Schopenhauer

>mad a virtue of depression
elaborate?

He is right; anons are just aware he was also right about you being a manbaby and sought to coddle you.
Re-read the essay, m8. Nietzsche isn't more right, and doesn't call his proposals sensible at all.

He supposes a will-less state as the ideal, allowing transcendental perception of the great Will-As-A-Thing-In-Itself (fucking German) and freedom from suffering.

This can be construed as echoing the stoic apathy in a denial of selfishness, but the state itself is readily achieved by severe enough depression: the denial of the will to live, another core concept.

wut? His argument for tolerance and patience and generally treating your neighbour like a fellow sufferer or inmate is nothing like depression. Freedom from suffering as an ideal state is really hard to claim when his first notes on suffering are that to view suffering as anything other than the natural state is misguided shit, and if you can't get over that you should go pay a priest or pseudphilosopher to lie to you.
Schoppy's still a Kantian, so spending your time trying to an hero or thinking about it are just futile distractions with their own suffering, and themselves no better than ordinary suffering, just more self involved in their "solutions" and so more often compound suffering for oneself and others.

legitimate question: are you retarded?

just because a state of stoic apathy mayb be achieved in severe enough depression does not mean that he is advocating depression or making a virtue of it. Moreover, depression is quite far from the state of being a stoic which is one devoid of passion or suffering. it is a state of calm acceptance and minimal grief due to one having acquiesced to the state of things and not worrying about it or feeling sorrow about it. stoic apathy is QUITE far from a state of depression. it might be achieved after severe depression or before it but the states aren't same. moreover, making a virtue of stoic apathy is not equal to making a virtue of depression.

>Dicide on lit because need something different
>about people getting laid or not
Is Veeky Forums just a breeding ground for bitter virgin losers no matter what board wer on ?

i read his essay : "on women".
i feel as if someone as intelligent as him couldn't have written that work. he had to have written it out of spite and bitterness as opposed to out of a rational/reasonable line of inquiry or philosophical investigation.

>he insulted my favourite vanities of men
>they must be kept alive
>we'll pretend he was just insulting the women
uhhuh sure buddy

Good posts, guys

I don't understand. Have you read the essay? Are you claiming that he was being sarcastic or using those statements ironically to insult male vanity instead of women?

pretty bold statement there senpai.

I'm saying your vanity for "intellectual" feats and "philosophical investigation" is one of the many things that Schopenhauer slights men for in the essay, along with their immaturity. I've read the essay without my brain blacking out for the bits that address male faults, so it's not a bold statement; it's a sign of basic comprehension of the text.
He wasn't being sarcastic at all about how male faculties rarerly if ever mature before they're in their late twenties, and he certainly wasn't as lacking in nuance as you would like him to be.

men > women

Take the redpill, kid

yawn

how the fuck does him insulting male vanities take away from the insults he heaped on women? are you this stupid? that from his entire essay you only comprehended those nuanced sleights at men instead of the glaring indictment of women that runs through most of the text? do you want me to literally link or quote all the stuff that he wrote? are you this fucking deluded?

>b-b-b-but girls still lose! I-I still w-win!

i don't understand what you're trying to insinuate here.

In my post here, I literally questioned if someone intelligent enough as schopenhauer could have written something so vitriolic against women because his indictment of women seemed grounded not in reason/rationale but in anger and spite. I am being skeptic of schopenhauer precisely because i don't think that a reasonable, rational human could arrive at the insults that he heaped on women. i suspect that he was so critical of women not because he had philosophical reason to but because he was bitter and spiteful.

You are literally the stupidest moron white knight I have come across on this board because you are too dumb to understand basic arguments or statements. go back to tumblr.

Don't bother with that retard. It's probably a roastwhore. They are too emotional and can't properly think

Schope's a dope who loves to mope,
Schope's got rope but got no hope,
Sad old Schope's a misanthrope—
Wash old Schope's mouth out with soap!

you could dicide on killing yourself. that's something different

Yes. Well maybe not some of the very slow boards.

it would be a nice rhyme if "misanthrope wasn't pronounced as "miss-anthro-pee".

also, what does washing his mouth with soap mean? suffocating him with a bar of soap to end him of his misery?

