't tell that Thucydides meant for readers to find the Melian dialogue shocking, whereas Nietzsche thinks it's representative of average outlook. Obviously it's not, since when the war first starts, the Spartan soldiers have low morale, they feel Sparta is the aggressor and therefore they're in the wrong. When Athens breaks the treaty and restarts the war later though, the Spartan soldiers have high morale because they feel like they are in the right, Thucydides mentions all this, so clearly ancient Greece did not share Athens' sentiments on justice being simply strength.

[Anonymous No.6008626]

>>6008161
Even analytic philosophers accept the existence of a priori knowledge. Shopey probably had a refined intuition which allowed him to grasp the properties of the Universal "Woman" a priori.

[Anonymous No.6008633]

>>6008626
A priori knowledge is that which is obtained through pure reason rather than experience, not "refined intuition".

[Anonymous No.6008637]

>>6008633
No a priori knowledge is knowledge gained prior to or independent of experience.
Yes pure reason is a priori, but the reverse not necessarily.

[Anonymous No.6008642]

>>6008637
A priori has never been used to refer to refined intuition, as far as I know, whatever else it is used for. Plato thought it would come from past memories from prior incarnations, but that doesn't make Schop's knowledge anymore viable.

[Anonymous No.6008652]

>>6008642
Well any philosopher who has accepted the existence of a priori truths has accepted the existence of some things known intuitively, that is without inference or reason. Intuitive a priori knowledge is the foundation of reason.

[Anonymous No.6008656]

>>6008652
You mean instinct?

[Anonymous No.6008675]

>>6008656
Why do you consider instinct any different to intuition in this respect?

[Anonymous No.6008684]

>>6008675
Yes. If it were instinct, then it wouldn't be peculiar to Schopenhauer.

[Anonymous No.6008690]

When did this place turn into /r9k/?

[Anonymous No.6008691]

>>6008684
hence why schopey is so special.

[Anonymous No.6008701]

>>6008690
sorry comrade tumblr, were you triggered?

Please fill out a form, your feedback is not very important to us.

[Anonymous No.6008703]

>>6008701
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.6008705]

>>6008691
No, hence why it's not instinct.

[Anonymous No.6008709]

>>6008705
hence why I did not say instinct.

[Anonymous No.6008725]

>>6008701
Please refrain from responding to shitposting, friend.

[Anonymous No.6008726]

It truly is wonderful when you read something that confirms your current preconceptions in a manner that seems intellectually acceptable, isn't it? Too bad it's a bunch of dumb shit from a dumb ass.

[Anonymous No.6008742]

>>6008726
Can you justify that or is that just based on your current preconceptions?

[Anonymous No.6008752]

>>6008742
I admit that I'm biased towards using logic or evidence or anything at all in the process of finding answers, something OP and whatever pseudo-thinker he quoted seems to have forgotten.

[Anonymous No.6008758]

>>6008752
Well what is your evidence or logic for disagreeing with the OP?

[Anonymous No.6008763]

>>6008758
Her engrossed clit.

[Anonymous No.6008766]

Can someone tell me what painting/artwork is featured in that book's backcover?

[Anonymous No.6008768]

>>6008758
The logic and evidence leading to my dismissal of OP is the lack of evidence and logic it presents.

[Anonymous No.6008775]

>>6008768
It was not a justification, it was a description.

You can logically deduce all these properties of women, it is left as an exercise for you.

[Anonymous No.6008782]

>>6008775
So it's sophism?

[Anonymous No.6008784]

Katie is such a dirty little slut.

[Anonymous No.6008787]

>>6008784
the absolute filthiest.

[Anonymous No.6008799]

>>6008787
what a depraved whore

[Anonymous No.6008840]

>>6008766
Help c/lit/s, I know you all appreciate visual art

[Anonymous No.6008854]

>>6008766
doesn't look very good...

