/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.8637880]

Why are there no serious female philosophers?

[Anonymous No.8637884]

Define "serious"

[Anonymous No.8637886]

>>8637880
Anscombe, Arendt, de Beauvoir, Rand (kek), the list goes on

[Anonymous No.8637888]

>>8637880
>Why are there no female philosophers?
FTFY

[Anonymous No.8637889]

>>8637884
Anyone that is not a woman

>t. redpilled intellectual

[Anonymous No.8637896]

Because men and women are good at different things.
Women are good at raising families, building friendships and caring for others. They have emotionally intelligence and intuition.
Men are good at working, doing practical things and solving problems. Men built and sustain society. They have analytical intelligence and critical reasoning.

[Anonymous No.8637897]

>>8637889
In that case Ayn Rand comes closest.

[Anonymous No.8637900]

Women's assholes smell worse than men's assholes

[Anonymous No.8637901]

>>8637888
but there are.

[Anonymous No.8637907]

Simone De Beauvoir was excellent. Wrote a great text on existential ethics. Wrote a seminal text on Feminism. I wish i knew more about her, I know more about Sartre.

The existential ethics book was great though

[Anonymous No.8637909]

>Why are there no serious female _______?

[Anonymous No.8637910]

>>8637907
Genetically, women have more genes in common with dogs than men.

[Anonymous No.8637911]

>>8637884
>>8637886
>>8637907

I said serious. Nobody cares about these clowns.

[Anonymous No.8637918]

>>8637901
You're gonna have to bait harder than that lad
but anyways here's your (you)

[Anonymous No.8637921]

>>8637909
>>8637909
Adulterers? Morally corrupt? Lesser being? Disloyal trash? Being braindead and worthless? Selfish? Destructive? Manipulative? Degenerates?

Women are supreme in that category, puts men to shame

[Anonymous No.8638016]

>>8637907
>existential ethics
Unfortunately, her greatness was placed in a joke of a subject: "existentialism", the 20th century Frenchman's horrid misunderstanding of 19th century philosophy.

[Anonymous No.8638025]

>>8638016
If she had chosen a serious (male) discipline in philosophy she would have been laughed out of the room because of her inferior intellect and irrational cucked mind

Women shouldn't stray from child rearing and domestic matters

[Anonymous No.8638064]

>>8637921
I like the edge bro keep it up comrade I mean white brother

[Anonymous No.8638074]

>>8637880
We already know how these threads go
>Why aren't there any female ________
>Someone gives them a lengthy list of what they asked for
>"w-well I never heard of them, so they can't be good"

[Anonymous No.8638076]

>>8638074
there's not a lengthy list of female philosophers, though. only subjects like feminism (not really philosophy) have a large female presence

[Anonymous No.8638087]

>>8638074
But there is no lengthy list of serious female philosophers ITT. I guess some self-hating nu-male mentioned Arendt and De Beauvoir (a woman whose philosophical credentials were so negligible that even she did not consider herself a philosopher), but those are armchair psychiatrists for French pseuds/the low IQ turds from /mu/ and not taken seriously

[Anonymous No.8638106]

>>8637880

It's forbidden to acknowledge it in public discourse, but although women are as intelligent as men from a psychometric perspective they are trivially minded and lack any real interest in the exterior world.

[Anonymous No.8638107]

>>8637880
Because they're incapable of taking a purely objective interest in anything, and the reason for it is, I fancy, as follows. A man strives to get direct mastery over things either by understanding them or by compulsion. But a woman is always and everywhere driven to indirect mastery, namely through a man; all her direct mastery being limited to him alone. Therefore it lies in woman’s nature to look upon everything only as a means for winning man, and her interest in anything else is always a simulated one, a mere roundabout way to gain her ends, consisting of coquetry and pretence.

[Anonymous No.8638118]

>this thread

[Anonymous No.8638127]

>>8638118
Go bad to reddit, cuck

Fact is women are largely worthless, they contribute nothing except spreading their legs for Chad.

They have destroyed the west by getting the vote and voting for feels over facts, rationality and logic.

Fact rationality and logic tell you that the white male created all of the civilized world while women were worthless roastwhores

Women have no value besides being a container for cum, now degenerating so much that they're letting black men entry into their vile, reeking, festering wounds of a cunt.

What has women ever contributed? Nothing, because they cannot do anything.

We are simply superior in all facets to a life form that barely qualifies as human, read Schopenhauer.

They barely have any consciousness and need to be disciplined like a dog or a child by.a strong disciplinary authority figure with a redpilled outlook.

The greatest crime to ever befall Mankind is treating women like they deserve respect or indeed moral consideration

[Anonymous No.8638144]

>>8638074
Bait posts and /pol/ shitposts aside, there really are no women in the higher level curriculum of philosophy, which would be the ancient Greeks and everyone who directly drew from or responded to their ideas.

And there doesn't need to be.

[Anonymous No.8638150]

>>8638127
>Fact rationality and logic tell you that the white male created all of the civilized world
kek most of the big ideas were stolen from the arabs
whitey were as subhuman as everyone else back then

[Anonymous No.8638152]

>>8637880
Why do the shills purposefully go onto other boards and post garbage questions with photos and images related to the ideology growing on /pol/?

After I post this, the thread will die by sliding other threads instead.

[Anonymous No.8638163]

>>8638152
I will keep threads like these alive (woman hate threads) until this entire board is redpilled to the truth.

Fucking try me, cuck

[Anonymous No.8638180]

>>8637911
>No one cares about Anscombe
>The person who singlehandedly created a third way of doing normative ethics in the 20th century
>One of the most important moral philosophers in the last century
>No one cares
One day you will manage to read a book and everyone will be happy for you.

There is also Nussbaum: Bok, Korsgaard, Langer, Foot, Kofman and Heller. It should be noted none of them wrote feminist shit. inb4 what this guy said. >>8638074

[Anonymous No.8638182]

>>8638163
>I'm still mad because "Her"
I wish I could sage you back to /r9k/

[Anonymous No.8638189]

>>8638152
>After I post this, the thread will die by sliding other threads instead.

I will never yield to jews

btw I'm not even white, i just like hitler's a e s t h e t i c s.

[Anonymous No.8638190]

>>8638150
>muh muslin golden age

Go fuck a goat, Mohamed.

