Schopenhauer on women

"It is useless to argue about polygamy, it must be taken as a fact existing everywhere, the mere regulation of which is the problem to be solved. Where are there, then, any real monogamists? We all live, at any rate for a time, and the majority of us always, in polygamy. Consequently, as each man needs many women, nothing is more just than to let him, nay, make it incumbent upon him to provide for many women. By this means woman will be brought back to her proper and natural place as a subordinate being, and the lady, that monster of European civilisation and Christian–Teutonic stupidity, with her ridiculous claim to respect and veneration, will no longer exist; there will still be women, but no unhappy women, of whom Europe is at present full. The Mormons’ standpoint is right."

theabsolute.net/misogyny/onwomen.html


Any Schopenfans here?

It's this thread again

>Mormons’ standpoint is right
dropped

bump

"With girls, Nature has had in view what is called in a dramatic sense a “striking effect,” for she endows them for a few years with a richness of beauty and a, fulness of charm at the expense of the rest of their lives; so that they may during these years ensnare the fantasy of a man to such a degree as to make him rush into taking the honourable care of them, in some kind of form, for a lifetime—a step which would not seem sufficiently justified if he only considered the matter. Accordingly, Nature has furnished woman, as she has the rest of her creatures, with the weapons and implements necessary for the protection of her existence and for just the length of time that they will be of service to her; so that Nature has proceeded here with her usual economy. Just as the female ant after coition loses her wings, which then become superfluous, nay, dangerous for breeding purposes, so for the most part does a woman lose her beauty after giving birth to one or two children; and probably for the same reasons."

ultimate mghow

Except for the fact that Schopenhauer was obviously mentally ill to some capacity, and personality flaws ravaged his character and his life. Circumstances he didn't otherwise account for in his writing.

If he considered the frailty of his own being and character as he does with women, perhaps he wouldn't end up coming up with antiquated and contradictory-in-nature arguments that edgelords he wouldn't respect on Veeky Forums recycle as his base.

The point being this seems largely as projection of his own personal failings and weaknesses and vices onto that of women.

I think you're probably right. From a medical perspective, any man who decides to always rely on his reason and never on his emotions could probably be considered mentally ill - I'm OK with that.

I'm not saying that none of his arguments aren't total shit.. I'm just saying that I dig reading his work, and that this one in particular is giving me the strength, at a crucial stage in my life, mating-wise, to overcome my passions and think logically about what will make me happy.

Love based Schopenhauer but he'd change his tune if he could see what modern 'woman' has become. Even one of them is too much to put up with today

>Except for the fact that Schopenhauer was obviously mentally ill to some capacity,

Top laff you slave

Schopenhauer was practically a womanizer, he even had a child out if wedlock. I guarantee you have zero acquaintance with him outside of this one essay and whatever you've been able to piece together from skimming his wiki. Indolent, reactionary shitposters like you are the cancer that is killing this board

This is beyond pathetic and part of the reason Schop is considered plebtier in most philosophic circles, continental and analytic alike.

Nothing you quoted is actually grounded in empirically verifiable data. Schopenhauer was simply giving voice to bourgeois ideology. I highly recommend that any edgy teenager reading On Women immediately proceed to Engels' Origin of the Family to douse those sexist fires before they lead to a life of perpetual virginity.

There is no claim Shchop posits that Engels doesn't systematically destroy.

Honestly you'd find more of your stereotypes of women here in men who post here than actual women. Most of you are very manipulative and scheming in nature, cynical. It comes across in ways you don't realize. It's very ironic.

>Schopenhauer was practically a womanizer, he even had a child out if wedlock.

And...? How does that suddenly make him the most sane figure of his time. He very clearly wasn't, and that has nothing to say of his social character. In fact the lack of structure to his connections with others is more evidence than it is evidence against.

>I guarantee you have zero acquaintance with him outside of this one essay and whatever you've been able to piece together from skimming his wiki. Indolent, reactionary shitposters like you are the cancer that is killing this board

I am well acquainted with his work and I question his validity.This isn't reflective of any kind of fact, this is ramblings of someone of the frailty of everyone around them, who can't see their own frailty.