[Anonymous No.6008860]

>>6008726
it's equally wonderful how you can summarily dismiss one of history's greatest thinkers as a 'dumb ass' just because he holds a different opinion to you. you must think really, really highly of your own intellect.

[Anonymous No.6008868]

>>6008860
yeah a misogynist nerd is really smart
that's why he died like a virgin and you will most likely too

[Anonymous No.6008871]

>>6008860
>Schopenhauer
>one of history's greatest thinkers
Excuse me, sir, are you trying to ruse me?

[Anonymous No.6008876]

>>6008868
>>6008259
>>6008726
Persistent baitmaster or buttblasted Tumblrgurl?

[Anonymous No.6008882]

>>6008125
>It is because women’s reasoning powers are weaker that they show more sympathy for the unfortunate than men, and consequently take a kindlier interest in them.

If your manly reasoning powers are so strong, you should be able to lay out a logical argument which shows why showing more sympathy for the unfortunate follows from having weak reasoning powers. Please do.

[Anonymous No.6008884]

>>6008868
>having sex is the only thing that matters

[Anonymous No.6008949]

>>6008884
>>having sex is the only thing that matters
let the plebs talk

[Anonymous No.6008954]

>>6008871
he is a man still venerated for his thinking powers more than a century after he died. he was a special, once-in-a-lifetime intellect. if he seems like a 'dumb ass' to you then that says more about you than it does about him.

[Anonymous No.6008957]

>>6008840
>>6008766
Please

[Anonymous No.6008966]

>>6008954
if he was so smart why didn't he have a wife
lmao rekt

[Anonymous No.6008969]

>>6008868
>schopenhauer
>virgin
tell that to his baby mama

[Anonymous No.6008976]

>>6008954
>appeal to popularity

[Anonymous No.6008979]

>>6008860
Where do you people get the idea that Schopenhauer is one of the great minds of all time? He's a footnote to Hegel, and he only matters because of Nietzsche (who is also, for some unfathomable reason, worshipped here). Comparing him to Euclid, Plato, Einstein, Kant, Descartes or Archimedes is absurd.

[Anonymous No.6008982]

On the one hand it offends my aesthetic sensibilities for /lit/ to be a misogynist gathering place. On the other hand I myself am a proud misogynist.

:\

[Anonymous No.6009056]

>>6008618
It's amazing how low a level of scholarship Nietzsche had (he didn't even read Spinoza himself when he shitposted about him) and yet still managed to strike onto some pretty profound philosophical thoughts.

Though perhaps Heidegger and Deleuze should be more to thank than Nietzsche himself.

[Anonymous No.6009183]

>>6008979
he's not one of the top 10 most important thinkers ever therefore he is a dumb ass. gotcha.

[Anonymous No.6009309]

>>6008979
>Where do you people get the idea that Schopenhauer is one of the great minds of all time?
Where do we get any of our batshit ideas? Some anonymous guy on the internet.

[Anonymous No.6009385]

>>6008775
>You can logically deduce all these properties of women
You are not in Ancient Greece. Now we use science.

[Anonymous No.6009432]

>>6008161
>Does Continental philosophy actually argue with logic?
Interesting you ask this. Schopenhauer argued that logic has no place in philosophy at all. And that's why he's shit. And that's maybe why he was so rekted by Nietzsche that all people who listen to him nowadays are edgy teenagers with no deep interest in philosophy at all. Basically, Schoppy is a meme-philosopher.
But there are good continental philosophers with nice, completely logical projects, such as Descartes, Espinoza, Hegel, etc.
That's why this quote is shit, and only quoted by shitty people. Even if by miracle someone is talking about him in Academia, they will try their best to ignore the mysoginist part of it, or at least try to psychologize it.

[Anonymous No.6009473]

>>6008868
Why can't you just accept that women are by a large majority, whiny, self-loathing, entitled pieces of shit? Has SJWism totally rotted your brain? Or are you just some m'lady fag? Go kill yourself if you're so offended by everything.