[Anonymous No.8638191]

>>8638180
>It should be noted none of them wrote feminist shit.

It should also be noted that none of them matter.

[Anonymous No.8638194]

>>8638180
>anscombe, bok, nussbaum, korsgaard, etc

You failed. OP asked for SERIOUS philosophers

[Anonymous No.8638198]

Because women are unable to think critically.

[Anonymous No.8638202]

>>8638198
>Women are unable to think

Fixed that for you

[Anonymous No.8638205]

>>8638180
>Nussbaum: Bok, Korsgaard, Langer, Foot, Kofman and Heller
I guess we should include the likes of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Alan Watts, Terence McKenna, Robert Pirsig, Chuck Palahniuk, etc. and the infinite random nobodies that spit out "philosophical" texts on the list of philosophers too?

You have low standards. It'd be a stretch to even include people like Foucault, Chomsky, Camus, Zizek, etc. on the list, let alone the ones you name dropped.

[Anonymous No.8638206]

>>8638202

Most people don't think much period. Those few who do are all men.

[Anonymous No.8638218]

>>8638205
>>8638206
This.

Women are so fucking dumb, it really boggles the mind.

How do we return to a time where they were kept at home? We need to start a movement

[Anonymous No.8638222]

>>8638180
>Bok, Korsgaard, Langer, Foot, Kofman and Heller

Literally who?

And I have a philosophy deegre...

[Anonymous No.8638224]

>>8638218
>We need to start a movement

there already is one

[Anonymous No.8638246]

>>8638194
>Anscombe
>Not serious

>>8638191
>Foot, one of the founders of virtue ethics
>Does not matter

>>8638222
Yes and I'm sure your philosophy degree means you must know thousands contemporary philosophers. And not knowing who Foot is. I could only forgive that if you didn't do ethics. Also I inb4d you with >>8638074

>>8638205
Of that entire list only two people have degrees in philosophy and they are BAs. Every person I mentioned has a PhD. Face it, just because you don't know who they are doesn't mean they are bad.

[Anonymous No.8638252]

>>8638246
>just because you don't know who they are doesn't mean they are bad.

It actually does though. These whores are nobodies. Nobody cites them, nobody cares about them and nobody was influenced by them.

[Anonymous No.8638257]

>>8637886

>the list goes on

actually the list stops there, at Rand (kek)
Now all serious female philosophers are overweight feminists who try to normalize pedophilia because, well...the patriarchy.

[Anonymous No.8638269]

>>8638246
>I could only forgive that if you didn't do ethics

Ahh of course it had to be ethics, the vagina field of philosophy. Serious philosophers do metaphysics and logic, practical philosophy is always secondary.

>Foot, one of the founders of virtue ethics

Are you fucking kidding me?

[Anonymous No.8638271]

>>8638252
Do I have to say it again.
>Foot, one of the founders of virtue ethics
>Does not matter
Do you really think she is never cited? If you don't know them how do you know they aren't cited. There are thousands of contemporary philosophers who you have never heard of, writing papers you will never read that are cited by people you will never hear of. It's called academia.

[Anonymous No.8638279]

>>8638269
>>8638269
>Ahh of course it had to be ethics, the vagina field of philosophy.
Ahh of course it have to be a lie, you don't have a degree at all

[kitty !kitty/EnNg No.8638280]

>>8638271
>Do you really think she is never cited?
i have just cited you, does it make you anything special?

[Anonymous No.8638281]

>>8638271

Come on dude, stop twisting it. If she's a such a great philosophers then Sam Harris is Jesus himself.

[Anonymous No.8638285]

>>8638271
>Foot, one of the founders of virtue ethics

That's like saying Ayn Rand was one of the founders of epistemology. Kys.

[Anonymous No.8638292]

>>8638285
Jesus Christ you are dense. We are talking about the 20th century revival of a system of normative ethics that hadn't be around for hundreds of years.

>>8638281
Sam Harris has a bachelor's degree. She has a PhD. She has actually published to peer reviewed journals, Harris avoids academia at all cost. You are the one who is twisting.

[Anonymous No.8638299]

>>8638127
You can't even get most of this from Schopenhauer. You are either memeing or delusional--this is riddled with r9k shibboleths and trash-argot. No one should take this seriously. Just because you, perversely, want to see this pitiful and distorted worldview valorized doesn't mean it's been done.

[Anonymous No.8638300]

>>8637880
Mary Wollstonecraft, she was even defamed by a cuck numale.

[Anonymous No.8638306]

>>8638292
>Sam Harris has a bachelor's degree. She has a PhD. She has actually published to peer reviewed journals,

There are tens of thousands of published men with phds.

[Anonymous No.8638310]

>>8638205
>It'd be a stretch to even include people like Foucault
Michel is literally the most cited name in philosophy, nigger

[Anonymous No.8638312]

>>8638299

this is you

[Anonymous No.8638320]

>the redpillers absolutely destroying all libcucks ITT

Will the low test numales ever recover?

[Anonymous No.8638322]

>>8638312
What work are these unironically "redpilled" thought-patterns doing for you? If you've decided to be a misogynist, the logical conclusion is misanthropy, leading probably in your case from resentment to confusion to despair to suicide or mental illness

[Anonymous No.8638323]

>>8638320

you can actually tell which of them are undercover women

[Anonymous No.8638325]

Does Teresa of Avila count? She is a Doctor of the Church, after all.

[Anonymous No.8638326]

>>8638322

So you concede I'm right so you move to shaming as a last resort.

[kitty !kitty/EnNg No.8638328]

>>8638312
i like that :3 little dragon... actually they are are cute, the blue one with yellow eyes is probably the cutest

[Anonymous No.8638335]

>>8638328

the butt blasted demonic female is pretty nice too

[Anonymous No.8638340]

>>8638323
we can all tell that you guys are assmad beta virgins though

[Anonymous No.8638344]

>>8638340

When you can't win the argument, shame as if your life depends on it because it probably does.

[Anonymous No.8638349]

>>8638344
The arguments are layed out through the entire thread, talking to you MGTOW cunts is like talking to a wall.

[Anonymous No.8638355]

>>8638349
>The arguments are layed out through the entire thread

Their answers were also laid out.

