Wow, Schopenhauer really didn't think highly of women lol

Back to Tumblr

lmao omg

He's pretty much Veeky Forums's justification to trash women in its fit of virgin rage

t. feminist

While I agree that hatred of women is an integral part of this community, I can assure you Im not leaving :^)

>triggered

t. redpilled

>hatred of women
Not hatred, more understanding.

t. ugly legbeard dyke

what's the t stand for?

One need only look at a woman’s shape to discover that she is not intended for either too much mental or too much physical work.

t ugly neckbeard incel

Because women in truth exist entirely for the propagation of the race, and their destiny ends here, they live more for the species than for the individual, and in their hearts take the affairs of the species more seriously than those of the individual. This gives to their whole being and character a certain frivolousness, and altogether a certain tendency which is fundamentally different from that of man; and this it is which develops that discord in married life which is so prevalent and almost the normal state.

>triggered

If you really believe that women are children in bigger bodies, you are the poorer for it and I suspect you don't get out much. Furthermore I cannot see how your understanding of women would do you any good in your life as it would serve to alienate, not liberate, you.

>women in truth exist entirely for the propagation of the race
>implying men don't

Women have never accomplished anything in the fine arts that is really great, genuine, and original, or given to the world any kind of work of permanent value. This is most striking in regard to painting, the technique of which is as much within their reach as within ours; this is why they pursue it so industriously. Still, they have not a single great painting to show
read more faggot

>I cannot see how your understanding of women would do you any good in your life as it would serve to alienate, not liberate, you.
''A man may bleed to death through the truth that he recognises''

Stay mad

That's precisely what you are. Your response proves nothing other than the fact you are no smarter than a woman.

In fact, on an intellectual and emotional level, you are a woman and a big child.

>Women exist to rear children
>Still living in 18c europe
Get with the times my man

WOW GUYS THIS ANONYMOUS POSTER HAS TRANSCENDED BIOLOGY
CLICK HERE TO LEARN HOW

ALSO IT'S 2016 COME ON GUYS CURRENT YEAR

>BIOLOGY
Do you live in a forest?

You truly believe you are redpilled, it's not even an insult to call you that.

Same as above

>Ignores the countless women who don't have children yet lead fulfilled lives

You really want to live in a farm community doncha

>countless

You could count them on one hand, and still have fingers left to spare.

You're not even trying anymore

...

>mfw this anonymous poster thinks he's onto something that Schopenhauer just didn't think of or have the mental capacity to understand
Right? What does he know, right?
I bet you believe you're still "rocking the boat" with your limp-wristed bullshit beliefs about nothing.

CURRENT YEAR
I MEAN COME ON GUYS
EITHER U TOTES AGREE WITH EVERYTHING I SAY OR U WANT TO LIVE ON A FARM AND ARE A NECKBEARD RYT GUYZZZ WHOS WIF ME

Well you're so obviously wrong that it's effortless to demonstrate.

>missing the point this hard

>countless women who don't have children yet lead fulfilled lives
lmao
every women past menopause who doesn't have a child is a bitter old self loathing hag
this is not even meme tier, it's the truth

>implying i give a fuck about your """point"""

Hatred if women isn't integral, and to be frank, they should kick you out for being an idiot who can't understand Schopenhauer, or worse, understood him and thought he was wrong. The people you're responding to might be mediocre idiots, but you went full retard.

schopenhauer thinks women are on a lower intellectual plane than men are. correct me if i'm wrong. redpillers use this assumption to justify their hatred of women by dismissing them as intellectually inferior and emotionally immature.

I think schopenhauer is wrong and redpillers are mongoloids. but thank you for the chance to clarify my position

schopenhauer didn't lack the mental capacity but he lacked the history of thought to understand that women are no less intellectual than men. inb4 you point out how many more men are great X's than women, most of it is covered by the recently-renounced tradition of men going into whatever trade or art they wanted to while women are married off young and stay housewives.

don't take comfort in the shadow of someone you hold up as great, because he is not infallible

Schopenhauer/Nietzsche/etc, didn't think women were more stupid than men: rather, that their minds are DIFFERENT, which are not one in the same.

When they allegedly criticize women, what they're criticizing is the social ideal of a woman - and any woman dumb enough to abide by it.

Both of these men made the point that whenever a woman removes herself from the 'masses', she exceeds a man unceasingly.

eye roll

that is some counter signal meme tier comic

>he lacked the history of thought

What a fucking platitude.

I don't know if you're a feminist or whatever but it always makes me laugh how professed "feminists" who fight ""harmful gender and sex conceptions" use virgin as a go to insult.

fulfilled lives of what?

What even is a fulfilled life?

