[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 70 KB, 600x534, 1477106516221.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8653727 No.8653727[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Why are there no SERIOUS female philosophers?

>> No.8653732

>>8653727
The jews keep them down

>> No.8653733

Because philosophy isn't a serious subject.

>> No.8653736

>>8653727
>implying based Ayn Rand didn't end philosophy, economics, and morality.

Males can't even compete.

>> No.8653738

>>8653736

the only thing ayn rand can end is my will to live

>> No.8653762

>>8653736
Rand was an idiot. you don't give away the key, if everyone knows the secret there will be no bilsfully content sheep to exploit. Why make problems?

>> No.8653770

>>8653727
Because your world is so small as to not have females in it.

>> No.8653776

Nusbaum has written like 50 books

>> No.8653788

Hannah Arendt, Edith Stein, Teresa of Avila, Philippa Foot, Elizabeth Anscombe, and Simone de Beauvoir just to name a few off the top of my head. Those women were all pretty serious.

>> No.8653789

Both Phillipa Foot and Elizabeth Anscombe were good philosophers.

But you've never heard of them, because you aren't educated in philosophy and don't care either because this is a bait thread.

>> No.8653790
File: 224 KB, 389x590, hanna_arendt.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8653790

>>8653732

>> No.8653808
File: 24 KB, 412x430, http___www.rawstory.com_wp-content_uploads_2014_09_AynRand_OLiver-Show-800x430~01.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8653808

>>8653736
bro he said philosophers not witches

>> No.8653845

>>8653808
I would bang her though.

>> No.8653859

>>8653788
>>8653789

they're as serious as sam "atomizer" harris

>> No.8653863

you're mom

>> No.8653865

>>8653788

>Simone de Beauvoir

Can you really consider feminist "philosophy" a form of actual philosophy? I wouldn't take it seriously if a man wrote philosophy about being male, same thing with feminism.

>> No.8653875

your mom

>> No.8653876
File: 291 KB, 807x605, IMG_1888.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8653876

>>8653727

I cannot connect with women on the level I wish I could.
I have a gf, but I feel like I keep her around as a safeguard against loneliness. She's cute. She sends me cute stuff. She's sweet. She's a woman. She gives me sexual pleasure.
But she doesn't lead me to levels of profundity the way I have had with some friends. In all these years, I've never met a woman who did. Not in university. Not in any place and time. And I wish I could have that near mystical union with women the way I have only glimpsed that could be the way I have with male friends.

Those 'intellectual' women seem to mostly entertain ideas. Toy around. Ideas are cool. Ideas are fun. They can do research. They can do the grunt work of inquiry. They can be interested.
But they'll never be Nietzsches. They'll never be there, out there. In the depths. Hurl themselves bravely into the abyss and climb back. It's, I guess, not their nature.
I do not want anyone to understand what I'm getting at, but to share in the/a similar experience.

>> No.8653879

>>8653865
There are deeper points made in her book Second Sex than simply whining about being a female. She also talks a great deal about ethics, moralistic and naturalistic fallacies that are employed by men(and women), to keep women subordinate and within the confines of their gender role.

Not saying I agree with everything she wrote, but she was certainly a philosopher, and she has influenced especially the West, way more than many male philosophers have.

>> No.8653886

you're mom

>> No.8653889

>>8653876
Why do you even expect profundity? Seems like a lot to ask from some random human primate.

>> No.8653893
File: 135 KB, 630x274, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8653893

>>8653876

>Nietzsches
>implying Nietzsche was a true philosopher

>male friends
>Implying we don't assume identity by physical form

>I don't want
>Implying you don't

>> No.8653903

>>8653876
>And I wish I could have that near mystical union with women the way I have only glimpsed that could be the way I have with male friends.

nigga you gay

>> No.8653909

>>8653876

The closest I've found women to get in terms of 'profundity' is some Camusian existentialist crap.
Not a surprise he was good with women with such trite as an excuse for philosophy.

>> No.8653916

>>8653903

>I want women to be smart
>hahaha, look at this gay faggot

>> No.8653917

your mother

>> No.8653919
File: 32 KB, 500x356, How-males-and-females-take-pictures.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8653919

>>8653879

>There are deeper points made in her book Second Sex than simply whining about being a female. She also talks a great deal about ethics, moralistic and naturalistic fallacies that are employed by men(and women), to keep women subordinate and within the confines of their gender role.