[Anonymous No.6009482]

>>6009473
People in general are mostly whiny, self-loathing, entitled pieces of shit. I'm not sure why you feel the need to restrict it to women.

[Anonymous No.6009491]

>>6009473
Because that's retarded.

[Anonymous No.6009495]

>>6009432
>such as Descartes, Espinoza, Hegel
Is Espinoza Spinoza, or are they two different people? I've never heard of Espinoza before. Also, what do you think of Deleuze? Don't bother answering the last question if all you've read is Anti-Oedipus and/or A Thousand Plateaus without the context of his solo stuff first.

[Anonymous No.6009500]

What was the outcome of this Katie business?

I was in the first two threads but after that I lost interest. Anything happen after she deleted her channel and made a wish list?

[Anonymous No.6009507]

>>6009500

An entire day of '/lit/ is dead' threads

[Anonymous No.6009510]

>>6009473
>omen are by a large majority, whiny, self-loathing, entitled pieces of shit?

So are men.

[Anonymous No.6009592]

>>6009500
>Anything happen after she deleted her channel and made a wish list?

betas bought everything on her wish list for her

[Anonymous No.6009622]

>>6009500
>>6009507
>>6009510
>>6009592
She was a dreadfully easy target, and /lit/ noticed that right away. I don't even understand why there was such a self-congratulatory air about this affair after the fact; it'd be like gloating for hours that you and some friends put together a 4-piece jigsaw puzzle.

Congrats, guys. How about going after a target that won't crumble on the first brush, next time?

[Anonymous No.6009715]

>>6009510
>>6009482
That's why the most dangerous jobs are done by females, right?

That's's why women created most of the things we use in every day life, that's why the are the many, MANY more women on STEM fields, right?


Get it trough you thick skull, men and women AREN'T equal, we don't think, feel, "love", reason in the same way (I'll argue the most women can't use logic doe to solipsism)


Women trying to compete with men on men's field is why most western women (and by default men) are so fucking unhappy nowadays, they THINK that being successful and be "one of the boys" will get her happiness, they waste their youth trying to chase a mirage, and complain when men don't find a 30+(old as fuck) successful women attractive, and we chase instead a youth feminine 20-25 y.o (the GOAT ages for women)


But alas, men are doomed to repeat the same mistakes with women time and time again, because white knights-m is literally in our male genes, we are pushed by our genes to look for that goddess that Venus, sadly she is no more.

[Anonymous No.6010333]

>>6008957
Bump

[Anonymous No.6010371]

>this thread

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVXdxaaRiAU

[Anonymous No.6010381]

>>6008125

[Anonymous No.6010396]

"Woman is the truth"

-Nietzsche

People who think Nietzsche was just a biological exist like Schopenhauer, need to read more about his irony and his relationship with Lou Salome.

Even better, read Salome's book on Nietzsche .

[Anonymous No.6010549]

>>6008954
Literally no one would give a shit about him if Nietzsche didn't bother to say in his defense, "He was absolutely full of shit, but at least he tried, he's a noble man for trying".

[Anonymous No.6010712]

not reading a word of this thread because I don't want to be reminded of the awful people I share a board with

[Anonymous No.6011165]

>>6009715

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.6012268]

>>6008979
He deeply impressed Wagner, the greatest artist of all time. That's good enough for me.

[Anonymous No.6012277]

>>6009622
>Target
you write like a sociopath. 'I make tougher people cry than you!'

[Anonymous No.6012281]

>>6010712
yep. threads like this make me lose hope for the generation

[Anonymous No.6012311]

>/lit/ for the biggest fedora tipping board of 4chen

[Anonymous No.6012313]

Imagine a life where you have never been great at anything, never felt the urge to be great at anything, never felt that magnetic admiration to someone who was great at something, wanted to imitate and ultimately defeat him. Just nothing. Literally all you do in life is exist. Occupy space. pass the time. You're a chick.

