/lit/ - Literature

File: 13 KB, 360x240, judith_butler31-photo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Fri Jul 15 12:26:31 2016 No.8281671 [Reply] [Original]

Why do so many women hate philosophy? I feel like whenever I'm talking to female peers (I'm 25) and philosophy gets brought up, they start going on the most fascinatingly bizarre rants about how it "has no value because the style is generally too dense" or how it's a "boys club". This has happened several times just recently. Of course, both of these claims are easily shut down, but I don't want to be a dick. Has anyone else encountered this? How do you get women (or people in general) interested in philosophy when they seem to have an aversion to it, despite very minimal exposure?

Anonymous Fri Jul 15 12:29:20 2016 No.8281684

>>8281671

women are so smart that they feed men whatever men need to hear so that men continue to support women.
women cover their histrionism through their fantasy of compassionate women who need no men. Men do not need to cover their quest for pleasures, because they are rubbish for pleasures. Instead, men fantasize about some hierarchy or structure or system or doctrine, by trying to compensate for their failure to have easy life like women. Men call this non-hedonism and they think that they are smarter than women because men would be less turned towards body hedonism than intellectual hedonism and other retardation such as taking seriously their mental proliferation through the creation of systems, doctrines.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 15 12:30:47 2016 No.8281692 Most philosophy isnt pragmatic; it's just bullshitting around metaphysical problems that arent real Women are quite pragmatic

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 15 12:33:22 2016 No.8281697 >>8281692 This, read Rorty.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 15 12:36:41 2016 No.8281707 >>8281692 >>8281697 illiterates lare truly subhuman

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 15 13:27:47 2016 No.8281831 >>8281671 Judith butler would btfo.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 15 13:35:37 2016 No.8281853 File: 21 KB, 474x528, tips Christian morality.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8281692 >>8281697 >Empiricists/Positivists Metaphysics is the Queen of all science, and you will kneel before your Queen.

Anonymous Fri Jul 15 13:37:20 2016 No.8281856

Women suck shit at abstract thinking, have no interest in perennial principles or the "underlying nature" of things, are instinctive materialists and hedonists and take everything for granted, and their intuitive stance on ethics is "since I'm already the centre of the universe, why worry about the ephemeral details?"

Women don't do philosophy because might as well be called penising. It's what things with penises do: understand themselves, and the world they live in. Women are plants that move around sometimes.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 15 13:38:06 2016 No.8281857 >>8281831 haha I know. The girl I was talking to last night said philosophers are all egotistical white men. I recommended that she might like Judith Butler and she said "Is she a philosopher? I would probably hate her."

Anonymous Fri Jul 15 14:53:13 2016 No.8282083

Most philosophers are trying tell everyone how to live their life or how the world truly works etc to dominate other men in some abstract sense. This becomes very apparent when you read discourse between philosophers or critique of other philosopher's work which is like calling each other fags on 4chan but just a little more eloquent. It's just an elaborate version of the drive to get laid by being the head of the clan, the alpha, whatever you want to call it. Basically it's the intellectual version of punshing other guy's faces in so the ladies know you're good genes. I hope that explains why women rarely care.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 15 15:04:48 2016 No.8282126 >>8282083 Dumbest post I've read on here in a while.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 15 15:12:44 2016 No.8282142 >>8281853 Nietzsche destroyed all metaphysics over 100 years ago. Back in your box.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 15 15:16:27 2016 No.8282153 >>8282142 There are no facts, nigga.

Anonymous Fri Jul 15 15:18:24 2016 No.8282163

in my experience: I haven't really noticed that. maybe just that women tend to be more interested in the kind of ethics/social philosophy that deals with class, gender, etc, rather than more abstract ontology etc

that said, half the philosophy students I know are women. one of them is sort of, well, I'm pretty sure she actually wanted women's studies but just ended up in philosophy instead - she sort of seems to hate reading anyone not from the 1950s-> or so.

heck, even my mother studied theoretical philosophy before becoming a special education teacher, and even when she became a teacher, she read and tried to implement theories or ideas by people like Paulo Freire (closely tied to marxist class analysis)

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 15 15:39:06 2016 No.8282216 >>8282163 Cool, I'm relieved by the possibility that my personal experience recently has been some weird anomaly.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 15 15:46:24 2016 No.8282242 I had a female teacher in college that finished her degree in philosphy with 19 out of 20.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 15 16:08:29 2016 No.8282284 >>8281671 >Butler Any recommended reading order on her actually? My (previously) sister is nonconforming or whatever is the right word and I thought it couldn't hurt to look into a sophisticated side of it than what the internet presents.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 15 16:13:42 2016 No.8282288 >>8282284 if you can actually be bothered then 'gender trouble' is the main one otherwise see if theres a shortish collection of essays her style can be horrible and needlessly obfuscatory as a warning

Anonymous Fri Jul 15 16:16:13 2016 No.8282294

>>8282284

OP, I've only read Gender Trouble (it was great). I'd recommend preparing a bit for Butler because she assumes quite a bit of prior knowledge. The Second Sex by Beauvoir isn't a bad starting point for feminist theory (although it's very long). The History of Sexuality by Foucault is awesome and short, and Butler was influenced quite a bit by him, so maybe at least read that first?

Good luck! And have fun. I started reading feminist/queer theory very recently just because I felt like I should educate myself a bit on the topic. I didn't expect to enjoy it as much as I do, since I'm a cis straight male or whatever (such signifiers seem devoid of meaning after reading Butler, lol).

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 15 16:17:35 2016 No.8282297 >>8282284 >>8282294 yeah you should read some foucault before her if you havent, she loves to namedrop him or discuss an idea as foucauldian t. this guy >>8282288

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 15 16:17:39 2016 No.8282298 >>8281671 Women are stupid.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jul 15 16:21:53 2016 No.8282307 >>8282288 >>8282294 >>8282297 Thanks anons, will give The History of Sexuality a go at least, 800 pages on Beauvoir is a bit intimidating. Plus it may be a way to get not!her into non-fiction and philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 03:58:17 2016 No.8283957 bump

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 04:15:42 2016 No.8284009 File: 24 KB, 443x300, mandy-patinkin-princess-bride.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8281692 >women are quite pragmatic

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 04:30:15 2016 No.8284037 >>8282242 >I had a female teacher in college that finished her degree in philosphy with 19 out of 20. what does this even mean

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 04:39:02 2016 No.8284051 File: 63 KB, 612x1080, phil-by-discipline.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I'll just leave this here

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 04:50:16 2016 No.8284072 >>8281692 >aren't real becuz i sed so

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 04:55:23 2016 No.8284088 >>8282142 >Nietzsche destroyed metaphysics His actual philosophical system is shit, just a bunch of unsupported edgy claims. Hume did all the heavy legwork to destroy metaphysics way before Nietzsche.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 04:55:56 2016 No.8284090 >>8282142 >Nietzsche >destroying anything Get off this board you ignorant nig