>talking to you MGTOW cunts is like talking to a wall.

stop trying to hit below the belt for one fucking second. this is why women cannot philosophize.

[Anonymous No.8638361]

>>8638326
I'm saying you've passively received a destructive and absurd ideology by way of 4chan/Reddit/forums/blogs and possibly some reactionary or purely rhetorical antifeminist literature. There is nothing behind it beyond your own insecurities and the narrative you've chosen to accept.

[Anonymous No.8638362]

Embarrassing to see all these pathetic women trying to engage rational and logical men in discourse. A hopeless endeavor.

Women are nothing but holes

[Anonymous No.8638363]

>>8638280
Shut the fuck up

[Anonymous No.8638379]

>>8638355
the entire thread that's been defending the whole redpill mindset has been "hitting below the belt", you fucking retard. We've actually given you philosophers and all you guys can respond with is shit like
>>8638362
>>8638312
>>8638257
>>8638218
>>8638320
and a bunch of other miscellaneous /r9k/ shitposting.

[Anonymous No.8638405]

>>8638361

Okay, then articulate where exactly it is wro-

>your own insecurities

Look, I don't even know what this word means and I'm open to the possibility that significant gender differences do not exist but you stupid cunts just cannot explain why the argument is wrong. You just think you're some sort of therapist.

Here's the true red pill: You're subconsciously taking on the role of the mother and trying to nurture me because of your unsatisfied maternal instincts.

[Anonymous No.8638429]

>>8637880
Honestly it's because women can get sex or validation when they want it and society has never really forced them to better themselves.

[Anonymous No.8638475]

Hannah Arendt is a serious philosopher.

[Anonymous No.8638497]

>>8638429

Can they better themselves as much as men can?

[Anonymous No.8638511]

Hannah Arendt is an armchair psychologist and not a serious philosopher

[Anonymous No.8638512]

>>8638511
Most academics disagree with you.

[Anonymous No.8638515]

>>8638512

Most academics are spineless Marxist worms.

[Anonymous No.8638518]

>>8638515
Hannah Arendt wasn't Marxist.

[Anonymous No.8638522]

>>8638518

Most "humanities" academics are.

[Anonymous No.8638525]

>>8638522
That's not true. In the West, most "humanities" academics that care about politics are Social Democrats.

[Anonymous No.8638534]

>pic related

[Anonymous No.8638535]

>>8638525

Marxists in disguise.

[Anonymous No.8638540]

>>8638535
Social Democrats are for capitalism, Marxist are against capitalism. Those are different ideologies.

[Anonymous No.8638542]

>>8638540

Am I talking to a commie by any chance?

[Anonymous No.8638543]

>>8638542
I don't have a political ideology.

[Anonymous No.8638546]

>>8638543

Mein gott.

[Anonymous No.8638624]

>>8638087
You /r9k/ cretins are pretty funny.
Arendt being put put in the same basket as Beauvoir is retarded and leaving out Anscombe is also a sign of being a colossal faggot. >>8638325
No, she wasn't a philosopher. By the time she wrote the once blurry lines were clear and she was a mystic.
>>8638511
Serious philosophers disagree.

[Lucretia Borealis No.8638639]

>>8637880
peace be with you

[Anonymous No.8638663]

>>8637880
*Why are there no serious left wing female philosophers?

[Anonymous No.8638672]

>>8638074
>Lengthy
>Serious
Literally no one in the thread has given those yet, anon, but nice try generalizing

[Anonymous No.8638676]

>>8638672
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/anscombe/

[Anonymous No.8638705]

>>8638663
Please name some rightwing female philosophers but remember to slit your wrist before saying Ayan Rand.

[Anonymous No.8638709]

>>8638705
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edith_Stein
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/anscombe/
Not sure where you'd place Hanna Arendt tho. In the Human Condition she was very critical of modernity in general, Kantian, Marxist, classical liberal systems.

[Anonymous No.8638712]

>>8638534
>Died on welfare in government housing.
Evidence she was wrong or just a hypocrite?

[Anonymous No.8638714]

>>8638712
Her stance is consistent here tho. If they offer you something, why not take it? Her principle was egoism only.

[Anonymous No.8638715]

>>8638709
Cool a decent answer, who says /lit/ is /mu/ for books.

[Anonymous No.8638718]

>>8638714

wow what a genius philosopher

[Anonymous No.8638757]

>>8637880
>Why are there no serious female philosophers?
Because around the time most recent serious philosophy happened, women were morally and in some cases legally obligated to care for and clean up after their serious philosopher husbands.

Also because women don't navel gaze quite as much as men.

[kitty !kitty/EnNg No.8638768]

i am surprised nobody yet mentioned hypatia

she was cute too

frankly she was a rather minor neoplatonist but still rather noticeable

[Anonymous No.8638794]

>>8638768
She's so minor that Copleston didn't even mention her in his History of Philosophy.

[Anonymous No.8638800]

>you will never be her boytoy, being used not only as a means for sexual pleasure but also always as an end in yourself

[Anonymous No.8638814]

>>8638768
hypatia's shit compared with hipparchia
>>8637880
The best part about these threads is, unlike Schopenhauer, the sad fucks obsessed with there being no female intellectuals wouldn't have to misread Beauvoir to like her. Beauvoir is actually what these illiterates think Schopenhauer is when he isn't, while feminists do the same thing to Beauvoir that low self esteem never getting laid grandiose males do to Schopenhauer and never read her properly. Instead these idiots attach themselves to the philosopher they have no chance of reading correctly, when, if they could get over their gender bias, they'd see Schopenhauer poo-poos male intellectualising and claims whores are men's fault, while Beauvoir does the opposite. It's like they haven't realised Beauvoir hung out with Sartre and had a better understanding of Heidegger than him because she is the narcissistic male's wet dream of a philosopher. True, she's not as good as Arendt, but these pathetic illiterates are turning down the chance to BTFO every feminist who recommends Beauvoir by just reading her back to them; they are that invested in never picking up a book, they might as well be women.

