Why have so many notable men struggled so fundamentally with women?

Why do you think they didn't understand people just because they couldn't get a gf?

>women are not more crazy than men
t. woman

Not sure how one could be a regular imageboard user and not think men are crazier desu.

female craziness comes across as pretty normie in comparison.

germanbro here, how's it called?

Female craziness is callous and sociopathic,

Because you can't try ti explain life, humanity or society without including the relationship between men and women. It's one of the most fundamental constructs. If you aren't able to have a relationship with your opposite gender then i am tempted tk assume you are not capable of understanding the simplest and most basic things about humanity

Except a man who is being rejected by women knows more about gender relations than a 10/10 Chad.

Ich küsse euch tausendmal by fischer

...

>criticize females
>wow go to r9k u angry virgin

maybe he has had to overthink his approach more, yes. that only means the sheer colume of thoughts used on females might be higher. it is no indicator of the quality and truth of those thoughts.
just because i have tried to solve a difficult mathematical equation one hundret times and failed doesn't mean it is inpossible to solve. maybe i just lack the capacity. might be someone else could solve it in the first try. but one should assume that trying and failing at something will inevitably lead to a solution if you keep trying. but it seems to me that those men often don't really alter their approaches and still gope it will someday just work. they blame it on girls not being approachable or whatever. but if i try to solve the same mathematical problem the same way 100 times, it still won't work, even if i try it the 101. time

>implying I'm wrong
You have to go back.

forgot to rotate

I think you're ignoring that these people were also great artists and philosophers. Lots of people simply don't want to spend their entire waking life trying to get female attention like it's their second job. You also underestimate how unpredictable women are: you can do everything "right" and they still won't like you.

Every single woman these days has depression or bipolar or whatever the fuck. All of them seem to be on antidepressants.

It's easily explained
>women have an innate desire to be mothers
>capitalism tells their childlike minds to have casual sex and engage in hedonism
>they eventually realize that Chad Thundercock doesn't want to settle down with them
>cue depression

Kafka never wrote about society, he just wrote about himself and his experience (magnified through horrifying and existentialist glasses).

Nietzsche enjoyed solitude, but it was mostly because of illness. If you have read his letters you already know that he was actually quite charming, that he didn't die as a virgin (and apparently he never had sex with prostitutes), and that his readers (mostly academics and prominent figures in the arts) basically venerated him.
I mean, he was a close buddy of Wagner in the years in wich he was as famous as pop stars are famous today, and his 2 best works were directly inspired by Nietzsche philosophy (both the Tristan und Isotte and the Parsifal).
He was a big shot and people never failed to recognize him on the streets.

He basically was 19th century Zizek, if he was a genius.

i do think that more people than you think are doing all they can to get female attention like it is their only job. they just do it in very weird ways.
ofc females are unpredictable. the same way men are unpredictable too. they might not be in relationships with other males because they rarely run deeper than making fart jokes and having profound conversations about whatever interest you two have in common.
you don't have to share your bed with your male friends and raise kids together (not usually atleast...). this isn't a problem about females being females. it is a problem of people being unable to have relationships that go a tad deeper and that can be abrassive since they will inevitably have to let down their masks.
i also think that exactly that idea "having to do everything right to get a girl" is one of the biggest mistakes guys often make. because they won't keep that up forever. after a few years at least, the facade starts to crumble and the real person behind it starts to appear. and that's when so many relationships fall appart. the same is obviously true for women. they aren't any better. they put up an act they will never be able to hold up longer than a few years. mostly till they get married. it's not marriage that is the problem. or women. it is people trying to appear better than they are. so you enter contracts on mere make believe. it is just a house of cards and ready to be destroyed by the smalles touch. and walking around with a mask is definitely not a problem that only affects females. by far not...

t. woman

Trust me honey, you don't know shit

and every guy these days has anxiety and is drinkiing too much alcohole to cope with it or is severely insecure and uses drugs to not kill himself. is that any better? there are as many sane girls out there as there are truly sane guys. zero

i am impressed by your skilled and insightfull argument.
wtf i hate women now

are you new here?

Not that user, but I'm not agreeing with you, and I'm taking myself as a proof of that.
I have composed music and played violin for my entire life and, I swear to everything I hold dear, I've never done any of those things in order to impress a girl. Never.
I don't have any reason to assume that any of my fellow musicians in my string quartet are doing it for pussy either.