That's the same thing though, it's still writing with femininity / gender as the topic. She could've written about any number of great abstract topics but she chose a boring social / biological issue instead.

>> No.8653924

>>8653919
Sure, you might find it boring, but that doesn't change what she was. A highly influential and serious philosopher.

>> No.8653925

you're mom

>> No.8653928

>>8653727
Simone Weil

>> No.8653931

your mother

>> No.8653932

>>8653865

It's the same with intellectual blacks. They're all into postcolonialism, africamerican "studies" and can't utter a sentence without the word "black" in it.

At least Irish people can get beyond their oppression and do some other shit than talk about how much of a victim they were/are.

>> No.8653941

you're mother

>> No.8653944

>>8653863
>>8653875
>>8653886
>>8653917
>>8653925
>>8653931
>>8653941
(You)

Now kill yourself.

>> No.8653945

>>8653924

She was "influential" to those operating in the same extremely narrow and trivial domain of gender relations. Nothing she wrote moved us forward collectively in either our understanding of the universe or our technological acheivement.

>> No.8653948

>>8653944 're mom

>> No.8653964

>>8653945
>She was "influential" to those operating in the same extremely narrow and trivial domain of gender relations.

She is probably the main reason the feminist movement got so much traction in the 70s, and her arguments are still taught at universities and are one of the reasons for legislation that changed a lot of government policies regarding women and women's rights.

So no, you're just wrong. She has a had a massive influenced outside the ivory tower, but believe whatever you want.

>> No.8653966

Your mom

>> No.8653968

This thread again?

>> No.8653976

>>8653968
Everyday until Lit takes the RED-PILL, praise cuck

>> No.8653978

>>8653945
>Nothing she wrote moved us forward collectively in either our understanding of the universe or our technological acheivement.
This reeks of positivism. There are plenty of things out there worthy of study other than what improves our understanding of the universe or technology. For the record, I hate feminist theory, but to deny that The Second Sex has been extremely influential is just wrong.

>> No.8653979

>>8653968
/polit/ has only narrow interests

>> No.8653991
File: 346 KB, 451x451, Ayn-Rand-.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8653991

>>8653790
The banality of evil just proves Ayn Rand right when she says that the root of fascism and stalinism was born out of collectivism.

>> No.8654026

>>8653968
OP's lonely all days of the week, not just weekends.
>>8653727
(You)r mom

>> No.8654032

>>8653991
>banal=collective
wew even the DFW fanboys aren't this low of a reading level

>> No.8654075

>>8653863
>>8653875
>>8653886
>>8653917
>>8653925
>>8653931
>>8653941
>>8653948
>>8653966

No need to get upset, friends.

>> No.8654079

>>8653738
Ayn Rand is just about the only philosopher that I find impossible to take seriously and respect at the same time.

>> No.8654083

>>8653727
Because women understand that philosophy is nothing but pointless intellectual masturbation for narcissistic manchildren.

>> No.8654086

>>8654079
a strong tell of cognitive dissonance

>> No.8654090

>>8654083
>Because women understand

Wrong.

>> No.8654091

>>8653876
>that near mystical union with women the way I have only glimpsed that could be the way I have with male friends.
Sounds like you might be gay desu senpai

>> No.8654119

>>8653876
>tfw you spend your days reading posts like this because you are afraid they are correct and you are stuck with a second rate experience of life because you were born a woman

>> No.8654122

>>8653788
With Simone Weil on the list more than half are Catholic. Dank.

>> No.8654123

>>8654119

Life is not fair. Some are born niggers and some are born short however most people are born women interestingly enough.

>> No.8654124

>>8653876
Take an intelligent woman, and use her to create genius sons.

>> No.8654133

>>8654123
Everybody is born short, idiot. And also most are born male.

>> No.8654140

>>8654123
If I killed myself is there a chance I'd be reborn as a man? Not kidding.

>> No.8654142

>>8654133

As in genetic potential. Dumb bitch.

>> No.8654146

>>8654140

You could give yourself to a man.

>> No.8654148

>>8654146
That wouldn't give me a man's intelligence though.

>> No.8654152

>>8654148

Well you could be born as a retarded man.

>> No.8654158

>>8654152
That's still more intelligent than a woman.