[Anonymous No.8638822]

>>8638814

ok I confess. I really don't want to read female babble

[Anonymous No.8638900]

>>8638822
>I only read to fit my worldview

[Anonymous No.8638901]

>>8638822
>calling pedoshit babble
or did you mean Heideggerians? I'm not sure if I should be posting Uncle Nabby or Martin the Bavarian Elf as a reaction image

[Anonymous No.8638948]

>>8638901

it's really cute when women pretend to be intellectuals

[Anonymous No.8639006]

>>8638948
Are you calling Nabokov or Heidegger a reverse trap? Beauvoir's only really cute from behind, so I know it's not that.

[Anonymous No.8639035]

>>8638127
lmao
women's charm is what drives all men to do their impressive things

most geniuses were forever alone losers who wanted to impress everyone

I've lost all my big ambitions after I started getting laid frequently enough
also, women's empathy and "defend the weaker" stance helps protecting the poor and weak

they seduce the betas into thinking their sacrifice will be worth
women are essential to society, bud

[Anonymous No.8639174]

>>8638246
Are you braindead? A PhD alone doesn't even make them philosophers, let alone good ones.

[Anonymous No.8639234]

>>8638757
WE WUZ OPPRESSED AND SHIT

[Anonymous No.8639316]

>>8637896
>emotional intelligence
>women

Pick one and only one.

[Anonymous No.8639778]

>>8639174
>Calls me braindead
>Is an idiot
To have a PhD in philosophy means you have to have published your lengthy thesis to a peer reviewed journal for scrutiny. 99% of all people who get PhDs in philosophy stay in academia because they spent so much time and money getting their papers. Being a philosopher is literally the requirement for having a PhD.

[Anonymous No.8639808]

Why are there no serious teenage philosophers?

[Anonymous No.8639863]

>>8639778
I know what the fucking requirements are for a PhD, faggot. Spending your life in schools writing research papers and sucking various committee dicks does not fucking equate to being a genuine philosopher, however. It equates to becoming a credible scholar, and scholars are worlds apart from philosophers.

[Anonymous No.8639872]

>>8639863
he seems to have listed credible scholars in philosophy who got their PhDs in that. you're kind of painting yourself into a corner where you'll have to claim philosophers are unschooled. which is gonna be fun to watch.

[Anonymous No.8639877]

>Romance is rape embellished with meaningful looks

[Anonymous No.8639879]

>>8639872

you must be tired from moving the goalposts all day

[Anonymous No.8639888]

>>8638511
This is true, her work on Eichmann is garbage. Peddled an elitist theory that did not correspond to reality, of course 'intellectuals' ate that shit up.

[Anonymous No.8639897]

>>8639879
I'm not the anon you were replying to. I just want to watch you define the true Scotsman to him, anonkun.

[Anonymous No.8639908]

Cause philosophy is sophistical bullshit and involves intense circlejerking over words that the common man can not comprehend.It is no longer needed in modern society.

[Anonymous No.8639910]

>>8639888
details pls anon. the good German/little Eichmann theory seems well supported considering even the Stasi were surprised so many people wanted to grass on their neighbours and family that they ran a study on it.

[Anonymous No.8639919]

>>8639863
>But they scholars aren't REAL philosophers
Sure is foggy in all this Scottish weather.
>>8639897

[Anonymous No.8639927]

>>8639897
>>8639919

I'm OP and I don't give a fuck about "genuine" philosophers. We've got millions of these clowns running around. I want S E R I O U S philosophers.

[Anonymous No.8639931]

>>8639927

sure is nice getting them (you)s btw

[Anonymous No.8639934]

>>8639927
Pretty sure Weil was goddamn serious about that debating Trotski thing. I think if anything Trotski was a bit worried about how series.

[Anonymous No.8639940]

>>8639934
Heh, autocorrect.
>series
*serious

[Anonymous No.8639953]

>>8639927
For the millionth time Anscombe, one of the 20th centuries most important ethicists.

[Anonymous No.8639957]

I can't believe this shit-posting thread is still alive

[Anonymous No.8639970]

>>8637880
Woman literally means "of man". how can a subset of man ever hope to add truly worthy thought into a world that is not their own?

[Anonymous No.8639985]

Who cares? Philosophy was a passtime for bored, stuck up white people who couldn't do an honest day's of work if their life depended on it. It's utterly useless now that science has taken the burden of advancing society in meaningful ways. We should be worried about the lack of women in labs

[Anonymous No.8639986]

>>8639970
And man is little just putting an m in from of the female name Ann spelt wrong. Makes you think/

[Anonymous No.8639990]

>>8639985

shitskin marxists please, this is a whites only website.

[Anonymous No.8639996]

>Nussbaum
>Anscombe
>Edith Stein
>Weil
>Rand
>De Beavoir
>Catherine of Siena
>Moderata Fonte
>Foot
>Hypatia
>Arendt
>Hipparchia

INB4 some R9K shill disagrees with one name on this list and ignores the rest of it.
INB4 omg not seriouz enuff only Plato and Kant are reel filosofers.

[Anonymous No.8639999]

>>8639996
>INB4 omg not seriouz enuff only Plato and Kant are reel filosofers.

there we are.

[Anonymous No.8640001]

>>8639996

alright I just looked up the first name... dog damn...

>She has a particular interest in ancient Greek and Roman philosophy, political philosophy, feminism, and ethics, including animal rights.
>serious philosopher

i don't even know who's trolling who anymore.

[Anonymous No.8640015]

>>8639953
Also one of the most important figures of the now significant revival of thomism.

[Anonymous No.8640020]

>>8640001
>Wrote several treatises and pioneered the idea of Moral Fragility and the role of disgust in ethics.

Anyway I'm really impressed with the way you disagreed with one philosophers place on the list and ignored the rest, I hope everyone recognizes I was INB4 this occurred and stated as such in my first post.

[Anonymous No.8640025]

>>8640020

I don't give a fuck about your inb4s. I was going to look them all up but when the first is like this I'm not going to waste my time with your gay ass female """philosophers""".

[Anonymous No.8640045]

>>8640025
Beauvoir's the one with the gay ass from that list. You should look up her ass if you're not going to bother to read books.

[Anonymous No.8640369]

>>8639910
Her analysis of Eichmann was superficial, she spent very little time going over his correspondences, spent little time at his trial, did not critically question his testimony, assumed that he had no prior anti-semitic beliefs. There is plenty written about this by various historians and this has long been a contentious topic, I think even her supporters will admit that she is wrong about Eichmann (but they will say that her theory is good). I don't know about the Stasi situation, but it seems more likely to me that people spy because of local motivations (security, power over others, ect) rather than uncritical obedience to the state.

