Why is that out of all the minorities homosexuals are by far the strongest contributors to Western philosophy.
Wittengenstein and Foucault have had more influence than all of the black and Hispanic in the western cannon combined. This isn't even counting any of the Greeks as possible homosexuals.
Because philosophy was gay from its beginning. Socrates was a well-known homo - our whole tradition of western thought rests on the work of a gay man.
Queer folk in general are more prone to introspection, makes sense that they'd then be inclined to writing and thought. I also recall some statistics that pointed to higher IQs and higher incidence of mental illness.
Loneliness, the feeling of outsiderdom and the lack of a family life leads to increased introspection, disposable funds and time to devote to hobbies/creative pursuits?
And depression.
because homosexuals can still be from wealthy families and have opportunities to get access to books and schools other minorities don't have. Name a contributor to western thought, on the same level as W or F, that spent a fair amount of time doing physical labor to survive.
Spinoza
It's because you can be gay and be a white man
But I would posit that Jews are strong minority contenders also
Spinoza was in a position to turn down jobs. The type of person I am talking about doesn't have the ability to turn down a job.
Thinkers who spent most of their life being broke
Spinoza
Diogenes
Paul of Tarsus
Socrates
The Buddah
None of them did much physical labor. They were too smart for it. Spinoza made lens and sold exotic fruit, Paul made rope, Socrates I think worked with pottery, Diogenes and the Buddah just enjoyed being poor.
because philosophy blows dicks
>Socrates was a well-known homo
he had a wife and children, wouldn't fuck alcibiades, and denounced homofagianism in symposium
all of those guys pretty much invented their own system from scratch which implicitly proves my point. Unless you are going to create your own system of radical philosophy (keep in mind how many people have done this and failed throughout history) you're going to need to have the time to be extraordinarily well read and completely absorbed in all of history's intricate intellectual debates.
Paul's system was so dependant on the system maintained by Jesus and his early disciples that he was in a life time struggle with James over who was the rightful heir. And that's not even counting the stoic and platonic influence!
Spinoza's thinking is basically Averroes on steroids and built on pre-socratic metaphysics expressed in scholastic vocabulary. He had a library over 100 books.
Diogenes was literally a student of Socrates.
Socrates at least learned of other thinking by oral teachings as he is constantly referencing other people by name.
The Buddah's system was so heavily based on Hinduism that to this day many Hindu thinkers try to claim him as one of their own
>Queer folk in general are more prone to introspection
This is absolutely false. The gay crowd was the main push for the sex apps craze.
>plato = socrates
if you read any of his other contemporaries, you'll find out plato was a jelly homo who couldn't deal with socrates being a homo but not wanting his dick
for instance, xanthippe didn't throw alcibiades' cake for socrates on the ground because she thought they had a good bromance going on.
or even in symposium, why would aristophanes, who wrote multiple plays about females being superior and mocking socrates for being into yaoi, suddenly decide that man on man was the highest being?
a lot of plato's works are designed to protect socrates from the allegations that everyone else makes against him. socrates being into boipussi is still one of the oldest memes in the book.
1. studied one thinker
2. Spinoza is a bad example but also evidenced by my previous post I don't think he is a good example. Let's not lose sight of the original point (although it seems too late for that now)
3. One thinker again
4. A handful of thinkers
5. One religion to study
The overall point I am making is that good luck contributing to Western Thought nowadays if you don't have access or privilege to the majority of the western canon. You brought up some good examples of older thinkers but they don't really apply to the criteria either. They were all so foundational, as opposed to W or F, that they could afford to have lives apart from say, the academy, and still add to/create the canon. You could say that Wittgenstein is foundational in the same vein but he really isn't, he was a guy who grew up with a ton of books in a wealthy household who had the means to study engineering and math, meet and speak with his society's most prominent artists, and etc.
point 2 is a little confusing. I meant to say that Spinoza is a good example on your part but I don't really think he can apply ultimately
>not Jews
You're being dismissive. That "one religion to study" for Buddah was pretty much synonymous wih "the entire philosophic cannon" at the time. Paul's Platonic and Stoic thinking is not "one thinker" neither is Diogenes when he wants to go toe to toe with Plato, he'd have to study the man to try and fight him.
And lol at "a handful of thinkers" why don't we just say every philosopher in history studied a "handful" and be done with it.
Now as for Spinoza. He is not a bad example, he is the supreme example. The man choose to spend what little money he had on educating himself rather than living a more luxurious life. He didn't get a job doing manual labor but taught himself lens-grinding and produced lens which were considered very high quality for the time.
I think genetics is part of it. Spinoza came from a long line of rabbis, who while dirt poor would have had very talented genes for literacy and logic, since a Rabbi's job is basically to read and argue over the fine points of the Torah. In contrast a black man who's ancestors consisted of people that did nothing but physical labor for many generations (including his pre-slavery ancestors) is not going to be someone that would got into dept to his barber because he wants to afford the complete cannon of Greek philosophy.