>> No.8654164

>>8654142
>says somthing stupid and incorrect
>gets corrected
>"y-your just dumb!"

kek

>> No.8654165

>>8654158

made me think

>> No.8654209 [DELETED] 
File: 24 KB, 288x288, ayn rand+.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8654209

>>8654032
Have you actually read Eichmann in Jerusalem as well of any of Hannah Arendt's thoughts or are you just spouting shit just because Ayn Rand makes you lose all rationality?

The fact is simply that what the nazi did was ignore individualism and treat the nazi people as a collective. It became a banality to ignore individual as part of a collective, as irrelevant, as the enemy, all for the greater good. Duty is the function in which banality is created. That someone can simply follow orders and not display any personality or decision. People expect evil to be committed by psychopaths, but it can be done by anyone who lacks conviction, values or the basic understanding that every human being fears death and does not want to die.

Collectivism is the source. Banality is the tool. Duty is the method.

>> No.8654214

>>8653964

>feminist movement
>government policies regarding women and women's rights

Exactly. Her domain was limited to social issues related to her own sex of her own species. I don't know if you could come up with a less worthwhile philosophical topic if you tried. There's this whole amazing world of pure idea she could've explored and she chose to focus on a provincial biological / social issue of a subset of our own species that she happened to belong to instead. Disgusting desu.

>> No.8654231
File: 24 KB, 288x288, ayn rand+.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8654231

>>8654032
Have you actually read Eichmann in Jerusalem as well of any of Hannah Arendt's thoughts or are you just spouting shit just because the mere mention of Ayn Rand makes you lose all rationality?

The fact is simply that what the nazi did was ignore individualism and treat the jewish people as a collective. It became a banality to ignore individual as part of a collective, as irrelevant, as the enemy, all for the greater good. Duty is the function in which banality is created. That someone can simply follow orders and not display any personality or decision. People expect evil to be committed by psychopaths, but it can be done by anyone who lacks conviction, values or the basic understanding that every human being fears death and does not want to die.

Collectivism is the source. Duty is the method. Banality is the outcome.

Everything about Hannah Arendt is almost a parallel of Ayn Rand's view on the topic on individualistic responsibility, treating people as individuals and thinking as the prime source of determining values. Her examination of Eichmann shows the direct banality of people who disregard individuals as simply being part of a collective, and as justification for murder.

>> No.8654234

>>8654140

>If I killed myself is there a chance I'd be reborn as a man?

No. Continuity of "self" is a meme / lie even within the context of one body's life. Continuity is inferred by memory and social feedback, not a real / physical process.

>> No.8654244

>>8653727
Emma Goldman

>> No.8654252
File: 1.41 MB, 580x433, 1469567187349.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8654252

>>8654244

By the way, let's make this clear: Jews don't count.

>anarchist philosophy, women's rights, and social issues

And this is why.

>> No.8654255

>>8654234
Damn, that's what I thought.

Would male hormones cause my brain to function more like a man's?

>> No.8654256

>>8654119
I know that feel. I think I'm a masochist.

>> No.8654259

>>8654256
I'm glad I'm not alone.

>> No.8654258
File: 37 KB, 225x225, ayn rand will eat your soul.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8654258

>>8654252
>people who are part of XXXX collective don't count
Hahahahaha.

>> No.8654274
File: 242 KB, 511x428, 115552646246.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8654274

>>8653876
I guess you just didn't meet and got in connection with someone who happens to be an ideal person to you and also a woman.

I also felt the same, not only with women but people in general, but now I have an intelligent girl - friend who's like nothing I ever imagined, and probably the person I felt closest to in my entire life, and we have an honest and rich dialogue.

patrician girls are out there.

>> No.8654277

>>8654274
Fuck her anon.

>> No.8654279

Reminder that Nietzsche was BTFO by a patrician girl.

>> No.8654280
File: 102 KB, 449x346, lou salome.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8654280

>> No.8654281

>>8654279
Chesterton wasn't a girl anon.

>> No.8654284

>>8654281
Lou Salome was though.

>> No.8654313

>>8654281
The only thing Chesterton BTFO is his trousers.

>> No.8654320

>>8654231
Oh anonkun, we meet again. :3 Banal still doesn't mean collective. No matter how much you rage with your low reading level.

>> No.8654321
File: 153 KB, 285x285, Camille Paglia.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8654321

http://rsleve.people.wm.edu/FNLAS_1882.html

How does it feel to know that your most beloved philosopher is a cuckhold who was friendzoned?
Women will always have inherent power over men, it's why men seek to control and destroy their mysticism.

