It is only the man whose intellect is clouded by his sexual instinct that could give that stunted, narrow-shouldered...

>It is only the man whose intellect is clouded by his sexual instinct that could give that stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped, and short-legged race the name of the fair sex; for the entire beauty of the sex is based on this instinct. One would be more justified in calling them the unaesthetic sex than the beautiful. Neither for music, nor for poetry, nor for fine art have they any real or true sense and susceptibility, and it is mere mockery on their part, in their desire to please, if they affect any such thing.

What did he mean by this?

HOLY FUCK WOMEN BTFOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Someone tell /r9k/ and /pol/ about this, they'll fucking love it. Tell them to join our literature board to redpill retards who believe women are equal

Schoppie was the Elliot Rodgers of his time.

He was a repressed homosexual.

hail bap
dumb slut gtfo

Get smoked.

You can develop asexual tendencies when you abstain from the indulgence of sexual desire and when you make the conscious effort to diffuse it through logic. Though the urge to procreate is inborn, it can be tamed, lessened, silenced.

Schopes was one bitter dude

he's right, women are considered beautiful simply because men want to fuck them
the thing is, though, is that this instinct is so fucking absurdly strong that femininity is almost inseparable from beauty.

so this... is the power... of western philosophy..

he has a point but just keep it to urself so u dont seem like a total homo

Western philosophy is literally based on the works of homosexuals who idealized the male body, what the fuck do you expect?

no one ever quotes the beginning of the essay and sparsley throughout where he praises women for their worth. Not only do they bring men down to earth and calm them of any anxiety, they are the absolute joy in early, middle, and late life, and they are necessary for raising children.

>implying he's wrong

I dislike that Schopenhauer gets so much attention for the least interesting, least accomplished aspect of his writings, his comments on women.

>all this butthurt
Lol he's still a famous and respected figure from the 19th century and you a failure.

Another 15 year old girl rebuked his advances.

man it's true though
desire creates the object
but also he meant he's a lame homosex
look at that hideous goblin face
he has suffered waaaay to much lmoa

PROFESSOR SLUGHORN GOING IN HOLY SHIT

Sound more like a bitter virgin to me.

get cancer

Kek

The same thing Nietzsche meant when he said that women are not even shallow. Although at least Nietzsche knew that a woman could be a philosopher when her sexuality is stunted.

>The most effective lure that a woman can hold out to a man is the lure of what he fatuously conceives to be her beauty. This so-called beauty, of course, is almost always a pure illusion. The female body, even at its best is very defective in form; it has harsh curves and very clumsily distributed masses; compared to it the average milk-jug, or even cuspidor, is a thing of intelligent and gratifying design—in brief, an objet d'art. The fact was curiously (and humorously) display during the late war, when great numbers of women in all the belligerent countries began putting on uniforms. Instantly they appeared in public in their grotesque burlesques of the official garb of aviators, elevator boys, bus conductors, train guards, and so on, their deplorable deficiency in design was unescapably revealed. A man, save he be fat, i.e., of womanish contours, usually looks better in uniform than in mufti; the tight lines set off his figure. But a woman is at once given away: she look like a dumbbell run over by an express train. Below the neck by the bow and below the waist astern there are two masses that simply refuse to fit into a balanced composition. Viewed from the side, she presents an exaggerated S bisected by an imperfect straight line, and so she inevitably suggests a drunken dollar-mark. Her ordinary clothing cunningly conceals this fundamental imperfection. It swathes those impossible masses in draperies soothingly uncertain of outline. But putting her into uniform is like stripping her. Instantly all her alleged beauty vanishes.
>Moreover, it is extremely rare to find a woman who shows even the modest sightliness that her sex is theoretically capable of; it is only the rare beauty who is even tolerable. The average woman, until art comes to her aid, is ungraceful, misshapen, badly calved and crudely articulated, even for a woman. If she has a good torso, she is almost sure to be bow-legged. If she has good legs, she is almost sure to have bad teeth. If she has good teeth, she is almost sure to have scrawny hands, or muddy eyes, or hair like oakum, or no chin. A woman who meets fair tests all 'round is so uncommon that she becomes a sort of marvel, and usually gains a livelihood by exhibiting herself as such, either on the stage, in the half-world, or as the private jewel of some wealthy connoisseur.

What did he mean by this?

so glad we progressed past these kind of virgin bigots

>I dislike that Schopenhauer gets so much attention for the least interesting, least accomplished aspect of his writings, his comments on women.
True, it can't be interesting unless it fits in with he values of today.

I got a boner while reading that.

>2017
>not being gay

sadly this.

first paragraph was hilarious, second paragraph wasn't that that bad

>The average woman, until art comes to her aid, is ungraceful, misshapen, badly calved and crudely articulated, even for a woman
true af

What's sad about it? Dumb, phony piece of shit.

shoulda got on dat dere TRT

This is more of an attack on men than women