You're bored, as usual, tweeting about your fucking hair and not even feeling any kind of happiness from it, just soothing your constant need to be bitter and cunty and petty toward other women. Every single thing you've done in the past year was mundane, shallow, and boring. You spent the last six hours reading kinda-interesting Reddit stories about people who made interesting Halloween hats for their kids or some stupid bullshit that you think is interesting and you may say is interesting but you're not really sure if it's really interesting. You're just fucking sitting there, gestating, fermenting, with a moist hole between your legs that guarantees you'll at least never have to get up and move around and work to support yourself.

And then you see men, over in some corner, having fun. You've never seen this before. What are they even doing? Instead of their consciousnesses merely sitting in their thick skull and revolving around itself, they are imbuing their conscious energy and intentionality into external objects, crafts, goals, projects. All the bitterness and cuntiness you feel nonstop seems to be absent, as they congratulate each other for being victorious, and happily learn from someone who defeated them. These creatures are truly content to be alive. They have found purpose in a purposeless universe.

And your gaze turns back on itself, on your self, and you realise you've never had that. You can never have it. You're just a stupid cunt.

So you get up, you walk over there, and you fucking ruin everything. Just ruin the whole fucking thing. The five seconds of attention you get will be worth destroying it. Because you're a woman.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.6012322]

>>6012313

[Anonymous No.6012335]

>>6012313
mom's spaghetti

[Anonymous No.6012342]

>>6012313
>cuck fantasies

[Anonymous No.6012371]

>>6012313

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.6012418]

>>6012313
Is this that murder suicide creeps blog/manifesto again?

>>6012322
Can you fucking not

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.6012478]

>>6012418
Stop pretending to be me you dumbass. Everyone who isn't a complete newfag knows that I swore up and down that I would never use a tripcode. You are fooling no-one.

[Anonymous No.6012780]

>>6012478
Thats what you get for trying to have an identity on an anon board, sucked.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !nmvnQ0ZcBQ No.6012786]

>>6012478
>>6012418

Check the archive, my tripcode is the one that comes up. Ignore these two.

[Anonymous No.6012939]

>>6010333
>>6008957
>>6008840
>>6008766

BUMPING

[Anonymous No.6012974]

>>6012418
>>6012478
>>6012786
This butterfly effect is pretty convenient, actually. When you don't know which person is who the symbol loses all meaning and discussion becomes anonymous again.

[Anonymous No.6013681]

>>6008147
The best way to take advantage of feminist stupidity is to pretend to be a feminist for the higher grade, showcasing their bias.

[Anonymous No.6013769]

>>6008584
Sorry for the dumb question, but how are logical arguments the recourse of the weak? Are you supposed to be illogical or something?

[Anonymous No.6013798]

>>6008125
You should check Sex&Character

[Anonymous No.6013835]

>>6008125
To be honest OP, I'm a hardcore reader and I'm tired of reading the exact same thing from men in every single book I read; that we're supposed to be weaker, lying, deceptive blah blah blah and whether it's Schopenhauer or little brony Timmy who loves to wear fedoras, it's the same pathetic fragile complaint from somebody who has some personal issues they need to work with. And I've even read Nick Land.
The pathologies of women are never examined critically and it's always some superficial complaint from somebody who doesn't want to analyze why shit's the way it is, they just want to back up their own prejudices.

[Anonymous No.6013836]

>>6012939
>stupid fag who never saw a katie vid

I came to her voice like 10 times, a joy you'll never know.

[Anonymous No.6013860]

>>6013835
>that we're supposed to be weaker, lying, deceptive
That's how women are. It could be because of many reasons, just like being characteristics of being a women by itself (we're not a tabula rasa) or because of the influence of the media that constructs the stereotype which women follow. Leaving the cause aside, the views of women according Shopy is correct.