>> No.8654330
File: 103 KB, 252x300, Ayn-Rand.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8654330

>>8654320
And nowhere did I say that Banal meant Collective. Destroying a stawman seems to be the only thing you can do.

>> No.8654339

>>8654330
Then why does the quote chain go like this
>>8653991
>>8654032
>>8654231
? Banality isn't the outcome of collectivism either. If it were, the fun Russians wouldn't come after Communism.
You should really read Arendt one of these days before sperging on others.

>> No.8654353

>>8654284
Can you tell who? I'm interested.

>> No.8654359

>>8654339
Banality is the process of the outcome.

>the fun Russians wouldn't come after Communism.
I don't understand what you mean.

>> No.8654361

>>8654353
how*

dammit

>> No.8654362

>>8654353
Read >>8654321

>> No.8654369

>>8654359
It's been the root, the process, and the outcome over the space of only four posts by you now. Try picking a position so you don't have to sperg against your former position.
>I don't understand what you mean.
Of course you don't.

>> No.8654414

>>8654369
>It's been the root, the process, and the outcome over the space of only four posts by you now. Try picking a position so you don't have to sperg against your former position.
I've repeated that Collectivism and triblaism is the root, and banality is the feeling for enacting the duties of collectivism. Misplaced words do not mistaken my position on this topic. Nowhere have I ever claimed that banality is collectivism.

Hannah Arendt argues that there is no grand evil or deep desire of being a comic book villain, but it is simply people following orders, not displaying their sense of individuality and that they have no decision when they did. The evil done by nobodies. People with no self esteem, values or individuality. This is the banality of evil.
And this process is how the Nazi saw the jews as being a collective, a group, rather than individuals.

All you do is so ''lol no'' and reject all argument or discussion. Obsucating the fact that perhaps there are close semblance between Ayn Rand and Hannah Arendt.


>Of course you don't.
The fun russians does not mean anything nor refute that Stalinism was primarily fueled by collectivism.

>> No.8654433

>>8654414
>maybe if I sperg harder I'll look like less of a sperger
>maybe if I misread Arendt they'll believe I'm not sperging
You should really read her work anon, instead of those secondary sources. While we're wasting characters, isn't it funny how Rand is more banal than most bodice rippers? But then she did have a fancy for bromide.

>The fun russians does not mean anything nor refute that Stalinism was primarily fueled by collectivism.
I doubt you've read them either, or could name any. I'd add more names to your list, but you seem to like dropping Arendt's name most despite not reading her, so we'll start with her.

>> No.8654448

>>8654433
You still haven't said or disproved anything, and have still resorted to just saying ''lol no''

>> No.8654539

>>8654448
Anonkun why would I need to disprove you when you're willing to do it yourself?

>> No.8654551

>>8654539
If something is self evident, then it is easy to prove, no? But since you can't say anything other than claim it's self evident, you don't have anything to say, so you just remain vague and claim that you've proven I was right without showing or saying anything.

>> No.8654578

>>8653727
It is because of hormones, and this is the same reason why even males are so attached to morality.

>> No.8654599

>>8654551
It's self evident that you constantly contradict yourself, haven't read Arendt this is the kinder reading, because the other option is you have read her and got her most basic premises wrong and wouldn't know fun if it bit you. Anyone can follow the quote chain for the first point, read Arendt for the second, and start a thread about fun Russians for the third.

>> No.8654634

>>8654599
And yet you still can't explain what's wrong.

>> No.8654671

>>8654634
I have, anonkun, just to people with a hope of getting it.

>> No.8654712

>>8654671
Pfft, you haven't.

>> No.8654736

>>8654712
You can re-read >>8654599 if you like, but I doubt you'll get any closer.

>> No.8654758

>>8653788
Hannah Arendt is not a philosopher what are you talking about.

>> No.8654760

>>8654736
Again, all you've said is that I've read her wrong, not what I said that was wrong or how I wrongly read her.

>your interpretation of her premise is wrong
>what's wrong with it
>I said it was wrong
>like what
>didn't you read? I said it was wrong, look at the previous times I said it was wrong!

>> No.8654768

this is nice asperger's disorder

>> No.8654785

>>8653727
Philosophers are masters of thought. Women gain nothing from thought past a certain point; they don't need it in order to succeed in society.