A bit quick to use the shit poster insult? I'm giving my observations and questioning his judgement. Is that shit posting? Are we supposed to worship at the base of the Schopenhauer monument? Every time a shit poster makes this thread?

>reason over emotion
>reactionary

>indolent, reactionary shitposters
>reactionary

The kind of bourgeois individualism Schop valorizes is the epitome of reaction holy shit do you know what that adjective means in a philosophic context

>sexist
Why use this word when making an appeal to right wingers? The rules of logic stipulate that they are now free to call you a cuck and move on.

sexist just means you discriminate between men and women.

As men and women are different biologically, any rational person would be a sexist.

op here - cool i'll check that out.

bedtime for me buenas noches y adios

There's much more convlusion going on than you realize. For every personality flaw you're going to point to women, I'm going to point to men having the capacity to "behave" in that way. You point out women suffer from being manipulative inherently, and what of the men who post here who are manipulative and scheming? Should we just ignore them because you need to shill your politics every chance of every second because it's a political election?

Approaching this in 19th century black and white morality naturalism is fucking farcical and you need to stop saying this stupid shit as if it makes sense, it convinces kids who post here of otherwise ludicrous ideas about their peers as jokes.

You need to be taken to task on this shit more often. Almost nobody questions you at this point because you've driven out anyone who would ever question you

Does this usually work for you?

Individualism is sorta making sexism something obsolete in practice. arthur now would hate women as a symbol or concept but would still melt if that cutie next door smiled at him. our sexism heuristically is falling apart since we now see one as One and not a representation of a symbol or concept or simply a part of another Whole
Sorry if i didn't make sense ebglish isn't my first language but to be fair this also wouldn't have made sense in my native language not because i am complicated and a genius but because what i said is illogical and in fact meaningless
Sage

what do you mean?

no I don't think any of those things about women. That was my first post in the thread. I'm just saying that being against racism or sexism is totally irrational.

>I'm just saying that being against racism or sexism is totally irrational.

This is so broad that you thought it would come across as clever.

It really didn't. Just reread it. You've crossed the line from shill to bait.

It's true.

Racism is just discriminating between races, which are biologically different. Sexism is discriminating between sexes, which are biologically different.

If you tell people they can't discriminate between things that are different, you're telling them that they aren't allowed to address reality.

>It's true.

Sure if you want to play word game hopscotch racism and sexism are totally true and you are not at all politically motivated to shill on this board.

Is that the thing you say when you don't have a counter-argument but still want to seem correct?

you fucking shitposter fags ruing schopenhauer on this board

>muh women are inferior

just fucking kys if all you can take from his philosophy is this

Yes. Because I am objectively correct you've come to shill your political opinions non-stop here. If you didn't you wouldn't have said matter of factly, something stupidly broad as "Racism and Sexism are totally true because here's my definition and if you don't like it you don't like reality" when it clearly isn't what it means.

If you want to play word games to defend your politics, you've run out of arguments. And you're clearly going to bring up I have when you do.

Ah, the smell of triggered women still lingers in this thread... so, thanks for poisoning our athmosphere op. Now fuck off back to Veeky Forums

Nobody will ever take you seriously if you just quote this one essay of his all time, literally nothing else comes up about him in the threads.

Was there a specific reason you used the word "Ah" at the beginning of the sentence. You don't need to start your sentences off with sounds.

It seems you still haven't provided a real counter-argument.

Please, go ahead. I'd love to hear why I'm wrong.

Its the only work of his I ever see listed in redpilled lit threads too.

>>It seems you still haven't provided a real counter-argument.

Your definition of racism and sexism are intentionally vague because you want to bait people into arguing all thread about the validity of vague statements to shill your politics of jokes.

This is heavily ironic considering you believe women are the scheming ones.

Stefbot?