[Anonymous No.6013871]

>>6013860
That's how Shopes views on women are scientific, they are bases on observing objective repeating patterns of women, not simply personal anecdotes.

[Anonymous No.6013884]

>>6013835

if you are woman you are already trying to be more masculine than feminine by your post

it's irony at it's finest

[Anonymous No.6013900]

>>6013836
>I came to her voice like 10 times, a joy you'll never know.
could you re upload the videos please ?

[Anonymous No.6014382]

>>6008284
This

Studies have shown that "social justice" type concerns are actually closer linked to logic than emotion.
Men have historically balked at things that would make the world more "just", i.e. voting rights; and you can bet that's linked to their emotions and not their logic.
I can also bet that the men here who are already angrily drafting a response are using their emotions first and foremost.

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2014/12/26/concern-for-equality-linked-to-logic-not-emotion/

http://www.jneurosci.org/content/34/12/4161

[Anonymous No.6014399]

First off, go ahead and ask yourself; OP, if that book might be a little biased.
Secondly,
In order to be logical over emotional, men must act OVER their emotions and contrary to them. The modern man definitely doesn't do this, rather they label their emotions as "logic." It's actually pretty simple.

[Anonymous No.6014405]

>>6013900
lol nobody bothered.

I thought about downloading them, but it's burned into my memory--there was no need.

The only people who know of the videos were the heros in the thread, and Katie herself.

That's the way it was meant to be.

[Anonymous No.6014434]

>>6014382
>All the genres of philosophy, science, high art, athletics and politics were invented by men. ... The very language and logic modern woman uses to assail patriarchal culture were the invention of men.

>Modern liberalism suffers unresolved contradictions. It exalts individualism and freedom and, on its radical wing, condemns social orders as oppressive. On the other hand, it expects governments to provide materially for all, a feat manageable only by an expansion of authority and a swollen bureaucracy. In other words, liberalism defines government as tyrant father but demands it behave as nurturant mother. Feminism has inherited these contradictions.

Men qua men do not tend to behave irrationally. People qua people (i.e., men) do. When men have historically balked at "logical" ideas about progressive equality (if we do allow this kind of 300-year-old, adolescent teleology of liberal progress), it has been because people are imperfect, and rarely governed primarily by reason. Nevertheless men invented, named, and elaborated literally every single concept of liberalism, progress, equality, equity, everything, throughout history. Imperfect progress, but progress.

Women on the other hand are entirely irrational, never really escaping childhood. They're completely dominated by their emotions and instincts. Men make mistakes because men are imperfect. Women can't make mistakes, because they never pick up the reins of society to do so in the first place. Children don't make mistakes. They play.

[Anonymous No.6014474]

>>6014434
How can you claim to be of a higher logic than women and write that post? I don't have the energy to berate you for it, but the last paragraph follows no logical order and is not backed up by anything. Nothing except that men have been credited (by themselves) with most inventions and progress. A broader historical understanding grants me the insight that these achievements would not be possible without the women behind these men, contributing to the fields of culinary arts, agriculture, health sciences, nurturing, childcare; and other making social and interpersonal developments. These fields were, of course, devalued by men as "women's work".

I highly recommend to you the book "Witches, Midwives and Nurses" which chronicles a specific historical instance where men appropriated female discovered healthcare knowledge and literally burned the women who were better than them at it.

And this point's been made a ton; but yes men have also historically excluded women from educational institutions. And raped and legally beat them for centuries. Almost like physical strength affected historical status and power structures.

[Anonymous No.6014489]

>>6014434
Fun fact comin' atcha: An ancient calender, thought to be "man's first calender" has recently been credited to an unknown woman. The system of marking indicates the inventor was trying to track a cycle.
Tiny example of one of many innovations that are credited to the "neutral" creator, which to a man is always a man.

I also recommend "Who Cooked the Last Supper?"
To me the title itself is a thinking point. If this mystery person had been credited in the bible, she would have become an idol in a work where female idols are in shortage.