But arn't Jews white and therefor no a minority? We don't count the French as their own group.
>But arn't Jews white
they're schrödingers aryan
The Jews are still "a minority" (in everywhere outside of Palestine).
>in everywhere outside of Palestine
That's a weird way to spell Israel.
Wittgenstein was a genius. Foucault had interesting insights but he's influential solely because his ideas are compatible with cultural and economical liberalism.
Garaudy, Maurras, Clouscard, Baudrillard and Debord are clearly the greatest French thinkers of the past century.
Yes but were any of them gay?
No but Debord was a cuck who spent his last days masturbating to other couples fucking
>The gay crowd was the main push for the sex apps craze.
Yeah. they'd meet up on Grindr, then snuggle up to a nice Derek Jarman movie.
Foucault never identified as a homosexual
>Spinoza was in a position to turn down jobs
Spinoza was banished from the Jewish community and he had to bruise lenses in poverty until dying of pneumonia at the age of 45. What the fuck are you talking about?
His thoughts on the subject were closer to the Greeks right?
>Wittengenstein and Foucault
fucking white males
you mean xenophon and aristophanes? as if i'd trust either of them.
>protect socrates from the allegations
it wasn't exactly taboo to enjoy boy[thigh] back then.
>aristophanes, who wrote multiple plays about females being superior
what is assemblywomen? it's a comedy for a reason. he also doesn't laud man-on-man in symposium, he just encourages people to find their missing 'other half', whether the unity be heterosexual or les/homo
class & ideology
He's talking about privilege theology, you heathen. It is the predestined original sin of forward-thinking progressive secularists.
That's a weird way to spell Judea. Or do you think that they are Samaritans?
>tfw too intelligent to fuck a pussy
Read Xenophon's Socrates, Socrates was against homolust. It's pretty well established Socrates himself was against it morally. It's alluded to in Plato but confirmed in Xenophon.
I remember there was this one dialogue where some dude tries to convince Socrates that he is gay because he goes around jerking off children. Socrates uses his flawless logic to argue that if touching dick is gay than all men who masturbate must be gay.
How do those things exclude each other?
>you mean xenophon and aristophanes? as if i'd trust either of them.
Yes, because Xenophon is known for his hyberbole.
>protect socrates from the allegations
The allegations were that he was laconizing (i.e. assfucking) boys, and you might remember Aristotle saying the hubris reflected onto the penetrator.
>what is assemblywomen
it's a comedy because aristophanes is saying the assembly looks like traps. the reason why there are assemblywomen is because they look so much like the femmed up athenian males he's mocking. there's also his habit of ripping on euripides for writing shit women.
and he thinks man on man are those most likely to become good assemblymen and not corrupt ones, according to plato. it's much easier to read him as antigay antihubris like diogenes than as antiwomen. most of his women are smarter than men and usually with the implication that the men have been too man on man so a woman would more competently steer the ship than those faggots.
plato on the other hand is desperate for socrates to have just recently given up being a faggot and that's why he's always just broken up with alcibiabes. he's very anti alcibiades having the kind of relationship everyone assumed them to have, and rather pro man boy love, especially compared to aristophanes.
it's highly unlikely everyone else lied, especially since plato seems to be lying like a 16 year old ugly chick about her "boyfriend"
Spinoza inherited a successful business from his father, which he also expanded in his lifetime. Basically, his expulsion from the Dutch Jewish community has not driven him into hard labour.
He spent his life polishing lenses because this was one of the outcomes that he derived from his insight on ethics: a slow, honest, craft-centered job over which one can master patience while having all the time necessary for him to philosophize (seriously, Spinoza took his own philosophy extremely seriously, and lived by it with rigor: compared to him Kant was a libertine; this also means that he used to spent almost literally all of his time doing philosophy, it was a costant pursuit).
Lens polishing was a rather difficult craft, Spinoza was "well" enough that he constantly turned down teaching positions, even after his expulsion of the jewish community.
internal things are one of the central focuses of gay sex so I'm not seeing the problem here
What are you implying? That 100% of all non-whites in history have been fucking broke and doing hard labor, that none of them have been at the level of income Spinoza had?
That first user said that Spinoza did manual labour due to crippling poverty, I have just pointed out that Spinoza was well-off, had many parents and fellow scholars (Leibniz being the most eminent one) that would have helped him. Also for his entire life he refused tenured positions, since he thought that working in universities would have compromised his philosophical activity. This is also why he chose lens-making as his main profession, but he was certainly not doing so to afford food.
In his letters to Leibniz, can't remember which one, he once describes both his job as a essentially meditative practice, which was required for him to think fluently and with lucidity.
He didn't denounce homosexuality, idiot. He denounced sexual pleasure in general on ascetic grounds
>tfw to smart for physical labor