Just accept it. Some people simply don't care about sex. It feels good, but after a few istances you can see how empty it is if you don't put any actual meaning to it. I don't want to get pussy, I just want to be chill and compose soul-wrecking string quartets. I'm pretty sure that Nietzsche and Kafka were the same. Of course they fell in love for other women, but sex in itself was never a main theme in their works, if anything we should notice the abscence of it (well, Nietzsche as wrote a few lines on it, but it was mostly slander against judeochristian values).

tldr: some people really don't care, and when you're job is to make art and philosophy not caring about it become really easy

because women fall cripplingly short of the ideal we project onto them, and its painful all-around

that might be right, i haven't read all of his works yet.
but the way he wrote to felice bauer is sp bad i donmt really need to know anything else to conclude that he must have been really bitter about women

well, in nietzsches case i believe it was a case of sour grapes. he was unable to have relationships that weren't him being the grand philosopher and others hanging on to his every word.
not having died a virgin is not a proofe of somebody not having intimacy issues. what i talk about here is not how mich he was able to use his fame as a tool to get women to let them stick his dick in. i am talking about a sustained and working relationship over a long period of time. and that he hadn't had

and why is it then the womens fault if you want them to be perfect and they are merely human? are you perfect to be in a position to make such demands?

there is literally nothing wrong with hedonism

living a miserable life because you believe it's the intellectual or non-"degenerate" way to live is retarded.

haha
you're so wrong

>well, in nietzsches case i believe it was a case of sour grapes. he was unable to have relationships that weren't him being the grand philosopher and others hanging on to his every word.
No it wasn't, you normie. All deep thinkers require solitude to be able to fully form their ideas. No profound person is in constant need of being surrounded by others. And you can't know yourself in a crowd of people.

“In loneliness, the lonely one eats himself; in a crowd, the many eat him. Now choose.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche

A life of hedonism is more miserable than being virtuous or strong. I have never met a hedonist who wasn't just distracting themselves from some sort of pain.

Nietzsche found his ideal wife in Lou Salomè, we all know the story about how she dumped him and he invented existentialism to cope with it.

Before that refusal the view of women was one of wasted potential: given enough freedom they can florish and become more perfect than any man could ever hope.
After the refusal he adopted the classic concept of seeing women as children, and their liberation is seen as a degeneration of their nature (wich is a pretty bad thing, if you've read Nietzsche enough), especially in Ecce Homo (but Thus Spoke Zarathustra has lots of anti-feminist slander too).
There is no reason to think that he wasn't 100% serious in those last statemens, and lots of people don't really know what to make out of it, especially considering how little he wrote about the subject.

As usual ''The unexamined life is not worth living'', and there's no tool of examination in a purely hedonistic lifestyle.
Neither Nietzsche or Kafka advocated for it.

>haha if you have ideas your just a bitter loser virgin lmao
Not everything revolves around women. Just because somebody in the 19th century wasn't a liberal egalitarian. Nietzsche saw women for what they were. If you think women are the same as men you're delusional.

i donmt say it is nonexistent. ofc not everything humans do is to boost their chances for reciprocation. i play piano myself and i know how rewarding it is standing alone. it doesn't need any external motivators to bring me back to it again and again.
that probably is because you have held it dear before puberty has set in. it is ingraned inside you and brings you joy simply for the sale of joy. but be aware, very few people have something like that. they try to artificially create hobbies, interest and passion and then it is always with the thought in the back of the head "will this make me more desireable?".
i never claimed this to be teue for everyone. i just said it's more people than you might assume. that said, i'm sure you do SOME things too that you have only picked up in hopes of becoming more desireable. not that that's a bad thing to do. one just can't except it to magically turn ones life around and then blame the other gender if they don't stick to you like honey

>the only reason men do things is to get sex
I am constantly surprised by the sheer narcissism of females. It's amazing.

Because if you are born a Chad Thundercock, then you don't really have a need to prove yourself, but if you're born a scrawny beta faggot then you may or may not have that chip on your shoulder that can motivate you to greatness

It may lack in modesty but I'm pretty sure that I have that. I see no reason for wich either N. or Kafka should be read with that idea as a premise.
None of their work express a longing for casual sex. At best you can find romantic, idealized love.

>Time traveller tits or GTFO

It makes sense to consider those particular ideas (the anti-feminist ones) as a direct response to Lou Salomé's refusal.
It makes sense, when you start looking at the actual cronology of those ideas. Nietzsche went from being a feminist idealist to being one of the raunchiest anti-feminists in the existential tradition. Honestly his attacks are so direct and so unjustified that I often have the doubt that it was just satire.

they need phases of solitude, i fully agree with that. but you canmt understand humans if you only reference introspection. your own mind is a clusterfuck of issues and pre made assumptions that formed in early childhood. without the abiltiy to clash with other humans you will think yourself completely sane. in a state of continuous solitude even your wildest theories will sound perfectly logical to you. you need the reality check relationships can give you.

as nietzsche said himself, solitude and loneliness are NOT the same thing. i agree than solitude is necessary. but you can be in a relationship and experience solitute nonetheless. it isn't painfull. it is a wonderfull thing and everybody should seek it from time to time. but loneliness... that hurts. it's not a good ground for sane theories emerging

When exactly was Nietzsche a "feminist idealist"? You're making shit up. Women have never been central to Nietzsche's philosophy, at best you can find a few scattered remarks about them.