[Anonymous No.6014490]

>>6014474
>A broader historical understanding grants me the insight that these achievements would not be possible without the women behind these men, contributing to the fields of culinary arts, agriculture, health sciences, nurturing, childcare; and other making social and interpersonal developments.

[Anonymous No.6014532]

>>6014474
That sounds like a resentment provoker. Execution was a very common form of economic control in the past, as medieval societies were riddled with corruption as the economy was sometimes strictly controlled, so punishments got very extreme. But doing away with alternative medicine quacks was important for scientific progress in this case so whatevs.

For every woman killed to make way for a guild many more men were killed, but women are generally privileged with lighter punishments, while being perceived to suffer more for the same thing.

[Anonymous No.6014549]

if i was a woman i would not care much for men TBH
average guy is a shit head, not really a surprise average woman is as well.

we just get mad at women because we want them to be better than we are (in terms of tenderness etc)

men are usually the great creators and inventors and minds, but those men are very few its not really men v women, its really a few autistic geniuses v the rest of human kind.

[Anonymous No.6014563]

>>6014532
Well, a lot of it actually is the labeling of midwives etc. as "alternative medicine quacks" as well as child-rearing as dirty, pointless work; and the list goes on. A lot of things women had been practicing in the home for centuries have been "rediscovered" by men.
Why have men historically felt the need to devalue home-based work so much? As well as childbirth, menstruation and other things that should be perceived as neutral or even good. There's definitely some contempt there, many manifesting in the desire to control women and thereby conquer them. I'm not saying it's unnatural; and it def wasn't in biblical times, but it's not moral and it doesn't "prove" shit about men's intellect.
Also, you might enjoy the Second Sex. It's heavy but provides a lot of in depth concepts for your questions.

[Anonymous No.6014572]

>>6014549
All men are on the gradient of genius and fuckloads manage to be productive and shoulder the burdens that keep society running. Just because not every guy can be Tesla doesn't mean some random staff sergeant or volunteer fireman or even strong father and provider isn't admirable and doesn't have his glimmers of greatness.

Women are just nothing. Actually think about how much of humanity is fucking vestigial aside from its reproductive function. They don't even raise kids or tend the home anymore. Women existing is like god saying "for every really cool pet you have, you have to have a big fat spoiled piece of shit one that doesn't do anything"

[Anonymous No.6014595]

>>6014572
>productivity determines a human's value
>there can be no gain in fields other than the workforce
>contribute to capitalism or you are NOTHING

easy there pal

tbh I think you're just really jealous you weren't granted the gift to bring forth and sustain human life

[Anonymous No.6014641]

>>6014563
I have no questions, I'm just correcting some of your misconceptions.

If you'd like to see some real corrupt violence I suggest reading the history of tailor's guilds in France, and how many were executed for simply reselling clothes.

But you'll never hear a hullaballo about that on account of not having a feminist narrative.

[Anonymous No.6014661]

>>6014641
You seem to have a lot of misunderstanding regarding in particular the field of midwifery as "alternative medicine quacks". It's a highly gendered field with unevenly displaced knowledge, unlike your tailor guilds; which should have been obvious to you.
I don't doubt your lack of knowledge ends there, and I recommend you educate yourself.

[Anonymous No.6014670]

>>6014661
>gendered

Please stop clogging my field with your boring horseshit you shallow ideologue whore.

[Anonymous No.6014678]

>>6014670
>childbirth
>not inherently historically gendered

ooooooohhhh ok smug jack nicholson, have fun with your denial and sex-shaming insults

[Anonymous No.6014682]

haha I like how this thread proves how correct Shopey's assertion about women are even more than before the thread started.

[Anonymous No.6014697]

>>6008125
Who is she?