Glad you asked! You see, sometimes when you write, you want to express the sentiment with which a phrase is meant to be understood. That is what I tried to express with that sound. I'll admit that I'm not a very good writer though, it was meant to express exhaustion.

I'm not that person. You should read my posts more carefully, because you seem confused.

My definitions aren't vague, they're very precise.

Do you think they're incorrect? They certainly aren't vague in the sense that they can be misinterpreted. If you say that there is a difference between the races, you are a racist.

There is a difference between races, therefore racism is rational.

>My definitions aren't vague, they're very precise.

They're vague, your opinion on what they are does not matter in the slightest. Also can I ask, why your ilk always resorts to "Not that person" or "Not that person but" or "I don't believe this but" or various mixtures of let me worm my way out of this

It's very clear what you're doing, and why you're doing it. And, it's clearer when you resort to using a boxed bag of responses for every situation in which you're criticized.

It makes you look like telemarketer.

>There is a difference between races, therefore racism is rational.

This is a third grader sized observation about sociological issues that's intentionally put as a third grader sized observation about sociological issues for the reason I just stated.Your definition of racism and sexism are intentionally vague because you want to bait people into arguing all thread about the validity of vague statements to shill your politics of jokes.

>exhaustion

See now I had interpreted a feeling of invigoration or satisfaction from your post. I'm glad we cleared this up, user.

Me, I read that in the voice of Bill Kilgore, and I won't be dissuaded.

Explain how they are vague?

I can't imagine how you could misinterpret them. Please, explain how they are vague. You still haven't done this.

>Also can I ask, why your ilk always resorts to "Not that person" or "Not that person but" or "I don't believe this but" or various mixtures of let me worm my way out of this

I did that because you were confusing me with someone who says women are manipulative by nature. I'm not that person.

Hence, me saying "I'm not that person".

Again, please read more carefully. I know that following conversations with anonymous posters can be difficult.

But just to keep you on track, explain how my definitions are vague. Unsurprisingly, you STILL haven't provided a counter-argument.

So obvious you are woman, you can always tell from their retarded writing style.

>Explain how they are vague?

You're doing exactly what I just accused you of doing this is amazing. Your definition of racism and sexism are intentionally vague because you want to bait people into arguing all thread about the validity of vague statements to shill your politics of jokes.

>Hence, me saying "I'm not that person".

I know exactly what you meant. You don't have to go in depth condescendingly into 3 different sentences about how you very clearly are not that person.

It makes you look like a marketer.

Quite evading. You keep repeating this line about "why" my statement is vague, which isn't true.

I'm curious why you think the definitions themselves are vague. What about the definitions is open to different interpretation. It's very precise.


>I know exactly what you meant. You don't have to go in depth condescendingly into 3 different sentences about how you very clearly are not that person.

you clearly didn't. Not that I care. Just stay on track, and explain HOW the definitions are vague.

>Quite evading. You keep repeating this line about "why" my statement is vague, which isn't true.

Your statement is what a third grader would make about a situation. Again, because your definition of racism and sexism are intentionally vague because you want to bait people into arguing all thread about the validity of vague statements to shill your politics of jokes.


>Boys have a penis girls have a vagina. Sexism is real.

Quite evocative stuff. You make the argument that boys have a penis and girls have a vagina therefore my argument is very real, and if you don't like it you deny reality, to. Essentially bait someone, IE me, into doing the job of shilling your politics for you. Mostly by, evading, ironically.

Doing this. It's set up perfectly.

What you didn't account for was how dumb it is. I would take /pol/ for the scheming type who can't scheme.

are you retarded or do you just not speak English very well.

You can't just say
>hurr durr ur 3rd grader haha xD
and win the argument.

How are my definitions vague? How could they be misinterpreted?

I can make the argument your argument is constructed like that of a third grader and win because, it is constructed like that of a third grader.

And again, intentionally set up to shill

God you're insufferable.

Put forth a counter-argument or I'm dumb responding.