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 05:36:42 2016 No.8284124 >>8284088 >just a bunch of unsupported edgy claims >implying you need to prove things to make them worthwhile

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 05:46:41 2016 No.8284133 >>8282142 >Nietzsche destroyed all metaphysics over 100 years ago. Nietzsche was super metaphysical. Read Heidegger.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 05:47:42 2016 No.8284135

>>8281671
"Every philosopher..." and "Every woman..." propositions are all factually wrong, amigo. That being said, these are both true and strong trends; women having been conditioned in such a way that they expect to be spoonfed as well as self-proclaimed (because I disagree) philosophers being conditioned to take seriously a whole lot of nonsense (not all of it of course).
Let's not forget by the way that an empiricist is a strain of philosopher as well. Only prior to inference are you capable of abandoning philosophy completely. The only conceivable alternative is to take inherited concepts for granted without questioning them, which at least makes you an unconscious adherent to some philosophy, such as would be the case when a self-proclaimed empiricist rejects philosophy, or a scientist. This is dogmatic, prompts me to tip my fedora, and kind of makes you a retard.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 05:57:50 2016 No.8284157

>>8284135
TO be an empiricist means that you do not cling to your speculations, no matter their degree of formalization, and you cling even less to your fantasy of reality and explaining reality and communicating your explanations. You do not even cling to your sensations, because those changes constantly against your will. sensations changes, just like your thoughts and tastes change. it is all rubbish.

what you call empiricism is empiricism done by rationalists, aka people who love to speculate, know more or less that their speculations are sterile, are always disappointing, more so once they compare them to their fantasy of the ''empirical world'' through their other fantasy of ''empirical proof'' and ''thought experiment'', but still choose to cling to their speculations in claiming that they are not able to stop speculating, therefore that ''not speculating is impossible, it is mandatory to speculate'' (plus we are paid for this now) so let's continue.
What they say is that their rationalism remains bounded by their hedonism, even though they love to claim otherwise, and yet always fail to justify that their speculation goes beyond hedonism...

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 06:02:16 2016 No.8284167 >>8284124 You kind of do on metaphysical questions, even if that proof is of extreme skepticism. Nietzsche was no revolutionary philosophically, Hume and Schopenhauer said almost everything he wanted to better than he did.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 06:13:01 2016 No.8284185 >>8281671 I don't know, maybe they benefit from people not knowing that they are really just manipulative whores.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 06:24:48 2016 No.8284199 >>8284167 fine, but that doesn't mean his "actual philosophical system is shit" maybe it's shit as a system of philosophy, but i doubt that's what you meant since you called it "edgy"

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 06:36:40 2016 No.8284226 >>8284199 But his philosophy system is shit regardless.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 06:42:41 2016 No.8284237 >>8284226 it's interesting

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 06:44:22 2016 No.8284242 >>8281671 /people/ don't like philosophy. everyone will have some bullshit justification for that. it will always be bullshit because a good one would be philosophy and self-defeating.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 06:47:47 2016 No.8284246 >>8281671 Women are nothing like men, not even in the slightes. We have an entire different chromosome

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 06:57:52 2016 No.8284256 >>8284051 >The more likely disciplines to build something or create stability and coherence in life are the least populated by women Oh wow, I'm sooooo surprised

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 07:00:37 2016 No.8284258 File: 364 KB, 1180x940, 1413239226863.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8281692 >Women are quite pragmatic

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 07:05:57 2016 No.8284265 >>8281692 Nope, women are just vapid and amoral

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 08:05:14 2016 No.8284373

>>8284157
Rationalists postulate the possibility of creating conceptions which corresponds equally to reality. Out of that grows the imagined possibility to arrive at novel and true conclusions. All ravens are black etc.
Empiricists, though, are not innocent in that regard, the difference is they won't accept unfalsifiable claims such as that of rationalists. Any postulated existence must be " verifiable". They are still required to infer from sense-data, though: "that is a castle" for instance. The problem is, the gestalt of the castle is an inference and it could essentialy be sand, so in a sense they would infer incorrectly. I hope you can understand the example. In this way every perceived gestalt becomes conventional. It depends heavily on time and so is transient. This applies so broadly that the quest of enduring knowledge becomes finished. It's the end of all dogma.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 08:12:57 2016 No.8284393 >>8281671 SLAVOJ ZIZEK.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 09:28:39 2016 No.8284547 Because more women are normies on average and normies do not care for it

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 09:54:01 2016 No.8284586 >>8284242 I dig this.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 11:41:18 2016 No.8284876 >>8284237 I can't say that it isn't, but taking him as a paragon of anti metaphysics or a coherent philosophy for that matter is pretty silly.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 11:57:39 2016 No.8284922 >>8284246 >implying chromosomes have anything to do with gender check your privilege cis scum >>8284256 it's the patriarchy's fault for not teaching girls and women to be interested in STEM at a younger age :^)

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 12:00:42 2016 No.8284933

>>8284256
well, the argument goes that it was patriarchal expectations and social pressures keeping women out and men in those professions and disciplines, but who knows.

Vaguely conspiratorial and dubious, yet it resonates with certain feminist-y types.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 12:06:25 2016 No.8284956 probably because pseud undergrads keep trying to talk to them about it

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 12:50:08 2016 No.8285076 >>8281671 Women are uncultured fuckholes. More news at 11

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 12:59:43 2016 No.8285105 >>8284393 It amazes me that there are still people on here who have fallen for the Zhizhek meme

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 13:03:02 2016 No.8285114 >tfw gf's read husserl >tfw sometimes have to get her to explain terminology to me the shame is okay because i'm going to marry her and it can be our secret.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 13:06:35 2016 No.8285126

>>8284258
It's true. Read Nietzsche's insights into the female mind. People think he's just being a /pol9k/ retard when he's talking about women but you have to realize that he usually insults those closest to him most vigorously, and says as much.

He calls women cows, Englishmen, vapid, shallow, sentimental, obsessed with adornment, obsessed with children, ect. But when you boil these down he is basically saying that women are obsessed with life, rumination and aesthetic which is fundamentally what Nietzsche values as well. He called himself the first philosopher of the feminine for a reason. He sees women as having a fundamentally more 'realistic' (rather than truthful) worldview than men and that because of this the higher type of woman, though rarer, is a higher type of being than the higher man. He, like many resentful men before him, identifies woman as the more Machiavellian gender. But we often forget that Nietzsche was not only on the same page as Machiavelli, but even exceeded him in some ways. Machiavelli says that sometimes we must get our hands dirty and do evil for the greater good but should avoid it or only do it sparingly, Nietzsche says fuck avoiding it, delve deeply into the font of evil as the greatest evils are needed to accomplish greatest goods.

He is stridently opposed to feminism because he identifies it as the masculinization of women. Feminism in his time, and arguably still in our time is in some ways follows the mentality of a cargo cult. If women dress like men, act like men and work like men, they shall become equal to men.