[kitty !kitty/EnNg No.6014755]

>>6014532

that's silly. leaving aside these retarded ideas about 'guilds' and their 'economic control' over witches, there were times when the punishment for women, at least for some crimes, was more harsh, burning in europe and england was a common method of punishment specifically for women, not only witches (who were more common than male warlocks), generally for those, whose actions might be considered petty treason i.e. crimes against their husbands or of a maid against her lady

>Long Lankin was hung on a gibbet so high
>And the false nurse was burnt in a fire close by

or from the witch hammer

>In days of old such criminals suffered a double penalty and were often thrown to wild beast to be devoured by them. Nowadays they are burnt at the stake, and probably this is because the majority of them are women.

it might be to keep decency i.e. not to show a naked female body to the public... but the church used burning at a stake vs heretics quite a few if not most of whom were men so in the case of the church it might be because they didn't want to shed blood, i dunno, wiki may have something about it

some societies (for instance some ancient chinese iinm) had it was vice versa, so it's not a general rule too

btw, ariosto in his 'orlando furioso' goes for a long speech how it's not right to punish women for the sex before marriage harsher than men, he was like the original social justice warrior, except a real one unlike the modern fakes

[Anonymous No.6014777]

>>6014755
Uh, I think you're confusing the auto de fe with punishment for witchcraft, especially in England where that was not a feature. England hung its witches, and hung more males, and, after demonology came out as law, women and children were finally allowed to be considered reliable witnesses in court by law because of the fear of witches. Your description sounds like you learnt it from YA.

[Anonymous No.6014790]

>>6014755
That the reaction to being told men are generally punished worse, and no one cares, is racking one's brain for feminist resentment porn illustrates my point perfectly.

[kitty !kitty/EnNg No.6014807]

>>6014777

i quoted you malleus maleficarum and you claim that i learned it from ya, lol

also i bet you cannot prove that england hung more males for witchcraft, that's a ridiculous claim

also england burned females for the aforementioned petty treason (i gave a quote from an english ballad btw, lankin killed a woman and her child because her husband didn't pay him for the work and the nurse helped him) and even for the stuff like counterfeiting etc, you can find, for instance, the records of the old bailey on the internet

[Anonymous No.6014814]

>>6014405
true /lit/ justice right here
minding one's own business

[Anonymous No.6014826]

>>6014807
>also i bet you cannot prove that england hung more males for witchcraft, that's a ridiculous claim
You know the English kept records especially in the period where they were attempting catholic suppression of heretics alongside witches? It's almost like the guy who wrote demonology was the king of England and wanted to keep track of that shit and put a new sherif system into place which lasted hundreds of years with ever more civil servants and fences. MM is fanfic for the snake oil salesman set of the middle ages even recognised as such by its contemporaries, apologies I doubted your YA source against state kept records.

[Anonymous No.6014833]

Schopenhauer would have been relevant up until the mid 20th century, however his oriental attitude towards women is both crude and ahistorical.

Women have always been the "niggers" of history as household slaves.

And yet they won a place in society not only because of the many labor and industrial innovations but also because they "dialectically" reversed the role of man/woman.

But how did they win? One only has to go back not to the enlightenment and the "rights of man" but to the opening up of labor to other groups. The victory over political powers and reproductive rights means a world historical change in the history of human civilization.


To say that this is merely a "resentful" strike against male dominated society is inaccurate, since women played by mens rules to get here.

Capitalism itself de-masculated man by splitting his role as an economic unit and as the head of social unit of the family. The family as the traditional economic/social monad opened to new forms of female labor to account for the new needs of capital.

Thusly you shouldn't blame women, but only the flow of history itself.

Instead of trying to say "things were better back in the old times", try to understand why things changed and try to account for this inevitable changes, not by resenting against.

[Anonymous No.6014840]

>>6014833
"

[Anonymous No.6016107]

>>6008979
>Comparing him to Euclid, Plato, Einstein, Kant, Descartes or Archimedes is absurd.

