I used to ask my self why did the men of antiquity and ancient religions write so harshly about women. In this 2010 Gynocracy i now understand why. "Only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex." This quote alone helps guide me through the Gynocracy we live in. thank you Schopenhauer
Most people's critiques of Schopenhauer was that he was a misogynist who hated women, nothing more. That, to me, is attacking the man, not the argument. I've noticed that with so-called "academics", they are all too ready to label him a misogynist, but not really critique his work. Feminist authors are able to get away with completely slandering men and are applauded! What a double standard.
@S2Cents Being female is all I can relate to since I'm female, and I can't compare that to the perspective of a male. I can interpret how a man views life, but it's not reality since it's interpreted through my perspective. And since my perspective is what I know, I prefer it infinitely over that of the male perspective because it works for me.
I wouldn't say this is misogynistic. Schopenhauer couldn't have been more accurate, and his choice of words was, if anything, not severe enough. I think he beautifully described women, and I still infinitely prefer being female.
he should've mentioned their primitive attraction wich leads them to fall in love with murderers, rapists and basically any scumbag as long as he is notorious. There have been many cases where female prison guars/nurses, or psychiatrists simply fall in love with a man that has done heinous crimes. Probably has something to do with Social Status. A killer tells the female brain that "if the guy kills others, he's probably a good protector & provider". The whole "badboy" issue basically...
Damn, these comments are ten years ago but this is still timeless and even more prevalent now. Losing traditional values brings back problems you didn't realize it stopped.
I've been at university, i'm in a 2 yrs break, to see the world. A university used to be a way to open the mind, explore new perspective. Now the ideology take the place of the philosophy, everyone think the same, you only have to repeat what learn.
@Piatasify Everything in life mixes into philosophy. The whole point of philosophy is meant to explain things in life and offer approaches that helps to either work with life or offer an alternative approach (which is what Marx and The Frankfurt School tried to do - a Taoist would say they went against the Tao). I guess, as an engineer, I tend to apply things to practical application (which is a philosophy too), and try to give too many things the benefit of the doubt.
@Piatasify That's possible too. I'm just saying that he was also dealing with an irrational being, and saying whatever needed to be said to get compliance out of her. Because remember that women place their feelings at top priority over logic, reason, and anything else. They validate their feelings, irregardless of how transitory they are.
...well that makes sense. Sorry I miss interpreted your point, it was kind of late at night, and i was a little tired. what else do you think of the sentence "mere objects to be used by men for sexual pleasure" ?
In one sense, I do believe I am “like a man,” as Parthe [the writer’s sister] says.But how? In having sympathy. ... Women crave for being loved, not for loving.They scream out at you for sympathy all day long, they are incapable of givingany in return, for they cannot remember your affairs long enough to do so. ...They cannot state a fact accurately to another, nor can that other attend to itaccurately enough for it to become information. Now is not all this the result of want of sympathy?
No. I mean that term truly struck a chord with me. I have been chasing unattainability my whole life. But now that ive come across these videos, no longer.
In other words, I am Canadian, & what most Canadians think is moral may not be seen as moral in a country on the other side of the world. Morality is thus a function of space. Similarly, what people view as moral now, in the 21st Century, may have been considered immoral in the 8th Century, or may be considered immoral in the 35th Century. Morality thus becomes a function of time. So, morality is a function of space & time. It changes as space & time changes. Thus, no moral truths can exist.
@TheDavid2222 No, it's not just a social construct, but an outcropping of the proclivities, strengths, and character of the genders. Those that get sex changes have a lot of psychological issues that often involve a distinctly low self-esteem and an inferiority complex. Habitual cross-dressers, more often than not, are quite the opposite, tending toward narcissism and a need for attention on some level that they feel they aren't able to get being themselves.
@MaxxTheMerciless As an engineer, don't you prefer Kant? Anyway, he was definitely an atheist, he could be called the proto-type atheist. His most important work is all about how we are goverened and made by forces out of our controll, which he calls the will (not god like Spinoza), which also means good and evil can't exist, as we have no real agency.
@Piatasify No, it's Leadership 101. Since you can't hit a woman (which I wouldn't advise anyway unless she attacked you physically), you have to deal with the situation in a manner that she would understand. You have to make it clear to her that you're not going to put up with behavior that defies your expectations, and no amount of pleading, cajoling, or pouting from her is going to change your position. And it works. Example....cont.
@HeyRuka "infinitely"? Merely curious by this word choice in addition to being interested in why you prefer being a member of the fairer sex to that of male, may I respectfully ask for reasons?
'although not "easily"' Its pretty easy in fact, there's some exercise you can do. Around 18, i didn't read a lot and i was more in the party/sport. A good brain who don't do exercise sometime become weak, like every muscle.
@Piatasify Enforcing? Well, you don't need to hit anyone. If someone fails to meet your expectations, you simply deprive them of your services, your interaction, and your protection. If a woman fails to meet your expectations (which, if you're fair, you'll clearly spell out to her), you punish her through chastisement, reasserting your expectations, and if those fail, you begin cutting her off from yourself. You cast her in the doghouse, until she genuinely changes her behavior.
