Why is it fairly easy for some of us to dismiss the merits of an idea due to the author's personal life...

Why is it fairly easy for some of us to dismiss the merits of an idea due to the author's personal life? The chief cause of this question is the experience I'm having with Schopenhauer - specifically the infamous chapter "On Women". I have the impression that most people dismiss "On Women" only because Schopenhauer had a rough time with women, but if that is true - and I believe it is - then they certainly should dismiss Pessimism and every other idea that has its roots on suffering! But that's not what happens! The same happens in Nietzsche's Nihilism - the wretches love the idealism of the perfect man, of the blood and sweat that one must spill on this soil to make oneself be great, but once they reach anything related to women suddenly there are a bunch problems that are easily explained by Nietzsche's mental illness, being rejected and being denied a threesome by the love of life in Switzerland. I'm sure that I'm being completely understood up to this point, therefore let me make myself clear. Why is it acceptable to dismiss an idea that its origin is on being sexually rejected, but not acceptable to reject an idea that has its cause on the misfortunes of the author?


Thanks for reading.

they aren't that simple, man. though the whole women rejection thing has some impact, of course, why not, it's part of their perception... but it's way more deep than just that.

I didn't understand your point. Would you do me the favor of elaborating on what you typed?

But it's not easy nor acceptable among people who seriously deal with truth. It's completely irrelevant how they lived their lives, what flaws they had, if what they say is true, is true.

their pessimism isn't based on women's rejection. though it might have something to do with it.

I'm not expressing that their pessimism is based on their rejection by women, but that it has contributed to their pessimism. A vast ordeal of causes had certainly contributed to their Pessimism, I believe we both agree on this point. What I'm truly asking here is why is it acceptable (and encouraged) to dismiss pessimistic views on women.

because you're shit at reading? nietzsche loves women too much; they're like the jews of the genders to him. schopenhauer's views on sexual satisfaction talk about how because ZOMGIT'SSOIMPORTANTRIGHTNOWISTICKMYDICKINANYTHINGWARMINCLUDINGMYHAND and the satisfaction it creates, we're terminally unhappy and locked into a cycle of abject need and base satisfaction.

How did you got to the conclusion that I'm shit at reading, user?

because you think their views on women are where the pessimism gets real, when the pieces on women are some of the most kid gloved passages in both authors. at one point in "on women" schoppy literally pulls a "think of the women we have reduced to whores because we want something warm to put our dicks in on a cold london night".

Because being rejected by a woman and being so embittered by it as to write entire essays on the matter is far more pathetic than having a generally difficult life and a pessimistic outlook on such life.

no one does except for maybe some whiny retarded pseud bitches here

>because you think their views on women are where the pessimism gets real

I have never even implied this, user. For me, his pessimistic views on Noise, Being, Women and Knowledge are all the same to me. I'm just curious on why most people dismiss a particular part of Pessimism.

Doesn't the fact that he throughout his whole life had problems with his mom, sister and passions constitute a difficult life?

>dismiss a particular part of Pessimism.
m8, they reject all forms of pessimism including that you're retarded and that's why your reading comp is so bad

Pessimists reject all forms of pessimism? user, you aren't making much sense. You should reflect more before expressing your thoughts.

no, most people do. look at what i'm quoting.

learn to write coherently

I should have made myself more clear. I'm referring to the Pessimists.

Please point out where I was incoherent.

those are still people.

Yes, user. I believe that the primary substance of the "pessimists" is "man", that is, "people".

good, now when we add the modifier "most", as in "most people", to the idea that "most people reject all forms of pessimism", what did i mean by this?

I don't really understand why you're so bitter and passive-aggressive, user. Have I done you wrong? Also, pessimists aren't most people - something you know, but you seems like you desperately try to save face for some reason I'm unaware of.

>someone might view me harshly
>but really i subscribe to the view everything should be viewed harshly
>bitter and passive-aggressive
>as an insult in a Shopping Hour thread
you're not even trying to pretend you read, user, why shouldn't i treat you like the shit you are?

Because plebs dismiss anything they can't 'relate' to.

>but really i subscribe to the view everything should be viewed harshly
It's probably the third time you claim I expressed something that I didn't. I had hoped that you would eventually quit, but it seems that your bitter and sad soul keeps on pushing to these bad habits, user. I'm sorry that you're like this. Have a good day, user. I hope your life turns out ok!

>I WASN'T TALKING ABOUT PESSIMISM AT ALL PLS STOP BEING PESSIMIST NEAR ME
good as it gets really.

People tend to pick and choose. Plato was in favor of censorship, Aristotle didn't think women or slave races were equal to Greek men, and Mark Twain wrote an article about how he had sympathy for a poor beggar woman until he found out she was dating a black man

But everything else they did was good

Meanwhile we throw stones at HP Lovecraft and Wagner

your prose disgusts me kys

Reading this post gave me cancer.

can't even discuss controversial shit on Veeky Forums without some stuck up normies getting buttblastted

Who are the normies doe?

Because in the 1st case it"s the animal talking, in the 2nd case man.

Explain this image to me

Stirner keeps calling niggers "spooks" and Marx is going to culturally appropriate him.

Nietzshe dindu nuffin.

Such a buttblasted samefag in here

Because that's the only argument women have.

This thread is retarded and OP should drink bleach.

You are implying we know about the token people you are referring to when you make these accusations.

Ofcoarse normies won't agree with woman hating, ofcoarse there are many who will cherry pick reading material for parts that will fit their narrative. Either you are asking a rhetorical question or you are a fucking idiot.

Accurate. I came in thinking this was going to be a decent thread, but it seems its already been derailed.

hegel cucked schoppy

anyway those kinds of books/sections about women are usually not philosophy and there's no philosophical argument in them. There's just shitty antropology, that's why people ignore them, not because the author was cucked

0/10
This is objectively a shitty post.

Schopenhauer was successful with women in real life

because that schopenhauer essay points out all your fawning over great achievements in art and science is just your attempt to screw someone you find beneath you for reasons that schopenhauer finds perverse.

Schopenhauer was a playboy. Luckily for him his only known child was a stillborn though.