A lot. His mom was a fancy socialite who threw constant parties with people like Goethe attending and when Arthur was a bit older he has a lot of sneaky affairs and a baby mama.

>most of it is covered by the recently-renounced tradition of men going into whatever trade or art they wanted to while women are married off young and stay housewives.
No it's not
Also, how would such a system come about anyway?
>but he lacked the history of though
LMAO
>don't take comfort in the shadow of someone you hold up as great, because he is not infallible
Implying I hold him up as great.
Implying because you have literally NOTHING else

Back to tumblr.

I don't understand your point. My point is clear: that schopenhauer's argument lives in the past, and by buying into it you are being ahistorical

He was apparently handsome as fuck when younger, and popular with the ladies.

The literal incarnation of the young Peer Gynt in every sense. He did some stupid shit like trying to get it on with a 17 year old in his 40s, which in fairness was probably not unusual.

>Schopenhauer's argument lives in the past,
No but it doesn't though.
Prove me wrong.

t. Chronological Snobbery

>schopenhauer thinks women are on a lower intellectual plane than men are. correct me if i'm wrong.
You are wrong. Read the bit where he says women can surpass even the smartest of men. He doesn't believe they're on a lower intellectual plane; he says they're more prone to dissimulation; taking this to its logical conclusion if you misconstrue his proposition to mean "all women" anyone who gets his views on women wrong like you have is a mediocre human. Try reading something which doesn't have the word "redpiller" in it, like Schopenhauer.

I also find it hilarious you think one of his essays (not even his prize winning essay) is the totally of his work, or you would be in any position to judge his work from talking to /pol/. It's like you can't even grasp how dumb you are because you're too dumb.

you're intellectually identical to an average /pol/tard from what I can see so there's that.

>they themselves are childish, foolish, and short-sighted—in a word, are big children all their lives, something intermediate between the child and the man, who is a man in the strict sense of the word

I don't buy your excuse that he criticizes some abstract communal "social ideal" of a woman. He says that a woman is something less than a man, something "intermediate" between immaturity and maturity. What are you gonna quote and interpret to dispel this?

>Read the bit where he says women can surpass even the smartest of men.
That's not in the essay, it's something he's supposed to have said to a friend. iirc

Nothing in what you've quoted says, or implies, any notion that they're less than a man - merely different.

He says that most men aren't real men. That's why he specifies that he means a man in the strict sense of the word, because he's not including the average man.

If you think that's the worst thing he's said about a person, you're so ignorant of philosophy that I wonder how you think anyone would take you seriously. Most of the really heinous things he's said about intellectual capacity in other humans have been about men who didn't make the man in the strictest sense of the word definition.

It is in the essay, you retard. Go read the fucking essay.

>intermediate
>between child and man
no, this says clearly that a woman is less than a man, if a child is also less than a man, which is clear from his tone of voice: "childish, foolish, short-sighted." Are you gonna argue that it's good for an adult to be those things?

why don't you quote it. you're the one trying to prove your point

Lesser capability does not equal lesser worth.

Retard.

and what is the strictest sense of the word? you sound so well-versed, I'm sure you have it in memory.

this still leaves the point that some men are real men, whereas no women are, so men have an inherently greater capacity of foresight and maturity, thus proving my point that women are less capable

you're reading your own thoughts into his essay

Wrong.

No where does he say that women are worth less than men.

You're the one pulling shit out of your ass.

Why would he?

>The nobler and more perfect a thing is, the later and slower is it in reaching maturity. Man reaches the maturity of his reasoning and mental faculties scarcely before he is eight-and-twenty; woman when she is eighteen.

Women are less "noble" and less "perfect" than men. I bet you REALLY want to define those words as strictly as possible. But how about you just read the essay. I am not gonna give him the benefit of the doubt on this point.

>They are the sexus sequior, the second sex in every respect, therefore their weaknesses should be spared, but to treat women with extreme reverence is ridiculous, and lowers us in their own eyes. When nature divided the human race into two parts, she did not cut it exactly through the middle!

He is supposed to have said this to the friend of sculptor who flew him to the United States and sculpted a bust of him as a publicity stunt. Which would make a nice movie. But it might be apocryphal.

he's right any way cunt

>you think one of his essays is the totally (sic) of his work

It's almost as if an essay titled "on women" wasn't the authoritative stance on women. As if we could find his real stance on women in some other work. In such case, please identify those extraneous passages.

>cunt
>retard
>/pol/tard

You and your ilk really have no method of discourse beside memes and sound-bytes. That is to say, I remain unconvinced. But I can assert things too, so he's wrong.

He was the original blackpill.