[Anonymous No.8640444]

>>8639872
>you'll have to claim philosophers are unschooled
The claim here is that being schooled doesn't automatically make you a philosopher, not the other way around. If you can't wrap your head around this, you need to get far away from philosophy because it is clearly not for you.

[Anonymous No.8640496]

>>8640369
She did critically question his testimony. One of the major points of the book is that she checked out what he actually did, and what he claimed to have done at the trial, and found that his account at the trial made him seem worse than he was in reality: an image the prosecutors were keen to play up. He tried to claim responsibility for deaths and degradations he could not have possibly committed. Most all but the most ideologically antiNazi research has borne that out.

She does a lexical analysis of his testimony ffs, which independent psychologists who interviewed him before the trial also pointed out carried over to his hypernormative behaviour not just his speech.

She doesn't deny he is antiSemitic, but she does say it's not as prominent a motivation as his normie nature.

It's like you haven't read the book.

Her reflections on normative behaviour impacting those in less ruthless communities also bears out. It's not about uncritical obedience to the state, otherwise her Denmark notes would say the Nazis kept Naziing anyway with uncritical allegiance to Hitler, regardless of the herd's behaviour around them.

She, nor the Stasi, thought uncritical obedience to the state was the reason. It's why she talks about Eichmann's relationship to Kant, and not to Germany. The Stasi didn't think anyone was doing it for uncritical obedience to the state either; it's why they ran the survey because that reasoning seemed like obvious bullshit for the numbers of people they were signing up as informants, and the money wasn't good enough either, nor did they offer security to those who grassed.
The reason for both is much closer to herd behaviour and normies liking normies than what you're trying to portray it as. The state could issue a grand mea culpa, but normies would keep being normies even if it opposed the state's position.

I would suggest you read the book or get a brain if you completed the first task and thought that it was expressing concerns about uncritical obedience to states.

>various historians
Like the guy who forgot to mention he was part of the prosecution team? or one of the people who make their living on the Holocaust carrying the same imagery as the prosecution team presents? How banal, if so.
Especially if they try to claim that Arendt deprives Eichmann of agency, which she's keen to still burden him with, giving him responsibility for his actions even if everyone else was doing it too.

[Anonymous No.8640510]

>>8640444
t.b.h if you can't recognise a contingency, you should probably take your own advice.

[Anonymous No.8640595]

>>8640496
>an image the prosecutors were keen to play up. He tried to claim responsibility for deaths and degradations he could not have possibly committed. Most all but the most ideologically antiNazi research has borne that out.
please link said research, because most research has borne out that he was far worse than what the prosecutors have presented.

>lexical analysis of his testimony
big whoop, worthless considering his posturing. Even if he was not posturing it would still be rendered worthless because she did not have enough information to truthfully contextualize his testimonies (and likely was not interested in doing so).

>she does say it's not as prominent a motivation as his normie nature.
you are aware of the Stassen transcripts?

>herd behavior
>normie nature
lol

>Kant
and who defines and legitimizes the categorical imperatives in any culture? It is implied that obedience to state or current hierarchy is the motivation by adherence to the norms and values laid out by said hierarchy or state.

>Like the guy who forgot to mention he was part of the prosecution team?
people like Cesarani and Stangneth who spent their time going over significant amounts of data that contradict her claims, the people that are more interested in the truth than positing laughably simplistic theories and engaging in conformation bias.

>claim that Arendt deprives Eichmann of agency, which she's keen to still burden him with, giving him responsibility for his actions even if everyone else was doing it too.
burdening someone with responsibility is not a means of affirming their agency anon

[Anonymous No.8640653]

It's probably not the fact that women were systematically kept out of higher education until relatively recently.

[Anonymous No.8640734]

>>8640595
>please link said research, because most research has borne out that he was far worse than what the prosecutors have presented.
He tried to claim full responsibility for killing 5 million enemies of the state. One would think he might have needed a little help with that, especially since his own testimony shows he tried to get some of them removed from concentration camps and was told he did not have authority to do so. He tried to claim authorship for deportation plans, and then when presented with the original plans which were not authored by him, admitted he didn't actually come up with the idea, and it had been in force before he could have sanctioned it. That's in the trial transcripts, so for someone claiming that Arendt did not read enough of them, this is particularly hilarious.

>big whoop, worthless considering his posturing. Even if he was not posturing it would still be rendered worthless because she did not have enough information to truthfully contextualize his testimonies (and likely was not interested in doing so).
Eichmann himself admitted that he spoke in nothing but official cliches. Arendt focuses on phrases he reused not just during the trial, but since 1933. You really have not read the book.

>Stassen transcripts
You mean the one where he realised that 5 million as he had claimed above as the number of people he had killed didn't square with the official tally, and tried to claim partial responsibility for 10 million? That kind of plays to his overclaiming, especially since he can't name what authority played a part in the other 5 mil.

>lol
That was my reaction when you missed the basic point of the book so badly that you've obviously been reading apologetics for Eichmann's claims because you need monsters.

>>8640595
>>Kant
>and who defines and legitimizes the categorical imperatives in any culture?
KEKEKEKEKKEKEKEK getting Kant more wrong than Eichmann did is a bad show m8. Kant is famous for being autistically, compulsively, against bowing to even the social pressure of murderers. The only moral basis for a state in Kant's view is freedom, and he believed in objective morality not cultural relativism. It is not at all implied that morality or categorical imperatives change based on hierarchy or the state, only that a hierarchy or state is immoral if it transgresses the objective rule. You're actually this dumb, and you could have just stuck to Arendt.