Of course he has his tumbles with women as well, he hates the aspects of femininity that society has made into womanhood, and those which were made out of womanhood. He supported a feminine that was more sexual and less pitiful (in fact what most offended him was how his mother and sister nurtured him, he claimed that these two women were the only things that made him hesitate to embrace the eternal recurrence. It was their nurturing which kept him alive for a mad, torturous decade rather than allowing him a quicker death). Most of his polemic attacks against the feminine are veiled attacks against masculinity, much as his polemics against Jewish morality are meant to strike at Christian morality.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 13:10:03 2016 No.8285138 >>8285126 >Nietzsche calls you a cow after his favourite happy animal >feminists get upset he's calling them fat to be fair to his mom and sister, it's hard not to want to cuddle him. but yeah, they were doing it for the wrong reasons.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 13:15:42 2016 No.8285157 >>8281692 >pragmatic I hope you're being sarcastic.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 13:45:52 2016 No.8285293 >>8285076 Some are cultured, but they're still ignorant, by the literal definition.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 13:48:45 2016 No.8285302 File: 45 KB, 476x510, tips fedora.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8285126 >It's true. Read Nietzsche's insights into the female mind. What's next? Schopenhauer?

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 13:56:17 2016 No.8285333

>>8285302
Nietzsche is opposed to Schopenhauer on almost every point after he escapes his youth including Schopenhauer's hatred of the feminine. He maintains a healthy respect towards his impromptu teacher in most areas excepting his polemics against women and Hegel.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 14:01:12 2016 No.8285357 >>8285333 Schopenhauer doesn't hate the feminine, he just thinks that men are vain about their intellectual achievements. He's got the same problem with feminism that Nietzsche has: it's destroying women and we kind of need them.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 17:15:20 2016 No.8286055 >>8281692 I agree with this post and everyone who thinks he's wrong fell for a bunch of 19th century memes about strong practical men the truth is that men are excessively sentimental and romantic, whereas women are often straightforwardly practical

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 17:34:59 2016 No.8286096
File: 282 KB, 591x753, god tier lit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8286055

That's interesting because even in Western Europe and North America the majority of political, business, and military leaders are men. Sentimentality doesn't seem to be holding them back too much. Women aren't even as wealthy on average because they choose low paying careers more often.

>Most popular books for women:

Eat Pray Love
Fifty Shades of Gray, or why you should only settle for a billionaire who's still in his 20s
The Secret
The Alchemist
Live Love Laugh

>Most popular books for men:

How to get laid - a manual
How to fix your Datsun
How to make money
The Art of War
Biographies of rich and famous men to emulate presumably
A fantasy novel about rapists

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 17:50:11 2016 No.8286139

It makes me wonder at times. In our university, nearly all other humanities subjects have a majority of female students - except for theoretical philosophy. History was another subject, the rest had a female majority I think. And in philosophy it was like 14 men for 1 woman, in history it was a smaller difference.

Maybe the kind of women who MIGHT be good at philosophy pick womens studies or something instead? Maybe it really feels better to them, compared to studying white and dead men.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 18:44:56 2016 No.8286317 File: 11 KB, 471x291, iqmalefemale.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Philosophy is an intellectually demanding discipline. It's not a conspiracy there are fewer women in philosophy, it's just biology.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 18:55:23 2016 No.8286360 File: 21 KB, 600x450, e71.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8286317 >m'biofacts

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 19:03:07 2016 No.8286391 >>8281692 All these butt mad replies.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 19:05:44 2016 No.8286403 >>8282083 >actually one of the best post in the thread >supported even if not quoted by modern feminist philosophers >only answer is saying that is a dumb post This place is doomed, but at least some people know a shit. Thanks anon for your post.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 19:10:50 2016 No.8286426

>>8286096
Mate, stop and think at what are typically "women's roles" and picture yourself building shit without them.

My father in law is one of the most educated guys I know, and since he retired he spends his day figuring out new hobbies and shit, and yet the man can't fry an egg.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 19:15:55 2016 No.8286443 >>8286317 >IQ >biology What did he mean by this?

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 19:17:38 2016 No.8286451

>>8286096
why would sentimentality hold men back? I think it's one of the best things about them. It especially spurs men on to do valiant things in combat. But we should admit that it's more present in men than in women.

Picture for yourself a scene: two partners, I won't say the gender. The first partner has been given the opportunity of getting some money, but feels that it would be an indignity (whether it would be accepting charity, doing something unscrupulous, etc). The second partner urges the first to be practical and take it/seize it/etc.

Which is usually the man, and which the woman?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 19:25:58 2016 No.8286475 >>8286426 because he doesn´t have to or do you really think he´d starve if noone were to make his eggs for him?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 19:50:43 2016 No.8286575 >>8286055 I think this is true. For better and worse, women can be ruthlessly pragmatic and calculating.

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 22:25:12 2016 No.8287146
File: 125 KB, 640x480, pointless footwear.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8286426
>>8286451
>>8286575

Then why are women more likely to believe in horoscopes and religion
Why do women chase after that one perfect guy, ignoring passable mates and providers until it's too late?
Why are men so good at murdering things, yet women panic when they see a spider?
Why did my ex get mad at me in real life when I raped her in a dream?

Seriously, girls aren't logical at all. My ex wanted help choosing nail polish colors and she laid out four or five different choices. I looked them over and quickly said "Purple!" She frowned and took the bottle away. "You can't choose purple," she said. Well why did you lay it out with the rest if it wasn't an option you silly girl?

Yeah, I know men have their own equally retarded traits, but when it comes to basic stuff like digging ditches or massacring enemy tribes, we're more pragmatic.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 22:28:07 2016 No.8287153 >muh identity politics >>>/tumblr/ >>>/pol/ >>>/r9k/ >>>/lgbt/

Anonymous Sat Jul 16 22:30:35 2016 No.8287165

>>8287146
>Seriously, girls aren't logical at all. My ex wanted help choosing nail polish colors and she laid out four or five different choices. I looked them over and quickly said "Purple!" She frowned and took the bottle away. "You can't choose purple," she said.

There's nothing illogical about that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 22:33:56 2016 No.8287171 >>8287146 >he doesn't think girls' games and tests follow a very rigorous logic

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 23:53:50 2016 No.8287431 >>8284242 if the justification is correct the self-defeat would be a victory nonetheless

>>	Anonymous Sat Jul 16 23:56:44 2016 No.8287438 >>8284256 depression is the leading cause of inabillity world wide

Anonymous Sun Jul 17 00:18:02 2016 No.8287504

>>8287146
it is natural for men like you to crave the validation of their existence and get depressed if they fail to feel relevant, responsible.
The best way for a man to cater his need for approval is to serve some woman (and some of her children) through emotional&financial support.
Men are pleased to contribute to someone else life, to support their family.