Emotion are the present, is the present 'need', important to take care of child. Rationality think the future, sometime you need to do something who look bad or unmoral who find its sense in a long term perspective. As the ancient philosopher said: Women are too much bound to the earth to elevate in the air of metaphysic.
Schopenhauer did say late in his life - "I have not yet spoken my last word about women. I believe that if a woman succeeds in withdrawing from the mass, or rather raising herself above the mass, she grows ceaselessly and more than a man." He was evolving as he aged. Schopenhauer was also racist - "The highest civilization and culture, apart from the ancient Hindus and Egyptians, are found exclusively among the white races". Would he have thought the same today? I don't think he would have.
@Piatasify But, he would've been smart enough to recognize the key differences that separates the Right from the Left in our era, which is distinctly different from his era.
@Piatasify I remember something along those lines, but I consider that following in line with what he was saying about women in general, meaning he was stroking the artist's ego in order to achieve something he wanted, namely a sculpture. Still, the question is why would women want to throw off "social bonds?" If women weren't made to be angry at their supposed plight, which is entirely mythical, they'd happily submit to male authority because it gives them security and order.
@MaxxTheMerciless I feel I should stretch that there is indeed a clear difference between left and right, but the labels are what I have an issue with. Because of these labels and other interests, these sides aren't ruled by common sence but by ideals. "We're right/left, this is what we stand for, so this is what we'll do" and then they ignore arguements and evidence against their course of action by shouting out blancket statements.Neither side lends itself to thought.
'I don't see any women around NOT needing a goal in their lives' Tell, what's the goal of you're nation? What you're country will be in 30yrs? 'Men focus on social status and competition' Social status is important as its the only way to get women. Competition and evolution are one. Because women only think of the present, never the future, you're kids. Who are doing the hard work? Who don't have hundred of governmental program to help them?
@MaxxTheMerciless What I have obviously been saying, and I did so clearly enough, is that placing yourself in the label, is stupid. It is complying to the label.
Less honourable ,conscientious - women are generally thought of as MORE honourable,conscientious. This is certainly an indictment of the women in HIS family - he probably didn't know any better, poor man.
@MaxxTheMerciless First of all, nobody know for certain what Socrates thought, as we only have acounts of what other people reported on him. Secondly, I didn't say Schoppenhauer THOUGHT he was ahead of his time, he simply was, and I even gave you a clear example.
how can all races not be equal when the only thing that separates faces is facial features and skin color( and a different culture as well i guess)? o.o just a question
So youre saying the coin could have landed either way then? That the conditioning and learning isnt at all related to anything more, shall we say 'programmed' than arbitrary convention?
Are those not two red herrings? He never says women are stupid or shallow, does he? He simply says that they are childish and unable to think further ahead than man. In fact, there is a lot of depth a man can derive from consultation with a woman that he would otherwise find more difficult attaining from another man. The second red herring is that I don't recall him ever saying women cannot understand philosophy. Could you give me some evidence of this?
@MaxxTheMerciless @loai050 Didn't Schoppenhauer famously confided in a female artist that he believed that women could surpass men if they made their own decisions regardelss of what society tells them?
@Piatasify Nobody was an atheist in those days. I'd say he was agnostic at the least. Perhaps I am confusing his work with others, but I tend to extrapolate these people and give them the benefit of the doubt that they aren't strict ideologues who stick to all their conclusions in the face of what's going on in front of them.
@MaxxTheMerciless Personally, the impression I got was that he might be after sex. But I don't think he would have actually lied, seeing as he devoted so much effort (and sometimes anger) to truthfullness.
@Piatasify I mean, seriously. Is a Football Coach oppressing his players by making them practice? Is a sergeant oppressing his men by giving them orders? Is a cop oppressing people by enforcing the traffic laws or taking someone who robbed someone into custody? By your comparison, they all must be oppression; but that's stretching the blanket a bit thin, don't you think?
@Mayacam07 They burnt a lot men too. And there probably would have been a lot of men taken out of higher positions and burned too; considering the man to woman ratio was most likely higher in any position regarding significance.
Those who profess "strength" are weak. That's all there is to it. If you truly believed you were stronger than others, you would not have lived long enough to tell this tale.
The fact that you have to go to such a fundamental question in order to evoke more skepticism of his work is a sign that you've no sound criticism of his work. How his arguments appear to you mean nothing to anyone but yourself.
@MaxxTheMerciless Just think of his influence on psychoanalysis, the reason he loved the arts so much was that they conveyed something beyond the normal state o mind. Would he still feel that way now that we don't only have much better understanding of psychology but neuroscience is discovering how our brains work as a physical entity too?
Not to be chauvanistic or anything, but Schopenhauer does have a point about men having greater reasoning faculties. A woman judges what is good or not by how it makes her FEEL, thus she can be easily won over by one who knows how to play to and manipulate her emotions. It's also been shown that the overwhelming majority of those with genius level IQs are indeed men. While, on average, I think both genders are of equal intelligence, genius is an almost universally male attribute.