Men don't either, but they do use it as another means of warfare. Which is where the hormonal differences come in. Women don't wage war like men do because of hormonal differences, they don't enjoy it like men do.

>> No.8654811

>>8654785
Women don't wage war because they can't fight physically.

>> No.8654815

>>8654811
>he's never seen a catfight

>> No.8654830

>>8654815
Catfights are cute because men know that they aren't serious.
>oh hoho, look at those girls pulling hair and screaming

>> No.8654855

>>8653727

what about Julia Kristina, Judith Butler, Hélène Cixous, bell hooks, and Gayatri Spivak? Butler's readings of Hegel and Spivak's readings of Marx consistently run circles around Zizek's subject/object parlor tricks.

>> No.8654873

>>8654855
Kristeva*

>> No.8654876

I just want to be a worthwhile human being and to be capable of making deep observations and create great art. Why did I have to be born female?

>> No.8654919

>>8654876
Find a smart man and bear him 10 sons, one of them will be a genius.

>> No.8654925

>>8654919
Living vicariously through your children will only leave emptiness in your heart.

>> No.8654926

>>8654811
They can't physically fight as efficiently as men on average you mean. And the reason why is because they didn't evolve with that being their primary function in life. Childbearing was the primary function.

>> No.8654930

>>8654811
An army composed of beings with male psyche's and female physical abilities would destroy an army with the opposite traits. Female psychology doesn't understand hierarchy, it would be an amorphous blob

>> No.8654933

>>8654925
>said the childless loser

Its literally your only real purpose in life as a woman.

>> No.8654936
File: 33 KB, 480x640, 2j4t44k6i1qa8ig8o1_500.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8654936

>> No.8654938

>>8654930
They understand hierarchy lol, they know it well.

What they dont understand is honor and duty

>> No.8654940

>>8654933
But I don't want to fulfill the woman role, it seems boring.

>> No.8654944

>>8654936
>wide jaw
>excessive make up
>apparently modified eyebrows

D R O P P E D

>>8654940
99% men live boring lives as well, society only exists to serve the few great men among us

>> No.8654949

>>8654944
I don't want an exciting life, I just want to live by myself in a small cabin in a forest and spend my days reading, writing and drawing.

>> No.8654956

>>8654949
Who is preventing you from doing that?

cuck

>> No.8654960

>>8654940

You're not going to find a good argument for women being admirable creatures, but you could come up with a good argument that both men and women are stupid mortal monkeys destined to live brief lives of suffering and ignorance before falling apart and turning back into dirt on a tiny, irrelevant dust mote suspended in a vast ocean of empty space.

>> No.8654962

>>8654956
What is the point of creating if you can never achieve the same level as men?

>> No.8654967

>>8654962
YOU JUST SAID THAT ALL YOU WANT TO DO IS BE IN A CABIN AND CREATE SOME SHIT

THIS IS WHY WOMAN CAN'T ACHIEVE ANYTHING HOLY SHIT, JUST SAY SOMETHING AND STICK TO IT YOU FUCKING CUNT

>> No.8654987

with a few exceptions this thread demonstrates /lit/'s total, vacuous ignorance of basic history of philosophy, let alone the actual arguments

>> No.8654989

>>8654926
>They can't physically fight as efficiently as men on average you mean.
Same difference.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MF-YeWnIJfU

>>8654930
>Female psychology doesn't understand hierarchy, it would be an amorphous blob
No, they understand hierarchy. A woman understands if a woman is prettier than she is. Or the status of a man.

>> No.8654995

>>8654967
Calm down. Men are supposed to be the more rational sex, you should be ashamed.

>> No.8655009

>>8654995
>LE EMOTIONS ARE IRRATIONAL MEME

GAS THE ROASTIES, SEX WAR NOW

>> No.8655024

>>8654995
>men
>rational
Funny.

>> No.8655026

>>8654086
One can have no respect for another and still take them seriously, and visa versa.

>> No.8655070

>>8654855
Kristeva is a hack of the lowest order.

>> No.8655436

Assuming as I did that women might be feeling off 300 out of 1000 times, or 9 or so days a month, it's not rocket science to see how the man could hope to get to whatever conclusion sooner than her.

>> No.8655525

>>8654949

I live in a cabin, you can be my sex slave if you want.