>But an examination of his life reveals a yearning for marriage frustrated by a train of rejections. In the year 1831, Schopenhauer fell in love with a girl named Flora Weiss. At a boat party in Germany he made his advance by offering her a bunch of grapes. Flora’s diary records this event as follows: "I didn’t want the grapes because old Schopenhauer had touched them, so I let them slide, quite gently into the water." Apparently, she was underwhelmed.

here we see the braindead feminist whose primary concern is with whether a text is "sexist" or "problematic"

i get laid a lot and i fucking hate women

getting them to lick your balls doesn't make it any better, trust me. i was just hanging out with a drug dealer last night, who gets laid a lot despite being 600 pounds because he deals drugs, and we were talking about this. when they're sucking your dick you just want to hug them and have a real woman like the disney movies told you exist.

you just want to be like "stop that, and be my wife!" and all they ever know how to do is either cheat on you because they perceive your genuine feeling or desire for genuine feeling as beta, or to be like WHY?? I LOVE DRINKING YOUR CUM, MASTER!!

women are fucking worthless. it is impossible to hate them more than you do after having sex with a lot of them.

if you want the real experience of what it's like to know women deeply and intimately, to have seen inside their soul, try to imagine a 6 year old with all the emotional fickleness and entitlement of a 6 year old, and then wrap that in successive outer layers of spoiled rich brat young adult. their most "real" moments are just the 6 year old coming out, and once in a great while that can be kind of endearing or something, but the emotional maturity is still on a 6 year old level no matter what you do. and 99% of the time they are just the equivalent of a spoiled, feckless, directionless rich twenty year old anyway. the latter is their social persona, and the former is their unconscious. it's a child wrapped in a douche. that's all a woman is.

have fun trying to love that. it's great! your stupid fucking male brain keeps going I WANT THIS BEAUTIFUL SPIRITUAL BEING TO BE THE MOTHER OF MY CHILDREN.. and all they know how to do is be a disgusting slavish womanchild or to be a backstabbing exploitative whore. they really are the most spiritually awful thing ever created.

when a little boy in america said something dirty his parents (back in the day) would wash his mouth with soap as a punishment

you are mistaken about the pronunciation of 'misanthrope'

no i don't mind if he heaped insults on women. i just am curious if they were well thought out.

i mean i don't give a shit about feminism and trust me i give 0 fucks about political correctness but even by those standards, his essay on women was pretty far out there. just read it. if you have then come back and tell me if you didn't think it was a bit excessive and unreasonable.

kys

Is English your native language?

everybody knows men>women (if you pick one woman and one man at random from the world population and were asked "who do think is the better (swimmer, thinker, writer, businessperson, whatever)?", and you had to bet your life savings on the answer, what would you do?).

But it's annoying even for philosophers to talk about it. It's like reminding people that hot smelly shit falls out of their ass daily. Everybody knows that but we all ignore it and base our society around pretending it's not true because this makes things less sad and more fun.

All I'm saying is that there are billions of people who are better than me at any given thing (in some cases only millions, yay!), and that slightly more of them are men than women. Still millions of billions of women beat the shit out of me at most things.

sorry. i have been pronouncing misanthrope wrong all this while. probably because i never heard it said out loud by anyone apart from me and no one ever corrected me. my bad.

no.

>miss-anthro-pee
Wtf

>millions of billions of women

Excessive?
Yes
Unreasonable?
No

i've had sex with more girls since january than you will in your entire life

what do you think of that faggot

misanthropy is also a word, and a lot of greek loanwords do pronounce the final "e" that way (synecdoche), so it's an easy mistake to make

>Hyacinth.jpg
Good taste.

we all make those kinds of mistakes. you should have heard how I pronounced Camus one time. it's especially funny because I knew enough about French pronunciation to know better

I think they didn't correct you because they thought you we're referring to misanthropy

>what do you think of that faggot
That it's not much of a feat.

Are you that user that keeps telling the rest to take the redpill? Did you come from pol?

Camel?
Kamusse

take the cucking red pill you fuck

t. literally Hitler

Don't.

see the thing that i do not understand when people claim that women have some inherent flaws is that they never provide any explanation of where those inherent flaws come from.

"women are stupider". but what makes you claim that? do you have an understanding of the female brain and have you seen any scientific journal claim that female brains are smaller or lack neurons or are somehow less evolved?