Why women are a good way to feel relevant? Because women love to be provided for and each woman will always find a man ready to please her.
[for most men, the best feeling of feeling real is when the girl moans from your cock in her pussy, or for the most impotent, their tongue in the pussy]

THe problem for men is that they are disposable in the eyes of each woman, since all men wish to serve the few women who talk to them.
Men must thus invent several ways to please women, invention and creativity which strengthen their feeling of being worthy, relevant, in touch with reality.
Men are too impotent to find other way to feel real.
Once that the a woman replaces a man by another provider, the man gets very upset and depressed.
THis leads men to think that they are better than women, stronger, smarter and that they must built a life outside women. Some men manage to indeed built an empire, but they will always loose it for some women.
Women give meaning to men and betas, no matter how successful outside women, will always give up everything for some relationship with some woman who claim to fancy them.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 17 00:18:53 2016 No.8287507 >>8284088 Hume didn't even understand any of the ideas he "destroyed," and you understand even less than he.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 17 00:24:03 2016 No.8287517 >>8287504 Men are better than women, and that's final. /thread

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 17 00:30:26 2016 No.8287540 File: 225 KB, 759x508, 1460760735604.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8281692 >being a feminist AND an analytic

Anonymous Sun Jul 17 00:32:41 2016 No.8287557

>>8287146
being logical and being pragmatic are not the same thing. socially it often makes no sense whatsoever to insist on being logical

also, women tend to see men's insistence on 'logic' for what it partly is: a move by the man to seize some intellectual authority in the relationship. it is absolutely not practical to let someone win an argument just because you don't know how to refute him

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 17 00:35:45 2016 No.8287571 >>8287557 I hate how all the posts on here, even the ones that bring up ponderable points, are always troll posts, and seek only to derail the discussion into an argument founded on pedantry.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 17 00:37:29 2016 No.8287574 >>8287571 I see what you did there. Quite pragmatic

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 17 00:41:57 2016 No.8287584 >>8287574 im dead

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 17 00:43:37 2016 No.8287595 >>8287574 You want to actually try to defend that opinion?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 17 00:44:05 2016 No.8287598 >>8287595 that's not me mate

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 17 00:46:27 2016 No.8287603 >>8287598 But do you I mean Don't throw rocks if you're in a glass house, etc.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 17 00:48:45 2016 No.8287610 >>8287603 well I'm not "seeking" to derail the discussion, I'm just responding to other people who posted

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 17 00:53:09 2016 No.8287623 >>8287610 The post before that....

Anonymous Sun Jul 17 01:11:16 2016 No.8287682

>>8286443
>>8286360

When analyzing why fewer women than men reach highest echelons of scientific achievement, or really any kind of achievement whatsoever (mathematics, engineering, philosophy, cooking), their one and only hypothesis is sexism. Women are being held back for no reason related to their own merit, but only because we live in a patriarchal power structure.

In considering this disparity of achievement, an alternative hypothesis offers itself up: men and women have differing distributions of IQ/skill/merit (which are all highly correlated to each other).

Now, allow us to consider what would be, under the feminist hypothesis, an entirely unrelated phenomenon: there are far more men at the bottom of society (in prison, homeless, etc). How does the feminist hypothesis explain this? It doesn't. The latter hypothesis, that men and women have differing distributions of IQ/skill/merit, explains this phenomenon.

In other words, those holding to a feminist, non-biological explanation, would be forced to multiply hypotheses. The biological explanation, which maintains the flatter distribution for men, explains all these phenomena, without multiplying hypotheses.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 17 01:13:45 2016 No.8287692 >>8287682 since there are more women now in these fields i guess their iq is just increasing for some reason. that's good news!

Anonymous Sun Jul 17 01:16:12 2016 No.8287702
File: 139 KB, 1024x942, 1457484860200.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8287165

But if she didn't want me to choose purple why did she put it with the other choices? Why didn't she replace it with cyan or shell pink or whatever? She did the same thing with clothes.

>>8287171

I remember once we'd been arguing and she gave me the cold shoulder for a week and kept talking to this other guy, and I came over and made a scene in public and then we started having sex again. "Wow Anon, you were so mad, everyone could tell." It's weird that when I had a temper tantrum things worked out better. I guess that was one of those tests?

>>8287504

>Once that the a woman replaces a man by another provider, the man gets very upset and depressed.

I know that feel.

>>8287557

Every girl I've had sex with has been smarter than me. A lot smarter. I only have an IQ of 100. Which is why it's so puzzling when they abandon logic and reason so easily. It's not just me either, I see other couples doing the same thing, or my own parents even.

Anonymous Sun Jul 17 01:23:25 2016 No.8287723

>>8287146
>Why do women chase after that one perfect guy, ignoring passable mates and providers until it's too late?
Because they thought they could do better. Practical people are sometimes mistaken. That said, this isn't always true.

>Why are men so good at murdering things, yet women panic when they see a spider?
I'm not sure whether this is actually true—about bugs, I mean. but if you can't see why it's pragmatic for women to be unfit for soldiering in general, and to have men do it for them, then you're not very bright. men are expendable and women are not; I'm proud of that, but that's my sentimentalism and certainly not my pragmatism

>Why did my ex get mad at me in real life when I raped her in a dream?
because her dream made her realize she had a deep and unconscious fear of you, which is definitely your fault for being in some way cold and brutish in her waking life

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 17 01:23:30 2016 No.8287724 >>8282153 is that a fact?

Anonymous Sun Jul 17 01:25:48 2016 No.8287729

>>8287702
>But if she didn't want me to choose purple why did she put it with the other choices? Why didn't she replace it with cyan or shell pink or whatever? She did the same thing with clothes.

It's a social thing. They're trying to seem more amicable by providing more choices. Sort of like how you try to get out of doing things with your family by saying, "Gee, I wish I could, I'm just sooo busy doing homework" or "I already made plans! Sorry!" instead of just saying, "No that doesn't sound fun at all" or "No thanks I'd rather stare at my computer screen"

>I remember once we'd been arguing and she gave me the cold shoulder for a week and kept talking to this other guy
That's pretty bitchy of her. But she wanted to see if you still cared about her. It's a mating display thing. You should put your foot down on that shit though.

>Every girl I've had sex with has been smarter than me. A lot smarter. I only have an IQ of 100. Which is why it's so puzzling when they abandon logic and reason so easily. It's not just me either, I see other couples doing the same thing, or my own parents even.
IQ means very little in the real world. In some ways, people may exercise a certain apparent laxness of "logical thought" to get what they want. In these cases they are still acting logically, just not straightforwardly logically.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 17 01:26:06 2016 No.8287730 File: 1.94 MB, 230x175, 1447738112747.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8281692 >Women are quite pragmatic

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 17 01:32:39 2016 No.8287750 >>8287692 Y'know, maybe I've been on the internet too long. I can't tell trolling from stupid anymore. If there even is a difference. Is it just me, or does /lit/ get really stupid on the weekends?

Anonymous Sun Jul 17 01:43:19 2016 No.8287782

>>8281671
Men are better at abstract thinking. Women are more concerned with the tangible.