>no black womyn

#triggered

[Anonymous No.6016150]

>>6014833
I don't know why I'm saying fuck since I already understood all of this, but still, fuck.

[Anonymous No.6016155]

>>6008188
Pretty sure that U stands for Ultra.

[Anonymous No.6016324]

butterfly please repost the pic of yourself in panties stretching

[Anonymous No.6016362]

>>6008188
>They utter threats with medical clarity about what woman wants from man, from start to finish.

Said a weenie who was afraid of bitches.

[Anonymous No.6016366]

>>6016155
heh, his cock got bigger. still nothing to brag about though.

[Anonymous No.6017638]

>>6014833
>Schopenhauer would have been relevant up until the mid 20th century, however his oriental attitude towards women is both crude and ahistorical.

Schopenhauers view of women is essentially timeless (unless you're arguing that women has changed since then, something that is absolute nonsense since evolution is an extremely slow process [outside of very specific circumstances such as 95% of the species getting wiped out by some disease etc]). Women experience close to zero evolutionary pressure, they are born with a womb and that is a free ticket to continued existence. Men/sperm on the other hand is cheap and plentiful, and has therefor been played out against eachother and the enviroment through the ages. Competition produces superior individuals.

>Women have always been the "niggers" of history as household slaves.

Yes, taking care of the home and offspring is truly "niggerish", dying in a coal mine, trying to bring food to the table - is not. Classic "male privilege"

>And yet they won a place in society

Are you saying that the housewife had no place in human society? Laughable

>but also because they "dialectically" reversed the role of man/woman.

Doubled workforce during the industrial age was a very lucrative idea, this (and the effects of it) is what really paved the way for the "free" woman. Any sort of change in academia for example, is merely a product of this. As a driving force it (female intelligentsia/activism etc) was a small factor.

>Thusly you shouldn't blame women, but only the flow of history itself.

Did anyone here actually "blame" (whatever that implies) women?

>Instead of trying to say "things were better back in the old times"

They were not, also, again - has anybody actually said that? Tumblr-tier bias and strawmen in da house.

> try to understand why things changed and try to account for this inevitable changes, not by resenting against.

"pls listen to me you don't understand, i am right, stop struggling"

Men and women have different evolutionary/biological roles and the pressure that has formed these creatures are vastly different in nature. Though, the average human is still a hairless ape; the average man and the average woman are equally plebeian. Male geniuses are extremely rare, female geniuses even more so, because a female can be perfectly fit and have ubermensch intelligence - it doesn't matter - Her reproduction system functions the same and has the same limits, regardless of where she is and what she is.

I believe that overall, the "free woman" is ultimately superior to the "housewife". The problem as i see it is that uncontrolled female sexuality might hit us in the back. A recent study showed that humanity is getting dumber because the intelligent women are having less or no children, instead focusing on their careers because this is what society tells them to do (wanting to be a housewife is a shameful thing in the western sphere these days).

[Anonymous No.6017647]

>>6017638
>Yes, taking care of the home and offspring is truly "niggerish", dying in a coal mine, trying to bring food to the table - is not. Classic "male privilege"

kek

throughout history men have been in the mines

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.6017679]

>>6016324
This pic doesn't exist, I have never posted pictures of myself here.

[Anonymous No.6017713]

>>6017647
That was my point and i believe it's also what i wrote.

[Anonymous No.6017722]

>>6017713
well coal hasn't always been mined

[Anonymous No.6017771]

>>6017722
Am i getting rused? Coal mines are nice compared to early agriculture, dying to a cornered animal while hunting or getting your skull bashed in because some guy disliked your face.

[Anonymous No.6017777]

>>6017771
>Coal mines are nice compared to early agriculture, dying to a cornered animal while hunting or getting your skull bashed in because some guy disliked your face.
Hahahahahahahahahahaha no.

[Anonymous No.6017855]

>>6008212
kek