I swear, leftists are the stupidest people on the planet.

Don't worry I am sorry for ruining your shilling

Nope, male. But english is only my third language, so that's probably what causes this "retarded writing style" as you eloquently put it.

I bet you are swedish LOL

no wonder you're so stupid.

This is the worst post I've ever read on here. Congratulations.

Literally kill yourself

> Any Schopenfans here?

I've really enjoyed his books; very deep and nuanced investigations of self-consciousness (some of his most fascinating and challenging passages), on the innate forms of knowing, on perception versus conception, and on embodiment, with a solemnity of outlook that is almost balanced by its intellectual, even aesthetic grandeur. Very interesting interpretations and accomodations of some world religions too; his relation to Hindu and Buddhist schools is well known, but he had unexpected affinities for major aspects of Christianity too.

His personality is far less attractive than his system - to the degree that they can be separated, which I guess could be a contentious issue. I think the shitty things he has to say about women, blacks (though he does also have complimentary things to say about each (this fact doesn't erase or neutralize his insults against them, but it can provide a more informed evaluation of him)), Jews, and Muslims, are perhaps totally separable from the logic of his philosophical worldview. His screeds against his philosophical opponents show the extent to which he could really indulge in unrelenting, repetitive, and seemingly paranoid condemnations.

Schopenhauer was right about everything, especially his (worthless) contemporaries

>Except for the fact that Schopenhauer was obviously mentally ill to some capacity, and personality flaws ravaged his character and his life
He wasn't mentally ill. He was just rich and knew he could get away with it. He's not projecting his own personal failings on to women, any more than he is doing the same to men. Your world view is so fractured by gender politics (and not even well informed politics) that you need to think him crazy and wrong and any buzzword you can reach for rather than assessing the essay without projecting your gender assumptions onto Schopenhauer. You think Schopenhauer hates women and likes men because you do, not because of the essay. Someone could present you with a German copy of his work which you have no means of reading nor assessing, and you would mawk about his mental illness being apparent to you still, and put forth about his views on women which are more often your own facile interpretation than present in the text.

The concept of mental illness is a tool of the state.

>He wasn't mentally ill. He was just rich and knew he could get away with it.

You can be mentally ill and rich. As for the rest of it, I wasn't using "mentally ill" as an insult.. I was using it as an observation.

It has nothing to do with my politics though yours are right at play here.

Brain Chemistry doesn't exist.

Seriously, every fucking day

>schopenhauer is a bitter nerd virgin who can't get laid lmao he has issues

did it really make you feel better to work this up into 10x as many words on an anonymous forum

TAKE THAT, DEAD GUY!

I would much rather put it that he considered his own actions, the actions of a just arbiter like all people do, free of any sort of bias. So when he does have his own failings, that they aren't failings but unique parts of himself and ideas he's clearly came up with and fleshed out that are right.

Except this isn't the case and he was just as able to be a homewrecker as anyone else yet decided to apply part of his philosophy on the problems with homewrecking

Which is a bit longer than he was a bitter nerd virgin but in the end I suppose you're right and that is what I'm saying except the virgin part

OP is Back!

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I think it would be to our collective advantage to separate the useful insights from the paranoia, and to learn from the guy instead of just dismissing him.

I'm getting excited right now about heading to the library to check out one of his longer works.

Yes!

Some but not all

>You can be mentally ill and rich. As for the rest of it, I wasn't using "mentally ill" as an insult.. I was using it as an observation.
Ah, yes, that ever incisive criticism of philosophy based on retrospective diagnosis of historical figures by people on the internet.

>Racism is just discriminating between races, which are biologically different. Sexism is discriminating between sexes, which are biologically different.

Racism is actually the unfair treatment of a person or persons based on attributes. Same with sexism.

A science journal posting a graph of local economic income by race is not racist, but it does distinguish race.

You asserting racism is just discriminating is true for you but not to the people who invented, propagate, and withhold the term i.e your social government.

But the good thing is time is on your side to teach you the ways.