>> No.8655861

>>8654876
It's okay, that's probably the dream of most people on /lit/ and none of them will fulfill. Nothing to do with penis or vagina.

>> No.8655893

>I'M GONNA MANSLPAIN LIFE

women don't do that.

>> No.8655897

>>8653727
They have been treated as second class citizens up until very recently. They didn't go to school. They couldn't own land. They weren't expected to be intelligent by their husbands or society in general. It's almost like asking why there weren't any black philosophers back in the slave days.

>> No.8655899
File: 234 KB, 750x613, Hegel-H-launch.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8655899

>>8655070

>can't into lyrical psychoanalytic phenomenology
>>the current literal year

>> No.8655989

>>8655897
this

>> No.8655997

>>8655897
Women weren't slaves. Most men were just as oppressed and had just as little chance in society, as did all of the lower class. Aristocratic women have been generally been educated in most societies through history, whether formally or in the home.

>> No.8656008

Elizabeth Ansombe, Philippa Foot, Martha Nussbaum, Hildegard of Bingen
why aren't there more?
idk

>> No.8656009

>>8653762
>implying your judgement of rand being an idiot wasn't the intent of her writing

did you miss the part where she wanted you to form your own opinions?

>> No.8656011

>>8655893
They womansplain it instead.

>> No.8656264

>>8653876

Protip: She probably thinks the same about you.

"He's smart. He's a man. He entertains me. But he doesn't excite me in that intimidating primal way that I sense in some other men."

Everyone wants the sun and the moon. Stop pining for total perfection in another person. It probably isn't going to happen like that.

>And I wish I could have that near mystical union with women the way I have only glimpsed that could be the way I have with male friends.

Actually for real though you might be gay. Which I'm not saying in some accusatory way. But there was some definite weirdness in that line. You only ever experience "mystical unions" with other dudes? ..What?

>> No.8656265

>>8656264
lol i always knew most woman-haters were closet homosexuals

>> No.8656309

>>8656265

He might not be. It could've simply been a very odd way to phrase a point that anon read too far into. But at the very least he needs to find a girl that he has better chemistry with.

>> No.8656376

>>8656265

Accepting reality isn't hate. There's a reason why homoerotica was so popular in classical times, especially if you're 'sapiosexual'.

For the most part women simply aren't good at anything but breeding thanks to evolution. They never had to be.

>>8656011 might simply get aroused by intellect.

>> No.8656377

* >>8653876 not >>8656011

>> No.8656507

>>8654760
Not him but I can see a few obvious difference from Arendt's theory
You think banality is a result of the collective. Only Arendt says that Eichmann was banal before the collective, and he veered towards joining because he was banal. It puts the cart before the horse.
You said that Arendt thinks that banality results in "only following orders". She says it doesn't, it actually results in claiming you were doing more than what your orders said.
You said that there is "no desire of being a comic book villain". Arendt says that Eichmann was the prime example of wanting to be such a villain, that he would prefer to be hanged as a war criminal than live as a nobody.
You said that it's "not displaying their sense of individuality". This is in complete opposition to Arendt's theory of the banal because she argues that there is no sense of individuality to display, that Eichmann was actually banal, not displaying banality.
You say that it involves "they have no decision when they did". Arendt says that it, again, results in claiming to have decisions when they didn't. Which is the opposite of what you think she said.
You've got the whole theory backwards, and anon is right that if you look back over your quote chain (I took these examples of you getting Arendt flat wrong from just one post) you contradict your *own* position, not just misplace Arendt's, over whether it is the cause, process or ends from post to post while claiming it's the other guy's fault.
He's right that the kinder option is to think you're getting it this wrong because you haven't read it. If you read it, and that's a big if, and you got it this wrong, you're either having an opposites day or just plain fucking retarded because it's not a hard book and you can't see you're actually saying the opposite of Arendt while trying to claim it's the same thing.

>> No.8656587

>>8653893
He has been busy lately, right?

>> No.8656819
File: 48 KB, 600x300, 1470806534319.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8656819

>>8656265
>women haters are virgins
>women haters are faggots

???

>> No.8656831

>>8653876
>And I wish I could have that near mystical union with women the way I have only glimpsed that could be the way I have with male friends.

You're probably gay, or at least bi with a preference for men.

>> No.8657004

>>8656265
>love both sexe
>stay virgin