The exception is in theology, where women on average seem to be more devout. Even so it's the men who explore religious philosophy far more than women because women are only concerned with religion so far as they are concerned with getting to go to heaven.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 17 02:25:25 2016 No.8287906 >>8281856 sort of ironic, given you've described the more popular products of philosophy as essentially restatements of what women have always known really makes u think about who is the smarter sex

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 17 03:45:04 2016 No.8288090 File: 197 KB, 675x1200, edge.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Theyre too superficial, see everything through its ability/inability to display some social status or other.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 17 03:48:22 2016 No.8288097 >>8288090 Nihilism is western

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 17 03:49:58 2016 No.8288099 >>8282083 retardation

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 17 04:36:46 2016 No.8288168 >>8287750 I think you're just more stupid than you realise in this case.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 17 09:32:11 2016 No.8288516 >>8287431 correctness is a difficult proposition. compellingness or some such however could be measurable.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 17 09:46:51 2016 No.8288552 >>8288090 >implying your study of philosophy is anything more than an ineffectual display of social status

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 17 09:53:47 2016 No.8288574 >>8284956 this is likely true

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 17 10:04:08 2016 No.8288604 If women are so pragmatic why does my girlfriend make me hit her?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 17 10:05:12 2016 No.8288611 >>8288604 To get off.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 17 10:17:07 2016 No.8288639 >>8288611 Unwashed dishes are foreplay now?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 17 10:19:40 2016 No.8288646 >>8288639 epin!!! get her back in the kitchen hehe

Anonymous Sun Jul 17 10:22:22 2016 No.8288659

Whatever the reason, I know it's somehow actually a man's fault

>"In other words, women don't make choices; choices are made for women by society, by institutions, by circumstances, and by men. Women need not adapt their choices, actions, behaviors, and priorities in order to become empowered through their own actions: society, institutions, circumstances, and men should all adapt so that women - inert objects that they are perceived to be - can have an obstacle-free path along which they will be "guided" by "encouragement", "steered" in the proper directions and not "forced" to change course by any difficulty, real or imaginary, so that empowerment can be "gotten" for them. You get my point.

>Agents make things happen, and objects have things happen to them, right? In the gendered worldview of feminism and the wider culture, women cannot be counted on to make things happen, they must have things be made to happen for them. They're objects, not agents."

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 17 10:23:20 2016 No.8288662 File: 84 KB, 706x680, 1468712975793.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8288646 >roasty getting toasty

Anonymous Sun Jul 17 10:34:48 2016 No.8288707

This girl I once wanted to bang told me philosophy is useless because art antecipates everything phiilosophy does.
I don't even understand what she said, I honestly think she was just memeing to make herself look cool and hide her insecurities, which makes sense and I can relate to this. Although I do not desire to persue a sexual relationship with her anymore, I still want her to free herself from these vicious daemons.
I'm kidding, still would bang (but would remain silence throughout the whole act. She hurts me, as she is poison. Might as well drown myself, if the opportunity is given, in her bodily fluids but remain silence to keep this deprevation (not the sexual act, but what a sexual act with her represents) without any sort of proper emotional validation).

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 17 10:36:25 2016 No.8288713 >>8288707 >Trying too hard: the post >>>/r/eddit

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 17 10:39:41 2016 No.8288720 >>8288713 Eh

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 17 10:40:04 2016 No.8288721 >>8284088 >system found the pseudo

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 17 10:42:03 2016 No.8288724 >>8282284 you should know Freud, Lacan, and Foucault inside and out before trying her.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 17 10:43:19 2016 No.8288726 >>8288724 I'm a positivist. I don't read nonsense. I'm redpilled and against leftist writers. I'm more into Schopenhauer (On Women essay was brilliant) and Evola.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 17 10:43:20 2016 No.8288727 le womyns am i righth guise?xd le schoppy, le nietz :^) lmao should decrease my 4chan visits down to once a year from once a month

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 17 10:44:21 2016 No.8288732 >>8288726 deus vult my brother!

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 17 10:45:02 2016 No.8288735 >>8281684 you're saying women are smarter than men because they feed men the idea men are smarter than women? then why do women complain all the time about how women aren't in any highly regarded role?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 17 10:45:43 2016 No.8288738 >>8285126 fantastic post, excellent reader of Nietzsche

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 17 10:47:10 2016 No.8288745 >>8288735 no, y do you think do women do to men like they are not even men and women in mirrors like women eyes. put men down

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 17 10:48:18 2016 No.8288748 >>8288726 well m'lady'd

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 17 10:56:04 2016 No.8288777 >>8285126 Ridiculously shit post. Nietzsche was redpilled. He absolutely detested women and thought that men were inherently superior and that women should stay at home where they belong, and that they should serve their man

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 17 14:51:46 2016 No.8289615 >>8285126 tfw someone on lit can actually read and doesn't take his opinions spoonfed

>>	Anonymous Sun Jul 17 14:59:36 2016 No.8289637 >>8288777 >laughing_undergrads.png

Anonymous Sun Jul 17 15:00:21 2016 No.8289643

>>8281671
>All these sophist uninterested in the pursuit of truth

Philosophy is simply academised wisdom. It's the only real science of the abstract. Of course its theories will be more debatable than that of the hard, materialistic empiricists (who are really just extended philosophers) but the subjects real success is in getting the world to unwrap their minds, to entertain and grow from different, not definitive, possibilities.

I don't know why women don't like it. I know a few who do in fact. Maybes it's rather too dry at times

Anonymous Sun Jul 17 16:01:10 2016 No.8289921

>>8282142
>continental philosophy
>disproving anything

on another note, reading Nussbaum and her philosophy of care / empiricism feels like something is lacking - it is an analysis of primitive intuition, and it feels far more like psychology than 'philosophy.' Most female philosophers tend more to this empiricism that many philosophers have disregarded as having any relevance to philosophy.

Anonymous Sun Jul 17 17:27:47 2016 No.8290335
File: 42 KB, 376x376, 1407275539111.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8288090

How did someone dumb enough to make a profile like that get into Harvard? Or is this some "ironic" thing?

I thought Harvard students wouldn't have enough free time to smoke weed and watch cartoons, but maybe I'm just a state school pleb. Also what in God's name is that stud below her eye attached to?

For fuck's sake, she's 20 years old, time to grow up.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 00:33:12 2016 No.8292168

Personal experience relating to the whole "women r illogical XD" thing, and indeed, only personal experience, as most men seem to experience women differently:

Many women I've known seem to often believe it themselves, that they're somehow impractical and illogical. Controlled by their feelings and whatnot. They often insist that, for example, I am much more logical and thinking than them.