>>8640595
>people like Cesarani and Stangneth who spent their time going over significant amounts of data that contradict her claims, the people that are more interested in the truth than positing laughably simplistic theories and engaging in conformation bias.
>people like Cesarani and Stangneth
Cesarani doesn't understand what Arendt meant by banal, and is quick to ignore Eichmann having a love affair with a Jew, apologising repeatedly to one for slapping him, trying to free some from concentration camps[1/2]

[Anonymous No.8640756]

>>8640595
[2/2] and largely consists of confirmation bias, because even goes as far as to claim that Arendt claims that Eichmann was not antiSemitic, when she clearly states that he was at other times virulently antiSemitic. That is confirmation bias if I ever saw it, where everything must conform and no shades of grey are to be tolerated in Arendt's work because it might cloud the claim that Eichmann only worked under antiSemitism. Ffs, Eichmann used love to talk up his Jewish connections, even though his claim to be borning in Palestine and studied Hebrew were false, and his fondness for some Jews who weren't even relatives is easily demonstrated. Stangneth also seems to think that the 10 million proposition takes away rather than lends support to the banality theory, which is likewise laughably simplistic and misguided.
>burdening someone with responsibility is not a means of affirming their agency anon
and if you understood how clauses work, you would see what he was burdened with agency, not responsibility, in that sentence. You'd also see it even if you'd only read the bio before he joined the SS Arendt provides, where again she maintains his agency in his vacuum cleaner job loss, regardless of his lack of responsibility in his firing.

It's hilarious how much like Eichmann you are, right now. Worth two posts.

[Anonymous No.8640760]

>>8640756
>borning
born

[Anonymous No.8640835]

>>8640734
>He tried to claim full responsibility for killing 5 million enemies of the state.
source, in the transcripts he claimed that he was a mere instrument during the trial.

>Eichmann himself admitted that he spoke in nothing but official cliches
source

>You mean the one where he realised that 5 million as he had claimed above as the number of people he had killed didn't square with the official tally, and tried to claim partial responsibility for 10 million? That kind of plays to his overclaiming, especially since he can't name what authority played a part in the other 5 mil.
lol what, you clearly have not read the Stassen transcripts

>That was my reaction when you missed the basic point of the book so badly that you've obviously been reading apologetics for Eichmann's claims because you need monsters.
no, I need theories that correspond to empirical reality. Not theoretical patrician fantasies

>Kant
I am clearly not arguing that Kant's view is relativist, I am pointing out Arendt's implication that Eichmann misunderstood Kant and that his moral failure was the blind acceptance of an inauthentic duty provided via the state/hierarchy.

>Cesarani doesn't understand what Arendt meant by banal
wrong person m8

>and if you understood how clauses work, you would see what he was burdened with agency, not responsibility, in that sentence. You'd also see it even if you'd only read the bio before he joined the SS Arendt provides, where again she maintains his agency in his vacuum cleaner job loss, regardless of his lack of responsibility in his firing.
pls, it is obvious that she gives him a negligible amount of agency, just enough so that she can burden him with responsibility, not the other way around

>It's hilarious how much like Eichmann you are, right now. Worth two posts.
ironic coming from someone who has uncritically accepted the inane work of a Continental pseud

[Anonymous No.8640867]

>>8638712
If you pay for insurance all your life, is it wrong to collect. She was for voluntary taxation.
The problem is more snarky idiots who go
>hue hue hue she should've died and become a martyr of her own philosophy!
It's like people endlessly pointing out that Nietzsche influenced Hitler to kill the Jews.

Most people simply argue with her political stances rather than her philosophical stances. Every point she's made on an individualistic standpoint is correct.

[Anonymous No.8640891]

>>8637880
Men didn't want them to become that.

The act of philosophizing is masculine in nature; it involves probing life, questioning and challenging it, ordering things in it into categories and evaluating those things for either scrap or treasure. What kind of man wants a woman to participate in such a masculine activity, and become just another man in the process?

And yes, men have always been in charge. They have been the primary decision-maker, even when women held sexual influence over them. Biology and evolutionary circumstance made this the case. And you know what? Real women never complained; in fact, real women want it that way.

Masculinity loves femininity, and femininity loves masculinity. They complement one another, seek one another, and are fulfilled by one another. Therefore, real men have always wanted submissive women, and real women have always wanted men who take charge.

[Anonymous No.8640899]

>>8638705
Whats wrong with Ayn Rand??

I never hear any arguments against her, just butthurt

[Anonymous No.8640900]

>>8640835
>source, in the transcripts he claimed that he was a mere instrument during the trial.
Hausner produces the quote as from 1945 during the trial, to which Eichmann counters he was "only referring to enemies of the Reich" in that instance, though he's repeatedly quoted through other sources as using Jews and enemies of the Reich interchangeably in the same context through the end of the war. It's literally just after he claims to "legally but not humanly" because even Eichmann realised the grandiosity of his former claim.
>>8640835
>source
search those transcripts you haven't read for "Amtssprache"
>>8640835
>lol what, you clearly have not read the Stassen transcripts
You haven't read them, either the early version or the full version. Which is why you need me to source the above for you, when you would know about the source of these quotes if you had. XD
>>8640835
>no, I need theories that correspond to empirical reality. Not theoretical patrician fantasies
you need to read a book is what.
>>8640835
>I am clearly not arguing that Kant's view is relativist, I am pointing out Arendt's implication that Eichmann misunderstood Kant and that his moral failure was the blind acceptance of an inauthentic duty provided via the state/hierarchy.
Yes, I saw that you were trying to get Kant wrong, but you clearly don't see how you got it more wrong than Eichmann did, even by Arendt's account, which you disagree with. KEK
>>8640835
>wrong person m8
Actually the right person, because pretty much the only way he contradicts her is to strawman her and call her a self hating Jew (well, snobbish Jew). It's a misinterpretation of Arendt that leads him to believe that she said he was only following orders, when she said no such thing. The rest of what he uncovers is support for her arguments that Eichmann lies a lot or just plain wrong, like his idea that Eichmann wasn't lying about his legal responsibility when he tried to claim it.
>>8640835
>pls, it is obvious that she gives him a negligible amount of agency, just enough so that she can burden him with responsibility, not the other way around
Pls, it's obvious you haven't read the book, and are relying on some second hand or fanciful account of what she actually says. Even with the vacuum cleaner job, she gives him agency which was unlikely to save his job. You've really missed the entire point of the book.
>>8640835
>ironic coming from someone who has uncritically accepted the inane work of a Continental pseud
Would you prefer I write the next post in truth functions so you can see how your sources are shit?

[Anonymous No.8640903]

Why does /lit/ keep responding to bait from /pol9k/?