You've just completely bought into the idea that being an anti-feminist makes you an angry virgin, it's pathetic.

i am constantly surprised by your sheer lack of reading comprehension

not once did i say this is true for "all men" or a trait that only has intoxicated males. you just understand what you want to hear to strengthen your bitterness

"What inspires respect for woman, and often enough even fear, is her nature, which is more “natural” than man’s, the genuine, cunning suppleness of a beast of prey, the tiger’s claw under the glove, the naiveté of her egoism, her uneducability and inner wildness, the incomprehensibility, scope, and movement of her desires and virtues."

“The perfect woman is a higher type of human than the perfect man, and also something much more rare.”

The anti-feminism slander came later in his life, with the first istances appearing in Thus Spoke Zarathustra (wich he wrote after that infamous rejection).

i have never implied they were searching for casual sex. althought i do think that seldomly anybody would just seek out casual sex. that is often if not always a symptom of greatly shattered expectations at romantic love. it is, basically again a case of "sour grapes". iow if my first relationship didn't turn out how i wanted it to turn out, then i am going to convince myself that i don't want a relationship anyways and am only looking for casual sex. that might go more or less ok for a few years till you feel hollow and empty

This doesn't contradict the idea that women are children. To Nietzsche, women are different but inferior in masculine things to men. Women can't be strong or intelligent like men can.

Women don't really understand how to understand things without referencing back to their sexuality.
>everybody wants what I want

As I've told you multiple times, this is not what he used to believe before Salomè's rejection.

Yes, it's a clear contradiction, and given the biographical and chronological evidences, it is fair to assume that, at least in this istance, it was just a bad case of sour grapes.

It really isn't.

>"What inspires respect for woman, and often enough even fear, is her nature, which is more “natural” than man’s, the genuine, cunning suppleness of a beast of prey, the tiger’s claw under the glove, the naiveté of her egoism, her uneducability and inner wildness, the incomprehensibility, scope, and movement of her desires and virtues."
How is this feminist?

>How can they be so genius in reading humans and so unable to interact with females?
you either understand a woman or love her, but not both

>Paul Ludwig Carl Heinrich Rée (21 November 1849 – 28 October 1901) was a German author and philosopher, and friend of Friedrich Nietzsche.
>Paul REE
really makes you think

since when can you weight up different skills and mark some inferior to others?
women might lack in those departments, yes. but they have been as beneficial to humanity as men have. with THEIR set of skills in which they exceed men. who do you think raised all those superior men? not only their fathers... off there are exceptions like nietzsche who had a bad relationship with his mom. but take marcus aurelius for example. he held his mother on a pedestal. and i don't think he did that only so she will tag him in her fb posts.

Maybe, just maybe he was right about women's liberation. When you see what chaos it's causing in the universities and all the anti-male propaganda that gets perpetuated on reputable news sources like the BBC, you think maybe we got ahead of ourselves.

>A life of hedonism is more miserable than being virtuous or strong.

the whole point of hedonism is to seek pleasure, if you are constantly experiencing pleasure you are most likely happy. I don't know how the opposite could be true.

>I have never met a hedonist who wasn't just distracting themselves from some sort of pain.

okay that's cool but that's what we call anecdotal evidence and by no means proves that they don't exist.

so, is sexuality something inherently bad to you? why?

i knew you would again read into that whatever you want to read between the lines

>the whole point of hedonism is to seek pleasure, if you are constantly experiencing pleasure you are most likely happy. I don't know how the opposite could be true.
That's not how it works. There's a difference between happiness and satisfaction.

there's also a difference between contentment and pleasure

I'm saying that it's obvious that women aren't going to excel at masculine things. Pointing that out doesn't make you a virgin. Women are great at being motherly and such, but they are rarely geniuses.

It is not traditional feminism (how could it be, given the fact that all of Nietzsche's values are overcome?), yet it should be noted that those are not only compliments: they're actually the most valuable attributes a human being can have, according to Nietzsche (at least the N. of this period).
This praise is obviously still rooted in somewhat traditional values (Nietzsche never overcome the duality man-woman conception of humanity), but it still a praise that elevates the best woman abive the best men.