"women are shallow". again, what proof or evidence do you have for this claim?

almost every time someone makes a claim about how women are inherently less intellectually capable or have certain personality traits it is because they seem to have made a generalization of their niche observations ignoring that men have just as much capacity to exhibit those traits.

i mean women are people, men are people and people are shallow and stupid. i don't understand why women get targeted critique when there is no concrete evidence to support that their brains are inherently inferior.

i'd be on board if someone claimed "most women prefer dicks to vaginas" because that has basis in their biological/psychological makeup and is a reasonable thing to assert. but i just don't understand where most other statements on their personalities come from.

>their most "real" moments are just the 6 year old coming out, and once in a great while that can be kind of endearing or something
accurately describes all "loving" memories I have of women I've dated. I'm looking back fondly on the 6 year old moments, cuz everything else was a cruel farce, like having a giant retarded kitten assigned to be your boss at work and having to figure out what the giant retarded kitten's orders are and carry them out perfectly or else get attacked

if you are a woman reading this please marry me especially if you are batshit insane, I love em crazy, crazier the better

i don't want to read the essay so ill concede that you're probably right

wait so you were accusing me of being sexist because I was critical of a text that you haven't even read? wtf

meant "millions and billions"

His mother literally went around trying to kill him and screw him over, nearly sank the family business, chased after anyone with a willy and a pulse and was generally a bit of a shit. Then when he did the whole "fuck Hegel I'm scheduling my lectures in direct competition" thing, a lot of the foot traffic away from Schopenhauer and toward Hegel were women. It's that whole enlightenment "why can't women think too" jazz.

So I think yeah he had a ridiculous amount of vitriol and it's certainly a candidate for a poorly thought out essay. Even now I'm expecting to find a note somewhere in the spirit of his "I'm not homophobic guys!" note on his Will to Life. It's the misogynist underbelly of the romantic and naturalist period really.

I'm sorry. I know, the truth hurts

>People think Schopenhauer/Nietzsche were women
>They don't realize the nuance which makes it obvious they're referring to the average woman
>They miss the key parts which indicate their clear belief that women can exceed men ceaselessly, if they but remove themselves from the masses

>People think Schopenhauer/Nietzsche were women

thank you for the explanation. i had suspected that it might have something to do with his personal life and his experiences.

>People think Schopenhauer/Nietzsche were women

...wut?

it's the ''womin'' episode again!
I'm lazing my way out of this argument
I claim women are socially inferior to men.
I prove this by a simple experience
Talk to a man
Listen to this conversation you're having
Talk to a woman
Idem
Do this an n rational number of times
Judge the conversations you had with women by the conversations with men standard
This might be anecdotal evidence, but unless you figure out a way to find an answer for every course of n, it's the best way
You'll see that the quality defined of course by yourself lowers in the conversation with women.
Why is that and where does it comes from?
Simple biological explanation.
Women breed and men look to breed.
In that form, the biggest action occurs from the man, thus he's forced to do more.
Woman stands by and gets impregnated.
Take this to our experience; woman put minimal effort in conversations and get the same result as a man, just because we want to breed. I don't truly give a shit what they spew, because it's often banal talk.
There is a inherently difference between a man and a woman.
By a biological society, woman does less, gets more. Man does more, get's less.
That's why they're ''stupider'' and will rest ''stupider''
Because they are shallow, and they're shallow because they were always served and dependent.
>inb4 i know woman deep n' shit

Who thinks that ?

here's the explanation: men evolved to be hunters and gatherers, risking life and limb (sorry I'm hamming this up) to venture out into the great and unknown to bring down wild beasts with invented tools and haul them in teams back to the camp. Meanwhile, women evolved to be semi-sentient milk machines whose only task is to eat the food the men brought back from the hunt and turn it into milk for babies to suck out of their tit spouts.

this evolutionary division of labor has obvious, noticeable ramifications in the realm of men's and women's bodies--they're attuned to their tasks.

why is it so hard to imagine that women's and men's minds are similarly attuned to their tasks? that men took on as much rational intelligence as would aid in their toolmaking and strategic hunting and teamwork, while women were only allotted little more than the amount of rational intelligence required to keep a baby from dying?

Many feminists even implicitly accept this real distinction between men and women and attempt to weaponize it in favor of women by noting women's superior emotional intelligence (makes sense that they'd have superior emotional intelligence since their charge is the care of children), and then claiming that this emotional intelligence is really more important than rational intelligence. In many arenas of life it may be.