[Anonymous No.8640912]

>>8640903
Because if we shame them enough for being ignorant, they might read a book to find out how ridiculously wrong they are about what the book says. It's no different to what we do to people who try to pretend they read a classic, when they obviously haven't.

[Anonymous No.8640922]

>>8640899
She copied Nietzsche, she has NO!!!!! originality!!!

[Anonymous No.8640927]

>>8640912
That's never going to happen and you know it. They are literally only here to shit up the board.

Besides you can't "shame" someone who literally has no shame.

[Anonymous No.8640944]

>>8640927
It's not going to happen with all the other retards who claim to have read something they haven't, and I refuse to make a distinction between one kind of ignorant cunt and another just because you dislike a certain genre.

[Anonymous No.8640946]

>>8639316
I'm not talking about 21st century "women"

[Anonymous No.8641023]

>>8640900
>Q. I don't want to hear any "because," I want an answer. Did you say that five million Jews died during the War and that you would gladly jump into your grave because of that?
>A. No, not because of that would I have jumped gladly into my grave; that is a wrong interpretation of my words.
>Attorney General: No, thank you. I still have not received an answer to the question why you explicitly said in Bureau 06, quoting your own words, that you had mentioned five million Jews.
>Accused: I have already said that I referred to everyone who was considered an enemy during the War. I also mentioned five million Germans. Whether that number was right or not was not important to me at that moment. And Dr. Servatius the reason was, as it clearly says here in this same paragraph, that I was engaged in manning the defensive positions around my office. But I did not say that I would gladly jump into my grave because I had killed five million Jews, or had their death on my conscience, or had taken part in their killing.
He out right denies it

>search those transcripts you haven't read for "Amtssprache"
You mean the various memorandums by him during the war, would you expect anything other than official language to be used in those?

>Stassen transcripts
>"If of the 10.3 million Jews … we had killed 10.3 million, I would be satisfied, and would say, Good, we have destroyed an enemy, we would have fulfilled our duty to our blood and our people and to the freedom of the peoples, if we had exterminated the most cunning intellect of all the human intellects alive today."
plenty more in there as well

>you need to read a book is what.
a book that failed to account for a tremendous amount of evidence, a book that provided laughable model of human behavior

>Yes, I saw that you were trying to get Kant wrong, but you clearly don't see how you got it more wrong than Eichmann did, even by Arendt's account, which you disagree with. KEK
?

>Actually the right person
Robinson is the one who misunderstood what she meant by banal

>You've really missed the entire point of the book.
the truncated amount of agency she gives him precedes his acts, she denies agency and internal motivations for the acts

>Would you prefer I write the next post in truth functions so you can see how your sources are shit?
sure

[Anonymous No.8641078]

>>8640922
I've never understood why people think Rand and Nietzsche have so much in common.

[Anonymous No.8641083]

>>8640903
Totally agree with you
I'm surprised this thread hasn't been deleted yet, though

[Anonymous No.8641090]

>>8641078
They have some similarities. I've seen people argue that Rand is just Nietzsche in a capitalistic system which isn't entirely accurate but meh.
I would argue that both hold similar individualistic grounds of loving life and want to destroy nihilism. They also have similar stances on despising altruism and the concept of duty.

[Anonymous No.8641109]

>>8641023
>He out right denies it
You know he's a liar and trying to deny the memorandum he admits to authoring just before it. And you just contradicted your idea that
>in the transcripts he claimed that he was a mere instrument during the trial
with what you quoted, since he's claiming his defense for not saying exactly that is because he was engaged in manning the defensive positions around his office, which is not the actions of a mere tool.

>You mean the various memorandums by him during the war, would you expect anything other than official language to be used in those?
No, I mean in response to Landau at the trial when he makes the claim that Amtssprache is his only language.

>plenty more in there as well
Oh wow, you managed to find part of the quote on 10 million I pointed you to when you brought up the transcripts you hadn't read. Now find the relevant bit to what I said, and you'll get a cookie.

>a book that failed to account for a tremendous amount of evidence, a book that provided laughable model of human behavior
a book you haven't read and have provided less evidence and more laughable theories on it than it could contain about human behaviour. meanwhile i've provided evidence you haven't read your sources, and how your sources are more flawed than ones that you want to shit on without reading or comprehending them.

>?
it's okay I won't ask you to read or understand Kant. baby steps
>Robinson is the one who misunderstood what she meant by banal
don't admit to not reading your own source. I've just told you how Cesarani mostly further her work, while also strawmanning her position (only following orders), while also calling her a snobbish German Jew. at least take the correction in stride instead of trying to deflect it onto another flawed source.
>the truncated amount of agency she gives him precedes his acts, she denies agency and internal motivations for the acts
She doesn't, she posits all kinds of grandiose motivations not just for his lies, but also for his actions. Literally read the book.
>sure
If I'm not cruel enough to make you read Kant, I'm certainly not cruel enough to make you read Frege.

[Anonymous No.8641171]

>>8641109
>>He tried to claim full responsibility for killing 5 million enemies of the state.
>You know he's a liar and trying to deny the memorandum he admits to authoring just before it.
?

>manning the defensive positions around his office, which is not the actions of a mere tool.
lol

>he makes the claim that Amtssprache is his only language
he claimed... hmmm why could that be

>you managed to find part of the quote on 10 million I pointed you to
I brought it up because it was not admitted during the trial and because it directly contradicts what Eichmann said during the trial

>meanwhile i've provided evidence you haven't read your sources, and how your sources are more flawed than ones that you want to shit on without reading or comprehending them.
Directed quotes from the trial transcripts, flawed. lol.

>it's okay I won't ask you to read or understand Kant. baby steps
you do realize that I was not laying out Kant's morality, but Arendt's model of Eichmann's understanding of Kant

>Robinson
>her
lol

> I've just told you how Cesarani mostly further her work, while also strawmanning her position (only following orders), while also calling her a snobbish German Jew. at least take the correction in stride instead of trying to deflect it onto another flawed source.
you have only asserted so

>She doesn't, she posits all kinds of grandiose motivations not just for his lies, but also for his actions. Literally read the book.
no she clearly states that Eichmann’s were grounded in typical bourgeois drives

>Kant, I'm certainly not cruel enough to make you read Frege.
synthetic a priori = hocus pocus

[Anonymous No.8641190]

>>8641171
>synthetic a priori = hocus pocus
>implying it isn't.