>This praise is obviously still rooted in somewhat traditional values (Nietzsche never overcome the duality man-woman conception of humanity)
So you're an SJW.
>but it still a praise that elevates the best woman abive the best men.
He also points out that the perfect woman is more rare than the perfect man.

I'm reading this as well. Really don't understand why Felice just doesn't fucking write to him. Fucking hell.

women probably didnt put the effort to understand them because the people you mentioned didnt make them tingle

only because motherly skills can't be measured as accurately as, let's say, mathematical genius? how do you know if a woman has reached genius motherly levels? you would never know. so their genuis is going unnoticed and will be forgotten atleast one generation down the line.
what implies that it doesn't take an exceptional mind to be a great mother? and we're not talking about average moms here. most men also never reach genius levels so let's stick to the facts. genuis will always be an exception, regardles of gender

What's your point? You're trying to shoehorn equality where there is none. Being a mother and being a math genius are two different skills. Women can't be strong and self-overcoming in the same way men can't give birth.

if women are such great mothers then why does /r9k/ exist?

because he is BEGGING her. if you have to beg someone to write you, you have fucked up already way sooner. i suspect she only had contact with him because he had some sweet traits and she felt sorry for him. there was no desire or love from her side. but in that age, you were practically obliged to get egaged to a man after you went on a "long walk" with him if you had no intentions to ruin your reputation. she was basically trapped because he probably only revealed his powerlevels after she was too deep in

>So you're an SJW.
You're a retard. I haven't disclosed my opinion on the matter. I had drawned that conclusion because although that is some sort of proto-feminism, it is still completely divorced from the narratives used by feminists in the academia. It was worth noting, you fucking reactionary troglodite.

>He also points out that the perfect woman is more rare than the perfect man.
Yet, in his opinion the best human beings were, at that point of his life, all women.

sick of being genius, i wanna get laid and cuddle :(

You don't understand. His earlier quotes don't contradict his later ones. He later says:
>"From the beginning, nothing has been more alien, repugnant, and hostile to woman than truth—her great art is the lie, her highest concern is mere appearance and beauty."
Which does not contradict
>"What inspires respect for woman, and often enough even fear, is her nature, which is more “natural” than man’s, the genuine, cunning suppleness of a beast of prey, the tiger’s claw under the glove, the naiveté of her egoism, her uneducability and inner wildness, the incomprehensibility, scope, and movement of her desires and virtues."
He was never angry. He was ambivalent and realistic towards women.

>im a woman, i can only judge people based on their relations towards women
Don't you have some Chad cock to be sucking, roastie?

not at all. i'm just stating that you can't say women are inferior because they haven't been the first ones to write down e=mc2.
that's like judging a fish based on his climbing skills. just because he can't climb doesn't mean he is inferior to the squirrel since you could easily turn this around and say the squirrel is inferior because it drowns under water.

again, you are reading generalisations into my posts where there are none. have you conveniently skipped over the part where i explicitly state that most women only reach mediocre levels of motherly skills? that leaves some genuis and a pile of horrible moms. just like there are a lot of men with mediocre math skills, some geniuses and a pile of guys that can't do basic algebra.

>woman not more crazy than men
Objectively false

>not at all. i'm just stating that you can't say women are inferior because they haven't been the first ones to write down e=mc2.
>that's like judging a fish based on his climbing skills. just because he can't climb doesn't mean he is inferior to the squirrel since you could easily turn this around and say the squirrel is inferior because it drowns under water.
That's what I was saying. It's fair to say that the squirrel is inferior at swimming.

nice ad hominem. you can do better, user...

i try to abstain from judgement, but since i'm only human, i try to not judge people based on one thing. that doesn't make the claim that a persons ability to form secure relationships is an important one invalid.

exactly. but what i see again and again, is people failing to understand this. which brings a lot of unnecessary tension with it

There's more to life than the ability of men to bend over backwards to accommodate women. But women simply cannot understand this.

> that leaves some genuis and a pile of horrible moms.
my point exactly. majority of women are horrible
look at single mother stats
singlemotherguide.com/single-mother-statistics/
women shouldn't be needing to force men to see them as equals. bad parenting from childhood is to blame for how men treat women.
face it all the good women are taken and guys like Nietzsche couldn't get the scraps

so, men are less crazy than women? any prove of that? since my claim is so "obviously and objectively false"?

It literally does.