But this seems to often be somewhat of a mistake: I may be a philosophy-obsessed nut, I may spend a lot of time using logic and thinking, but really, its the women who have been concerned with saving money, getting into an useful school and then employment, finding a reliable (as in stable future) partner, etc. They're the ones trying to keep themselves happy and so on. They're the ones who comfort others, to make them feel good and "get up". They're the ones who ditch shitty, toxic relationships (whether friend or more than that). They're the responsible drinkers, the exercisers and the ones who don't pursue impossible dreams, and so on.

Most of the people I know who choose a madder life - taking chances regarding the future, pursuing crazy passions, living "unhealthily" or seemingly "unhappy" because of feelings and passions, choosing a temporarily impoverished life to get freedom, etc - have been men, myself included.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 00:46:48 2016 No.8292202

>>8287702
>But if she didn't want me to choose purple why did she put it with the other choices? Why didn't she replace it with cyan or shell pink or whatever? She did the same thing with clothes.

Because she decided she didn't want to wear purple polish after thinking about it for a second, jeez. Are men really this shallow?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 00:50:33 2016 No.8292213 https://beingawomaninphilosophy.wordpress.com

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 04:18:47 2016 No.8292716 >>8284876 i guess you're right, i probably shouldn't have taken what you said out of context

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 04:26:41 2016 No.8292737 >>8288090 Basic bourgeoisie bitch

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 04:32:33 2016 No.8292751 >>8285126 Nicely done, anon. It's always refreshing to see someone deviate from what's posted on Sparknotes.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 04:38:40 2016 No.8292761
File: 8 KB, 251x241, 1380572807682.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8292202

Purple would have looked really good in my opinion. I'll never forget the way she said it, "You can't choose purple." It felt like that time when I was five and my mom asked me what kind of sandwich I wanted, and I said "I can pick?" and she said, "Yep." So I said, "I want a maraschino cherry sandwich."

She said I couldn't have that even though she said I could pick anything. I cried it was so unfair.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 06:17:14 2016 No.8292938 >>8284256 >Economics >more stable and coherent than molecular biology and neuroscience

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 06:41:24 2016 No.8292981

>>8292168
>Most of the people I know who choose a madder life - taking chances regarding the future

And I agree here. Women aren't necessarily more pragmatic and are generally more likely to damn themselves by following the crowd in the cases where the crowd is wrong, but they value social stability far more highly than men do and work their behavior around that.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 07:47:33 2016 No.8293069

Women are social animals -- they spout any answer to any question with the first pre-created idea they read on a blog or book or from their friend. Of course men do this too, but they're much more diverse, and it comes to a point with men when they need to compare their ideas and create a new one; they need to think.

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 09:09:19 2016 No.8293202 [DELETED]

the ultimate fantasy of a woman is to be selfless

the best she can do about fulfilling this desire is to have children, with a some lover providing for her trough the daily chores and bills and even more importantly through good sex

for a woman, lovers are not meant to be loved and lovers will always disappoint

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 09:39:52 2016 No.8293247 >>8286575 I think we just think they aren't pragmatic so when they do normal shit we're like wow so prag bae

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 09:42:02 2016 No.8293251

>>8288735
>>8288735
>>you're saying women are smarter than men because they feed men the idea men are smarter than women?
yes, women give meaning to men's life
>>8288735
>then why do women complain all the time about how women aren't in any highly regarded role?
the whole point of women is to be as hedonistic as possible while being able to claim that they are not as hedonistic as they are. they win on both accounts.
Women love also to think that they need no man and that they live to help others >muh compassion>muh one big family>muh everybody is fine the way they are, nobody should change>muh day after day devoting my life to world peace>muh women must be able to .
This is part of the tactic to enhance their pleasures: women think that they are good people in society, only to feel even more naughty when they are fucked properly by the herd of men ready to please them.
But women also despise needing & loving men to do the chores. so women fantasize of ''granting, to men, rights'' to entertain them. The rights that they create [or that they dream of] are meant to refuse expected displeasures from men who are not promising a good time to women [=poor ugly men]; the rights are not meant to grant pleasures/good things to women. Women love the idea of pleasure stemming from a serendipitous meeting with a man having the riches to entertain them.
Controlling pleasures is bad [because, once more, women believe that the their true self is ascertain when they do ''what they want, have the means for doing what they want and there is no direct bad consequence for them''], controlling pains& harassment is good. not controlling pains& harassment is bad.

Complaining only stems form boredom and fear of boredom. Women will never ever fight hard to install women in high hierarchy. they will let men fight for them, in saying that ''it is now bad for men not to support us, the women''. of course, this message is meant to the average guy, not the chads, even the non-betas. this message is a way for women to salvage most men [most men are worthless, so as women, what do you do with them? you say ''help me have a good life, but I do not want you personally in my life, dirty ugly man]

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 09:43:05 2016 No.8293255

>>8293251
However, the ultimate fantasy of a woman is to be selfless. the aforementioned belief of the self through doing what they want is cute, but it remains on a mundane level and fails to provide intimacy.
the most pragmatic thing she can do about fulfilling this desire is to have children, with a some lover providing for her trough the daily chores and bills and equally important through good sex. for a woman, The child is the creature that she knows the most and is the subject of her ''unconditional love'' [the subject of this love is never ever the lover, this is what men refuse to hear and what men would love to provide and be acknowledged by women as an a appropriate provider for unconditional support = for men, it is the ultimate devotion, value, respect, merit and when a woman refuses to give them this [because of better entertainer in her life], they despise women...].
for a woman, lovers are not meant to be loved and lovers will always disappoint (even more so in bed)

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 09:43:28 2016 No.8293256 File: 303 KB, 1024x1365, fangednoumena1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] where do I find a gf like this

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 09:49:21 2016 No.8293270 >>8293256 lewd

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 09:53:38 2016 No.8293275 >>8293256 that's a man

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 09:53:55 2016 No.8293276
File: 115 KB, 960x540, 1437545833296.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

the fantasy of a man having multiple women devoted to him, especially devoted sexually to him is the best illustration of the envy of men towards the easiness of the life of women and even more importation, it is the illustration of the lack of understanding of the motivation of women to live.

it is not that women hate having orgies with unknown men or devoted lovers [women do not mind this, but not each day [contrary to men] and with men who do not disappoint].
men bring so much unhappiness onto themselves that they become exited as soon as they think about having a comfy life, like a poor child who goes in a supermarket and see hundreds of toys. this overabundance is illustrated by superman doing porn.

anyway, the comfort of women is more about reliance than over quantity. women understand that having plenty of devoted men in a short period of time is retarded. what matters for comfort is to never ever lack of devoted men. When a man no longer provide enough [according to the women], another man will show up. this comfort is always having a back up battery.
men think that comfort is having 100 batteries right now, and 0 later, then think of the quality later.
=> men do not know what they want & Women are capitalistic.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 09:55:06 2016 No.8293278 >>8293256 next to the nick land section. they alphabetize bookshops, you know.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 09:56:16 2016 No.8293281 >>8293275 hey man that's my gf

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 10:06:13 2016 No.8293295

>>8293251
>>Complaining only stems form boredom and fear of boredom.
Complaining is also the best means to never let your enemy rests.
In hedonism, there is no upper limit to pleasures, so whatever the situation, it will never be enough and satisfying.
Today, the society is really acknowledging a fight of a community only when the communication shows harm from the rest of the society onto the community.
today, to get what you want, it is not enough to say ''we should do this'', but you must say ''we should do this and not doing this is hurting right now, you are bad''.

