Any more philosophy websites like this?

t. Axewound

I'm not saying people shouldn't write about the nature of women. I'm saying that it isn't philosophy.

Cont.
The difference between the human sexes is interesting biologically, psychologically, and so on... but it has no ontological, epistemological, mystical, etc. aspect. It is an arbitrary result of the particular evolution of the strain of life that resulted in the human species, not a fundamental aspect of existence.

Yeah well, that's just your opinion.

Wanting to understand the opposite sex is a fundamental part of my existence and experience. Fairly sure it's the same for most other people with functioning sex organs.

If the binary nature of dark and light, good and evil, weak and strong, male and female etc do not have ontological status then what does? Only a pathetically weak mind would not consider the nature of women to be a suitable topic of philosophy. There is nothing excluded from philosophical thought, since philosophy is thought itself. But I guess you are the sort of spineless SJW type that would criticize Nietzsche for writing about women

>Veeky Forums is without a doubt the worst website in the history of the internet. I have never seen such an agglomeration of stupidity and wretchedness anywhere else, nor would have imagined that so much ugliness — mental, and no doubt also physical — could be possible in this world if I had never come across it. And they are all fully aware of this, which is why they prefer to remain anonymous, and almost immediately trash everything that they write, since they know it's rubbish.

U mad lol

>Wanting to understand the opposite sex is a fundamental part of my existence and experience. Fairly sure it's the same for most other people with functioning sex organs
Once you dedicate yourself to the task of understanding the opposite sex, it should only take you a few years to accomplish the task, whereupon the matter will cease to have any great interest other than as an occasional stimulant to thought or a bit of pleasure.

>Yeah well, that's just your opinion.

I don't criticize Nietzsche for writing about women. I do consider his thoughts on women to be laughable, while respecting his thoughts on many other matters. When it came to women he allowed his own personal experience to entirely dominate his concepts - a trap that, of course, he often wrote about when it came to philosophy in general. But even had he been correct about women, it would not have been philosophy. The idea that dark/light, good/evil, weak/strong and other such existentially significant dichotomies are homeomorphic to the man/woman dichotomy is absurd. I can easily imagine a third gender. I cannot easily imagine a third pole to, say, good and evil.

>thinks that by roping it in with other arbitrarily chosen discursive binaries he gets to paint them all with the label "ontological status" that he does not understand
>thinks that philosophy "is thought itself"
>thinks that he can give strong/weak "ontological status" in the same post that he uses them in ad hominem attacks, thereby confirming their purely rhetorical existence for him and for us

you need to read nietzsche more closely

>I cannot easily imagine a third pole to, say, good and evil

I can