Meh, On Women is basically the male SCUM Manifesto.

In fact I'm 99% sure Valerie Solanas read it first and got so butt-annihilated that she wrote the SCUM Manifesto.

Schopenhauer was the right one, though :^)

>mfw you already got completely btfo earlier in the thread
i don't go on pol, dumb fuck
deformed feminist legbeard confirmed
bk 2 tumblr 4 u

>mfw user says mfw without posting jpg
how fucking new are you? do you just spout memes without understanding them?

>leee im so smaht much smarter than him becuse i read on the internet nd tht we r all equal nd stuff so ye i am right he jus a stupd cis gender male pig

looks like bruce jenner

On how dissimulation is natural to women and therefore they are more cunning than men
>This arises from their deficiency in the power of reasoning already referred to, and reflection, but is also partly due to the fact that Nature has not destined them, as the weaker sex, to be dependent on strength but on cunning; this is why they are instinctively crafty, and have an ineradicable tendency to lie. For as lions are furnished with claws and teeth, elephants with tusks, boars with fangs, bulls with horns, and the cuttlefish with its dark, inky fluid, so Nature has provided woman for her protection and defence with the faculty of dissimulation, and all the power which Nature has given to man in the form of bodily strength and reason has been conferred on woman in this form. Hence, dissimulation is innate in woman and almost as characteristic of the very stupid as of the clever. Accordingly, it is as natural for women to dissemble at every opportunity as it is for those animals to turn to their weapons when they are attacked; and they feel in doing so that in a certain measure they are only making use of their rights. Therefore a woman who is perfectly truthful and does not dissemble is perhaps an impossibility. This is why they see through dissimulation in others so easily; therefore it is not advisable to attempt it with them.
one the vanity of males regarding their intellect despite their lack of cunning, which women would beat them at naturally, even dumb women
>Men’s vanity, on the other hand, is often directed on non-material advantages, such as intellect, learning, courage, and the like.

He also says that European women, like the woman who does not dissimulate, are impossibilities, which implies both the woman who doesn't lie and unnatural states of the sexes exist. (Though if you didn't get the unnatural state of the sexes from Schoppy's essay, there's really no hope for you).

He praises women because they stick to the point, while men are dreamers, and it would be worth keeping in mind that all of what Schopenhauer lists for what men do (which you see as accomplishments) were considered by Schopenhauer to be uprisings of the will, and what made humanity so unsufferable. If you read his praise of dogs, you'll see that most of the reasons you give as dissing women, he saw as high praise for poodles which was higher praise than he gives to man. He thinks men are immature for longer, and when they do mature, they are still slaves to will. Women have the immediacy that his philosophy recommends, while you think that being short sighted was considered a bad thing in the paragraph he spends on "why we need women to bring us back to the point, instead of long-sighted daydreaming".

You're trying to make him someone who hates women because you're too dumb to understand how he wanted to fix the human condition. He calls all men children until they're at least 28 btw

>strawman
>autism in general
You are the reason Veeky Forums is bad

>mfw he's calling others new
>he doesn't know about my face when i have no face
??? what ???
yeah, back to wherever you came from faggot
also kys

>and what is the strictest sense of the word? you sound so well-versed, I'm sure you have it in memory.
see or just read fucking Schopenhauer without being enough of an idiot to think he's not insulting you too

You are the reason the earth is bad

>the badness is an externality and not inherent
top kek

>they are still slaves to will
citation needed

Schopenhauer

desu if you don't know that Schopenhauer considers sentient and especially sapient beings to be slaves to their will to life, then you don't deserve citations, you deserve someone beating you with kant

if it's so obvious then it should be quite easy to find and quote. I do not respond to ad verecundiam.

>I do not respond to ad verecundiam
but u just did? lmao

let me rephrase that for you: I am not convinced by it and I won't let it slide

>women exist entirely for the propagation of the race
"Nature has made it the calling of the young, strong, and handsome men to look after the propagation of the human race"

Uh somethings not right here.

It's all throughout his philosophy.
>Man is not truly free because he is slave to desires he has no control over; he cannot will what he wills, and thus is no more special or different from any other object in the universe.

You're such a retard, asking for this is like asking for a citation that Watership Down contains rabbits. I think you should know I'm laughing at you and your dissimulation.

you're autistic

those two statements don't contradict.

It's the short form of the Finnish word Terveiset, meaning "Regards". It was used on /int/ to imply the poster-replied-to was something other than he claimed. For example, a guy with a German flag writes "Islam really isn't that bad guys.", someone replies with "t. Mehmet" to imply the German is actually a Turkish man pretending to be German.

daily reminder that good old Mopey Schopey was right about everything