This is what asexual people do not understand and why nobody takes them seriously. They have not shown that they have been hurt [physical harm is better, but more painful, but non-physical harm is easier to mention and unprovable but taken less seriously].

This is also why rape is adored by women fighting for ''' the cause''. Rape is the ultimate harm according to men [because men love the dichotomy whore/saint and they cling to the idea of a ''honest pure woman'']. Rape is meant to show how bad men can be towards women. defiling a woman is a thing in men's mind.

Then there is the all the culture of being a victim from a rape. women love to say ''I am a cancer survivor'' and ''I am a rape survivor'''. A good hedonistic overcome pain.
this part of public shaming is the less engaging form of causing an outcry and shaming whatever people you want to make feel bad.
Women love to cry, but hate of course the pain and the waste of energy engaged in crying. just like babies love to cry, because they know that a few men will come to the rescue and will punish themselves the other assholes. the job is done form the POV of the crying woman.
Then retarded men will come and claim that it is stupid to cry and that these stupid whores are really worthless.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 10:09:18 2016 No.8293304 File: 914 KB, 2912x2184, 1461192253223.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 10:11:49 2016 No.8293311 >>8293304 pokemon really does cause autism

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 11:26:13 2016 No.8293441 File: 111 KB, 1000x667, 1468855573753.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Women fighting: http://www.vice.com/read/spencer-tunick-naked-women-rnc-protest You cannot make this shit up

Anonymous Mon Jul 18 19:48:10 2016 No.8295014

>>8286055
I agree with this and will give you an obvious example

Wealthy males very often marry middle class women, or even poor women if they have a smoking body, like an Ukrainian model of working class background.

For wealthy women, marrying men who make less money than them, with less professional achievements, is something that is very hard to stomach, almost intolerable.

Men are more romantic than women.
Men can fall in love at first sight with a supermarket cashier.

For women, love is a rational equation of Money + social status + looks + behaviour (how likely to cheat the male is, his values etc)

>>	Anonymous Mon Jul 18 19:50:27 2016 No.8295019 >>8295014 another obvious example is how women see male hobbys as worthless, they dont understand what is not useful (for socializing).

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 01:21:53 2016 No.8296067 >>8295019 Shitposting is pretty useful for socializing

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 01:23:22 2016 No.8296072 File: 191 KB, 1320x1078, 1445043031740.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >being a beta.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 01:25:37 2016 No.8296076 >>8293441 is the average female body really this ugly?

Anonymous Tue Jul 19 01:35:40 2016 No.8296098

>>8285126

If the greatest evils are needed to accomplish the greatest goods, why call them evil acts at all?

What is evil if not the antithesis to good? Then how can acts so immoral and repugnant bring about such good, under the right circumstances?

Why criticize the ends justify the means at all? Seems to me like a sense of security trumps any other desire in humans, even happiness. When you assault a man's morality by proclaiming to do a deed he deems evil, he will oppose you no matter the outcome.

Anonymous Tue Jul 19 01:52:15 2016 No.8296143

>>8287702
>>8292761
>Hey Jane, should I play Far Cry 4, Fallout 4, MGSV or the Division?
>Can I really choose? Umm... The Division!
>Hmm, nah, I don't feel like playing that after all.
>janey92.tumblr.com: MEN ARE ILLOGICAL AND RETARDED FUCKING PIGS I CANNOT BELIEVE HE DID THAT TO ME I REALLY THOUGHT I COULD CHOOSE FOR HIM WHY DID HE FUCKING LIST THE DIVISION IF HE DIDN'T WANT TO PLAY IT JESUS FUCKING CHRIST HOLD ME I'M TRIGGERED BY THE STUPIDITY OF CISHET MEN
That's you right now.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 01:55:36 2016 No.8296150 >>8281671 In my experience, because they relate studying philosophy with edgelords.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 01:59:52 2016 No.8296159 >>8281671 >actually cares about womens opinions top kek

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 02:17:06 2016 No.8296197 >>8296143 >implying I ask for others opinions

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 02:17:45 2016 No.8296200 >>8281671 Women lack the philosophical impulse. Why? Because reason and logic are penetrative faculties. Male characteristics. By neurology or suchlike, it does not matter. The fact remains, and blatantly so.

Anonymous Tue Jul 19 02:28:53 2016 No.8296232

>>8285126
>He sees women as having a fundamentally more 'realistic' (rather than truthful) worldview than men and that because of this the higher type of woman, though rarer, is a higher type of being than the higher man.
Schopenhauer claimed the same. Seems like a vague hope to me. Show me one of these great women. Not "a" great women, but one that is without disussion among the greatest in her area.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 02:34:48 2016 No.8296244 >>8296076 that's not the average female body.

Anonymous Tue Jul 19 02:43:26 2016 No.8296265

>>8296232
Are you familiar with the gnostic goddess, Sophia? That is what the higher woman would embody. Lucid intuition. Clear conprehension. Oneness with reality.

In the gnostic mythos, Sofia is highest in the ladder of existence, second only to the Absolute. The feminine precedes the masculine Logos. Wisdom preceding logic. Womb preceding man.

I've observed woman's ability to sense the world around her instinctively, though she may not apprehend it rationally. Women are fey, of this be sure. And the higher order women may as well be witches, rhine maidens, maeads and naiads.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 02:48:11 2016 No.8296277 File: 129 KB, 1399x880, Donna Bowman.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] You can watch these female philosophy researchers / philosophers Frances Flannery. Frances Flannery, Ph.D. Rachel Wagner And Donna Bowman https://vimeo.com/53000177

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 02:54:39 2016 No.8296291 >>8296197 >Jane and Mike, let's have Chinese food tonight. >I don't really feel like Chinese, Anon. >Yeah, how about pizza? >Fuck you Jane and Mike, I'm having Chinese tonight, you go fuck yourselves. That's you right now.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 02:57:17 2016 No.8296296 >>8296200 That's the most pretentious post I've ever read in my entire life, and knowing I browse /lit/ every single day, that's quite an achievement. I could fucking print and frame that post as a reminder of the day humanity went to shit.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 02:57:35 2016 No.8296298 >>8296265 That's all nice, but give me an actual woman, not a far off archon or a general apprehension, but an actual woman which stands above her male peers consistently. Otherwise you're only getting tricked by the game of implications.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 03:09:23 2016 No.8296308 >>8296296 do it

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 03:12:44 2016 No.8296311 >>8296296 That's the most pretentious post I've ever read in my entire life, and knowing I browse /lit/ every single day, that's quite an achievement. I could fucking print and frame that post as a reminder of the day humanity went to shit.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 03:14:07 2016 No.8296315 >>8296298 Your mom. Seriously.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 03:20:20 2016 No.8296330 >>8296311 Nice meme but it doesn't apply here. My post isn't pretentious, it should be crude and anti-intellectual in the eyes of the flamboyant pseud who wrote >>8296200

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 03:24:18 2016 No.8296341 >>8296315 She's great for sure but she's far away from: >Lucid intuition. Clear conprehension. Oneness with reality. That's much more my dad's thing.