But the reason men are "better" than women is that this society we have created, which is the only reference point against which to compare men and women, requires and rewards rational intelligence, and has little place for emotional intelligence (or maybe it does actually need a ton of emotional labor, but doesn't reward it as much). But that could be totally different. A world where women exceed men is totally imaginable

so it's dumb to say that men>women objectively

but it's also dumb to bet on the woman in a math contest, all other things being equal

>how the fuck does him insulting male vanities take away from the insults he heaped on women?
it implies he's a misanthrope not a misogynist.

he claims they're necessary to each other, a complement, and that he has insulting things to say about either and both of them when they are allowed to run freely to their natural flaws without the corrective balance of the other is the point of his whole argument. which you missed because you're sexist.

why are you implying that insults against women are worse than insults against men? he makes both, and you ignore one entirely because you're too busy tending to the honour of the ladies. you're not just mentally defective, you think most women are mentally defective enough to they need more coddling from insults than men, when coddling menbabies is one of their greatest talents according to the essay.

What are Schope's philosophical positions anyway in a nutshell besides compatibilism? I know he said fuck Hegel but what else.

That's a good rap. Wrong on the thalers, though.

>will and representation
Wtf Ameritards. First "emergence from his self-incurred immaturity" and now this.

It's Will And Imagination.

It's actually Will and Idea.

no i accused you of accusing the text of being sexist. plz post tits or chastity device

nah, vorstellung is imagination

>I literally questioned if someone intelligent enough as schopenhauer could have written something so vitriolic against
KEKEKKEKEK, I'm the user you were talking to here and responded here too but now I see you're not an idiot who didn't understand what he read, but simply didn't read at all
>I literally questioned if someone intelligent enough as schopenhauer could have written something so vitriolic against
>questioned if someone intelligent enough as schopenhauer
>could have written something so vitriolic
The answer is Schopenhauer is notoriously vitriolic. He wrote a book on aggressive vitriol and how to spew it effectively on your opponent and everyone they hold dear. His criticism of Fichte is Veeky Forums in its finest hours level of vitriol tier. He calls all of Hegel's students drooling retards who learn nothing but scribbling. You have either read fucking nothing of his work, or you're legitimately a case for forced euthanasia.

I mean, ffs, his criticisms of Kant are so fucking biting that people think he didn't love Kant.

i only claimed that his insults against women were a bit more far out there than his insults against men. he was more generous with men and much more vitriolic against women.

i also don't understand what basis there is in his insults on both men and women. where does he get the notion that "women are inferior to men in matters of justice, honesty, and conscientiousness".

if you can't see that his insults against women were wayyy worse and that he derided women for being way inferior to men in so many different areas then either you didn't read the text or didn't comprehend it well enough.

he was a misanthrope but let us not kid ourselves. his opinion on women was far worse than that on men.

vorstellung is also representation, as it's the image you project to others.

this is why I love women who are "feminists" because they actually break the mold of a typical woman and want to seek, fight, compete, talk animatedly, create, etc., and are rightly annoyed by people treating them like objects (and do so simply because most women, as you've described, do behave like objects).

and it's why I hate women "feminists" who make a virtue of being objects, condemn action and fighting and seeking as "violent", "embrace their femininity."

And there are so many of the former type. It's like a whole generation of women got into feminism in order to relieve themselves of the burden of their factual equality with men, wanting the ease of being an object alongside the rewards traditionally afforded to men for their action

whatever the world is a giant robot and for all it cares we can just suck each other off and speak in tongues all day

>Simple biological explanation.
Yeah fuckoff stemfag.

he is notoriously vitriolic but one would assume his vitriol would be grounded in reason. his essay and opinion on women seemed to be grounded on anything BUT reason.

>his essay and opinion on women seemed to be grounded on anything BUT reason.

That's wrong though. It was very reasonable.

do yourself a favor
free-iqtest.net/
post results
I think you're medically retarded
>Philosophers need to be fair

...

no. i don't want him to be an egalitarian.
i just want him to give a decent fucking argument for whatever it is that he felt. and he fell short. that is my only complain.

I also want Plato to do a decent fucking analogy rather than a stinky cave and some sun.
Fucking dead people man

>i only claimed that his insults against women were a bit more far out there than his insults against men.
And you were wrong. He wasn't generous at all with men, he called all of their "achievements" futile. Everything that you value, he called delusional shit that men like to wank themselves off over because they're blind to reality and desperately vain.