[Anonymous No.8641210]

>>8641171
>?
Go back to the part where it's a repeated adage of his, where he says it's on his conscience.
>lol
If that's not enough, try when he also claims that he's responsible for deportation, which the guys who are trying to prosecute him disprove. When the prosecution is a better defense for you than you are, it's a sign you're doing a lot of things wrong.
>he claimed... hmmm why could that be
because his other language is bridge it's a good joke, you may laugh now, unless you're Landau
>I brought it up because it was not admitted during the trial and because it directly contradicts what Eichmann said during the trial
actually, i think you'll find that i brought it up, and the reason i brought it up is that it contradicts Eichmann's claim that he was legally responsible, when he could be no such thing since he could not place the figure, had not the authority to command it, nor knowledge of whose authority it fell under. compare with my other points on how grandiosity motivates him to make claims beyond his ability.
>Directed quotes from the trial transcripts, flawed. lol.
oh but you are the one who pushed for us to rely on the trial transcripts, remember? if you find them flawed, why rely on them when you know you'll just cry about it?
>you do realize that I was not laying out Kant's morality, but Arendt's model of Eichmann's understanding of Kant
you do realise that i pointed out you got it more wrong than Arendt's version of Eichmann, or Eichmann's version of Kant? what you were laying out is your version of those, which is not hers nor his, but your version of how you think it is in a book you haven't read. I won't tell you how dimly Kant would view that attribution
>Robinson
>her
The "her" I'm referring to Cesarani furthering the points of is Arendt, anon. It is also Arendt that Cesarani strawmans the position of, and who also gets called a snobbish Jew by him. Considering your confusion of Arendt's version of Eichmann above, I see why you made this mistake.
>you have only asserted so
How can you tell that I am talking about Arendt here, but the same her in the same sentence you quote above to laugh at, you interpret as Robinson? Is your brain really that fried?
>no she clearly states that Eichmann’s were grounded in typical bourgeois drives
That's Cesarani, not Arendt. What Arendt describes is grandiosity. Read the books you want to talk about.
>synthetic a priori = hocus pocus
do tell how this effected your "her" dual interpretation. XD

[Anonymous No.8641296]

>>8641210
>if you find them flawed, why rely on them when you know you'll just cry about it?
I said that Eichmann was not being straightforward during the trial, the Stassen transcripts have nothing to do with the trial

>you do realise that i pointed out you got it more wrong than Arendt's version of Eichmann, or Eichmann's version of Kant? what you were laying out is your version of those, which is not hers nor his, but your version of how you think it is in a book you haven't read. I won't tell you how dimly Kant would view that attribution
? One more time, I was laying out what Arendt's model of Eichmann's morality. A morality he claimed was Kantian.

>Cesarani
given the quote you were responding I thought you were saying that Cesarani was furthering Robinson, hence the question over the her. Even so Cesarani's work still contradicts Arendt's. Cesarani posits Eichmann was a convinced anti-Semitic ideologue in a key position where he himself could initiate action and make things happen.

>banal grandiosity
hmm

>do tell how this effected your "her" dual interpretation
such an understanding would be analytic

[Anonymous No.8642151]

>>8638429
>society has never really forced them to better themselves
you mean evolution

[Anonymous No.8642180]

yeah, why do women refuse to spend a little time thinking about the work

[Anonymous No.8642182]

>>8638497
Only men cling to their fantasy of bettering themselves, because they do not have easily attention. Women do not even think about this.

[Anonymous No.8642192]

>>8638768
Shut the fuck up

[Anonymous No.8642195]

>>8642180

oh god this is a real show

[Anonymous No.8642213]

I had this problem with a girl in a computer course I was doing last year. I knew if I entertained the sex thought, I'd start acting like a desperate nervous freak around her, so I shut her out, pretended she was a fat trucker.

Sometimes I'd intentionally say the most ridiculous things to put her off me.

It got her worked up for me. She couldn't stand that a semi-ok man didn't see much in her, and she started coming over and sitting by me, wearing nice clothes and make up to get attention.

I think it really messed with her that a guy didn't care about her.

Looked like pic related

[Anonymous No.8642217]

>>8639953
>Anscombe
one true retard on causation, yes.

[Anonymous No.8642254]

>>8642213

did you fug her

[Anonymous No.8642263]

>>8641296
>I said that Eichmann was not being straightforward during the trial, the Stassen transcripts have nothing to do with the trial
No, you called the quote "directed" and "flawed". Do you mean Eichmann was directing, because I think you'll find it was Hauser directing.
>? One more time, I was laying out what Arendt's model of Eichmann's morality. A morality he claimed was Kantian.
One more time, you tried, and failed.
>given the quote you were responding I thought you were saying that Cesarani was furthering Robinson, hence the question over the her. Even so Cesarani's work still contradicts Arendt's. Cesarani posits Eichmann was a convinced anti-Semitic ideologue in a key position where he himself could initiate action and make things happen.
Given how I'd been saying that Cesarani's only contradictions are bogus (a strawman and ad hominem to put it in language you'll no doubt be addicted to) and the majority of his facts support her theory, before your fried brain came up with another flawed source to deflect blame onto, and that you used the same sentence understanding I was referring to Arendt immediately after, I'm going to assume your brain is just broken. Cesarani assumes that Arendt says he wasn't antiSemitic, when she says he was, but her (ARENDT'S) view is more nuanced and less biased by a need to confirm ideas than Cesarani's is. Which is funny because he nor you see the problem with projecting that bias on to her, when reading her book would easily disconfirm it.
>hmm
if you have trouble with how the banal can be grandiose, i suppose it's not cruel to ask you to read wikipedia around narcissism or grandiosity. there's plenty on it which would suit even your reading level, though you'll probably only diagnose it in those less affected than Eichmann.
>such an understanding would be analytic
it's like you didn't get my joke about how you make no sense. :/

[Anonymous No.8642265]

>>8642263
>Hauser
Hausner

[Anonymous No.8642292]

Why do men spend their day watching porn, even at work, instead of doing philosophy?

[Anonymous No.8642347]

>>8642292

And men STILL manage to create civilization. Are women even trying?