Anonymous Tue Jul 19 03:37:30 2016 No.8296377

>>8296143

I never said she was retarded, she just did things that didn't make sense from my perspective. She was smarter than me, if anything. It's not really about the nail color anyway. I've just noticed in my personal anecdotal experience that women that I've been involved with and women involved with people I know will sometimes be clearly, objectively, mistaken about something and then choose to double down on it and die on that hill instead of conceding defeat. I had a fight with this other girl, and during the fight she accused me of "being dismissive of her anxiety disorder." But every night I spent at her house, she saw me take MY crazy pills. There's no way she could have missed it, we talked explicitly about my mental problems. "I'll be right back babe I just have to go take my pills." It wasn't fair at all, and tbf it was stupid. It says right in my file, "possible anxiety disorder" next to all the other shit.

The most colossal argument between my parents that I ever witnessed involved a piece of exercise equipment. My parents ordered this machine, and when they picked it up they forgot the users manual. So my mom went back the next day and picked it up, but she got the wrong one. My dad pointed this out, she denied it, and the argument escalated to the point where they were yelling and screaming at each other. They rarely do that. It said right on the machine what the model was, and it said right on the cover what machine the manual was for. She made a mistake, and then felt criticized so she defended her mistake against all logic.

Not that the old man doesn't invite trouble for himself, eg. opening the good wine a few hours shy of happy hour instead of helping with XYZ domestic task. Come on at least don't pick the bottle that was supposed to be for Janet and Bruce's thing on saturday. . . but that's more of a moral failure than a failure of logic.

I wanted those damn cherries too. Biggest swindle since baking "chocolate."

Anonymous Tue Jul 19 03:38:32 2016 No.8296380

>>8292168
This.

Men seem to be illogical all the time, but they never acknowledge it.

Only men spend thousands of hours learning to do pointless shit.

All men just seem to decide they need to be amazing at something, or everything.

Guys get obsessed with being good at things even when they are hard, boring but most importantly completely arbitrary, just because of "muh manly pride".

Anonymous Tue Jul 19 04:31:29 2016 No.8296460

>>8281671
Please shut down the claim that it isn't a boys club, if it's so easy to do. I'm genuinely convinced it isn't a boys club myself, but I'd like to know where you're coming from.

I get a bad feeling that this is just another thread about generalizations based on limited experiences which are bound to lead to shitty conclusions always.
You're asking how we need to get women to read but flat out refuse to acknowledge their reasons. You don't actually want to help women or the field of philosophy, you're looking for another place for people to agree with you. Get real with yourself.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 04:46:57 2016 No.8296481 File: 6 KB, 250x135, 1452584937134.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Tue Jul 19 04:57:36 2016 No.8296494

>As somebody who wasn't alive in the ’80s, what felt weird to you about kind of going back in time and seeing how things were back then? Was it the lack of modern technology?
>I think it was the freedom. Because they had so much freedom back then and I'm very limited in my freedom now, because I can't go outside without my mom literally standing right beside me. It's crazy because my mom and dad always said, “We used to ride our bike down to the shop and we'd get a pint of milk and go back.” And I'm like, goodness, I would never do that. If I told my mom I was going to go down and get a pint of milk and some sweets she'd be like, “Right. Okay. Well, go get in your sister's car and we'll ask your sister.” It's never happening. I go to boxing, and my mom walks me — because I box every day — my mom always just walks me straight to the door.

>So you do a boxing workout or you're actually training to box?
>It's not a training workout. I train to box. Obviously I don't want to do it professionally. But I have done some inter-clubs before. It's at Phoenix MMA U.K., down in London. It's a great gym, and I have lots of friends. Because I'm homeschooled, I get kind of lonely sometimes. So I like to go to the gym. I do Thai boxing Mondays, jujitsu Tuesdays and Thursdays, and Wednesdays I do boxing with Mark. He was a world champion at one point. I absolutely love it. I actually have a punching bag right outside in my garden. I'm obsessed with working out. I eat like a pig so it kind of makes up for that.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 05:56:46 2016 No.8296620 because it's a bunch of self important white guys sucking their own dick

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 06:01:42 2016 No.8296631 >>8286096 Kek.

Anonymous Tue Jul 19 06:28:29 2016 No.8296687

i kind of appreciate the philosophy behind midwifery

which I think was started by a woman

christian science was started by a woman

also when it comes to fashion or aesthetics coco and chanel and all the other female designers probably have interesting philosophical insights into fashion design and general aesthetics.

a mothers philosophy isn't attributed to one woman, but all mothers

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 06:28:30 2016 No.8296688 >>8286096 >A fantasy novel about rapists I see you've nailed the basics of shitposting.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 12:06:05 2016 No.8297607 File: 229 KB, 994x851, 1458208758658.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 12:15:08 2016 No.8297620 >>8281857 >implying Simone de Beauvoir isn't a philosopher >implying feminist theory isn't a philosophy OP this person sounds narrow minded and annoying.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 12:18:13 2016 No.8297628 >>8282083 sometimes. Other times they're genuinely trying to figure something out. Philosophical conflicts have also bred great friendships.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 12:50:29 2016 No.8297768 >>8297607 I don't get it. Is there something funny in this picture?

Anonymous Tue Jul 19 13:16:23 2016 No.8297871

>>8296494

My hairdresser has kids and she says that at their elementary school tag has been banned because it's too violent. You can't drive through a school zone at 9:00 am or 3:00pm because they turn into parking lots, everyone dropping off their kids or picking them up. Why though? The schools have buses, and everyone else should be in walking distance. Maybe a few students are basically commuting from a distant neighborhood because of obscure reasons, but I don't get why everyone needs a personal ride to school.

I walked to school on my own at six years old, it was a ten minute walk, even in the middle of Albertan winters. We would go play on our own out in the park or neighborhood all the time. I started getting rides to school in 12th grade, in my own car that I bought for $1200.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 13:27:44 2016 No.8297908 >>8297768 I think the comedy comes from the fact that she is this white woman going on this rant about racist injustice w/r/t her black husband being seen as a drug-slinging thug when he is literally a drug-slinging thug.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 15:49:07 2016 No.8298389 >>8281671 Maybe it was the institutional structures that prohibited women from being able to enter to academic spaces? And maybe those structures still shape our biases toward allowing women to participate in those spaces?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jul 19 15:56:31 2016 No.8298404 >>8298389 Stop bumping this retarded thread

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]