You only care when he insults women because you're a sexist dick who thinks they can't withstand Schopenhauer's criticism, which isn't that harsh when you consider he's kinder to them than anyone else he criticises
>honesty
You cite that they're dissimulators, but considering that he insults men as only being interested in the simulated (like their pointless and sad pride in being creators of art when that is practically tapping out in the first round according to Schoppy). Men preen after their honesty because they lack all cunning; women, even the least cunning, would beat them.

You're kidding yourself that women are the victims of that piece, because the only narrative about women you're comfortable with is when they're raped and bleeding. That's pretty sick, bro.

>women are inferior to men in matters of justice, honesty, and conscientiousness
>women’s reasoning powers are weaker
>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
>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.
>This makes them 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

literally all of this is pure vitriol and zero reason. i don't give a fuck that he indicted women. i just dislike the fact that he didn't justify himself when he made these points. it was basically

>women are x
>women are y
>women can be like z

but he never fucking gave a justification or explanation or reasoning for this shit. it seemed as if he got drunk and wrote a hateful ramble motivated purely out of spite instead of a philosophical investigation. FFS is it too much to ask a philosopher to fucking give an argument or reason for his claims?

>it seemed as if he got drunk and wrote a hateful ramble motivated purely out of spite instead of a philosophical investigation.

Things are never what they seem, dumb shit.

Repräsentation(representation) is visualization in the Vorstellung(imagination) according to Wikipedia

"Laut dem “Wörterbuch der philosophischen Begriffe“ ist Vorstellung “das im Bewußtsein auf Grund von vorhergehenden Sinneswahrnehmungen und Empfindungen zustande kommende Bild eines Gegenstandes oder Vorgangs der Außenwelt”."

Shitty translation: According to the dictionary of philosophical concepts Vorstellung is the emerging-from-consciousness image of an object or event on the grounds of prior sensory perceptions and sensations.

So
representation 1
imagination 0

Now answer my question

That's a sound development.
Please train your reading comprehension
>inb4 sound = true

>trite cliched statement in response to skepticism
gg you moron fuck.
do you sincerely believe that his views on female/male psychology were grounded in reason and philosophical investigation? that someone followed a rational train of thought and logically deduced that "women are inferior in matters of justice, honesty and conscientiousness". that a reasonable person could arrive at the conclusion "women in truth exist entirely for the propagation of the race, and their destiny ends here" ?

if he made these assertions why didn't he bother building up to them? most thinkers/philosophers explain/justify themselves or build up to their claims instead of spewing a bunch of statements. how does one take someone seriously who doesn't bother explaining himself in the slightest?

>Things are never what they seem, dumb shit.
Oh the irony

>but he never fucking gave a justification or explanation or reasoning for this shit. it seemed as if he got drunk and wrote a hateful ramble motivated purely out of spite instead of a philosophical investigation. FFS is it too much to ask a philosopher to fucking give an argument or reason for his claims?
to be fair, Schopenhauer gives a lot of credit to his readers. when he talks about Hegel he doesn't provide reasons; he assumes the reader will know of the Young Hegelians and why he would call them scribblers. in a similar vein, when he wanted to quote the Greeks, he assumed his readers spoke Greek. he gave you the benefit of the doubt that you had met at least several kinds of women, if not in large numbers.

This
Not everyone has to lead you by the hand

Natural/biological arguments about women being inherently inferior or less intelligent are stupid frustrated STEMshit.

All you need to do to prove that women are childish and petty is look at how society treats them and allows them to get away with.

Schopenhauer writes about women as if they were the niggers of Europe. But is it that hard to believe European women around that period were simply god awful because of the way they had been held up on a pedestal? How could you be a continental woman in the early 19th century without being a pampered, uneducated cunt really? They didn't need to know anything about art, so few of them did.

He asked for the reason a priori user

>How could you be a continental woman in the early 19th century without being a pampered, uneducated cunt really?
By not being a posh woman. Smartass.

finally someone who speaks some sense.

>But is it that hard to believe European women around that period were simply god awful because of the way they had been held up on a pedestal? How could you be a continental woman in the early 19th century without being a pampered, uneducated cunt really? They didn't need to know anything about art, so few of them did.

Not hard to believe at all. However, he wrote about women as if they were "inherently inferior or less intelligent". HE never claimed that "women from europe during me time are so and so".

he never attributes those flaws to the period of time he was living in or the kind of society he was in but he claims that those flaws are inherent in women.

>by not being a woman
fix'd

>How could you be a continental woman in the early 19th century without being a pampered, uneducated cunt really?
m8 at least pretend you read the essay in question.