>her highest concern is mere appearance and beauty
>the incomprehensibility, scope, and movement of her desires and virtues

Women in early Nietzsche are described as a force of nature more than the spoiled, immature version of his later works.
In one case you have human beings that are almost feral from N. point of view, wich makes them, in his eyes, more appealing. He appreciates
>the genuine, cunning suppleness of a beast of prey, the tiger’s claw under the glove, the naiveté of her egoism, her uneducability and inner wildness, the incomprehensibility, scope, and movement of her desires and virtues
These are some of the highest values a man can reach according to Nietzsche, at least in this context.

In
>>"From the beginning, nothing has been more alien, repugnant, and hostile to woman than truth—her great art is the lie, her highest concern is mere appearance and beauty."
We have a completely different figure. Certain things are still present (women are still somehow seen as cunning), but now all of those values are turned into something else.
Women are not wild and beautifully egoist anymore: now they're just dumb human beings caring only about irrelevant things such as appearances.

This is a radically different view, that put women in 2 completely different places. There is no sympathy for women in late Nietzsche, although we know through Ecce Homo and some of his letters that he never showed this misoginy publicly, and that he actually thought that he was great at understanding and entertaining women.

>he thinks his mother taught him anything valuable
>it wasn't the people around him
>he doesn't know how people respected their mothers and fathers back then
I understand that people are retarded but people with daddy issues are usually insane and have to always prove themselves(not in a intellectual way) so have you though that, they are exceptions(you only said marcus for now top kek) or maybe their mother was not really that important figure (because if we have to be honest, for a mother to be single there is something really wrong with her and thus she not teaching her son anything valuable) but just to be praised.

having a healthy relationship is not the same as bending over backwards. you seem to have never encountered a sane relationship from a close distance if you think that's actually true.

>This is a radically different view, that put women in 2 completely different places. There is no sympathy for women in late Nietzsche, although we know through Ecce Homo and some of his letters that he never showed this misoginy publicly, and that he actually thought that he was great at understanding and entertaining women.
Yeah, he couldn't have gotten a more realistic view of women after falling out of infatuation. He was a le angry virgin

people like you are so annoying

i (and he) never claimed it was all his mom. but she contributed to it. maybe more than you might realize since she had set the groundwork before any great teachers came into the picture. a sense of worthynes of love and a peacefull security in this world are amongst the most important things a mother can instill in her kids. untill around age 2. then raising them right comes into play. setting boundaries, teaching acceptable social behaviour, teaching them selfdiscipline and so on. this is all amhappening before the age of 6 so it is mostly the mother's work.

why is marcus top kek?

>people like you are so annoying
i am, again, taken aback by your argumentation skills

EVERYONE SHUT THE FUCK UP

shhh, it's ok.
we know it's you user, the one with the stellar argumentation skills.

no idea why women who hate men and the patriarchy just stop dating men and work on themselves.
buy sex toys and avoid the dating market and outperform the men in your way.

i hope feminist do take over one day!

Do you have no self-awareness to realise how much you're embarrassing yourself? Do you even know what a healthy relationship meant till 50 years ago? And do you even know how fast modern relationships end? Thanks to the liberation of women they are now the biggest cheaters and thus inferior lovers as only men can love enough to sacrifice everything while women might get tired easily out of it. And that is a thing you can easily prove just by a little research of hormones, its not a difficult matter.
>but she contributed to it
How? She was just his parent, what youre trying to say is that he should be thankful that she did her job?(which of course he should be but that is something completely normal and thus not affecting him any different)
>it is mostly the mother's work
Not really as the kid genetics(way more than env too) and environment are inf more important.
>why is marcus top kek?
I said top kek because that was the only person you could name

That isn't me, idiot.
nod an argument

just because the majority of relationships are huge failures doesn't mean you should use them as reference for a HEALTHY relationship. i have only ever seen a small number of those myself. but they do exist. and with a little maturity and selfawareness (on both parts...) it is absolutely atainable.

well, ofc it would be her job. but an athlets job would be to bust records and how many actually do that?
just because it would be the ideal if she is a genius mother doesn't mean her effort is nullified if she ia just a mediocre to good mom. do you actually believe that everything that is not the top 1% is worthless? how can you life live without tearing yourself appart and go insane?

i have to disagree on this one, user... i work in a childrens psychiatric hospital and it is seldomly if ever the environement or genetics that brings kids there. it is probably always the parents and in young kids mostly the mother. i have also worked with severely neglected kids in school and they aren't DUMB or incapable (genes) nor did they have different opportunities than their peers (same income, same education, etc). they just lack parents that were not on the shit pile.

it was an example. i won't research about the relationships of great thinkers and their moms just to prove something to you.

it eerily reminded me of you

well, if you have no arguments left i guess this discussion has come to an end