Example: The video games industry will lead to an incredible development. We will be able to built virtual interface to train cop, firefighter, etc... The possibility have no limit. How many women are interest in it, how many like computer and internet? Few. Its the future and as always we will be the responsible for it, because we subvention it when buying a computer, a game, etc... You spend all your money in cloth and expendable stuff, any long time possibility? No.
'Autism is an abnormal state' Did i said that it was surplus of testosterone, i think so... 'Testosteron' I saw a studies last week about men with more Testosterone who were more successful in the finance domain. They do aprox 11% more money. Its about focusing all you ability on one goal. I have a strange question, did you read Dune from Frank Herbert?
@MaxxTheMerciless I've know some women who don't fall into that cathegory though. I'd say that with both men and women, we can distinguish between those who flow with the zeitgeist or any other type of hive mind and those who at least partly make their own mind (ignoring oc that we can have no real agency as a product of our genes and environment).
you forgot mindless television and binge weekend drinking to 'serendipitously stumble' upon randos for sexual encounters to then 'feel guilty' about later.
Because sometime the dialog is not an option. The humanity is violent... why? Because the humanity lost the ability to control their emotion, what separate us from the animal. 50 yrs ago, the crime rate was really low. Since we emphasize on emotion and not reason, its the result. Hate, violence..etc are all uncontrolled emotion. Rape are mainly non-occidental on occidental, that happen when you let emotional/un-evolve population enters you're country.
@MaxxTheMerciless He was most defnitely an atheist lol. To be more precise, he was a nihilist. If you're comparing his "der Welt als wille und representation" (basically stating everything is ruled by the laws of physicss besides other thing) with a form of theism, I think you might be confusing him with Spinoza, who did indeed call the laws of physics as far as he could observe them the true manifestation of god.
Very strong words. Generally speaking this is sadly true, but this is obviously because of the culture they are exposed to, not some feminine gene or archetype that inhibits critical thinking or genuine aesthetic appreciation. Women are men's counterpoint if you will; our balance in this world, and appreciated and educated as such can be much more than current society produces of them
@Piatasify No, it isn't. Enforcing expectations is not oppression. And no, Left and Right do have meanings where it comes to right and wrong. Values help shape a people and a society; gives it stability and promotes decency. But we're getting off topic. Oppression is something like real slavery, or where people were slaughtered in gas chambers or things like that. Leadership is not oppression. Leadership is a relationship that guides those in its charge toward good and genuine goals.
@MaxxTheMerciless and the point of great philosophers is that they tend to be ahead in terms of thinking. Recent behavioural studies about how arguing on the internet works have pretty much only given empirical proof to what Schoppenhauer wrote about diadectics, and that was really Hegel's subject, so imagine how easy it would be for him to turn away from religion.
@MaxxTheMerciless No, he still wouldn't have been political. He would have see our current political situation and history as proof that he was right when he stated that philosophy becomes untruthfull as soon as there's political interest involved.
@MaxxTheMerciless You obviously haven't read the majority of Schoppenhauer's work. He clearly stated that politics can only take the truth out of philosophy. There's no argueing about what he would do as far as this is concerned, as he himself has given a definite answer.
@Piatasify Politics has everything to do with philosophy. It just seems to you that it doesn't. For some people, they don't consider it, but philosophy can be applied to the most unscrupulous scoundrels in politics. Philosophy helps to explain the way of things and how to approach things to meet certain outcomes.
@MaxxTheMerciless Just because Schoppenhauer wrote some things that are considered un-pc now doesn't mean he automatically is a spokesperson for right wing politics. As I keep stating, using any of his philosophies for politics, shows you have either not read enough or didn't understand.
'Dialog is always the option for the more evolved human being' I agree, but try to dialog someone who have a leverage on you. ''separates us for the animals'' Also the ability to think the future. But primarily the philosophy, the ability to think without emotional and instinctive interference. Language don't control emotion, its just another way of expression. Strangely, all the greatest orator and writer and men...?
@alukkkard I didn't say I disagreed with Schopenhauer, did I? You like to make up stuff, don't you? I actually agree with him on women. What I don't agree with is what you're talking about.
@Piatasify But he would've, I believe, understood the difference between both sides, and where they principally differ. I refuse to believe that he would be so blinded by that motif that he wouldn't see the obvious and acknowledge it. It's too simplistic, and narrow-minded.
'To be able to diagnose people, one must have a higher degree ' HAhaha you perfectly represent what i talk about, our system fail.... just paper, no skill. You probably are one of those use to fill the quota :) You want me to stated a few great thinker who never been to the university? :P
@Piatasify Yes, but only because men tolerate it. Any man worth his salt could turn the tables, especially where there are no clear lines of authority. Even so, whatever authority women have over men is because of men, not because of anything they're capable of doing on their own. If a woman doesn't comply to what you want, you chastise her and then ignore her, depriving her of your resources and protection. That's all you have to do. Eventually, they either find another man or comply.
@MaxxTheMerciless He wouldn't have chastised anyone in politics because he refused to be invlolved! He has chastised ALL of politics from the very beginning, reasoning that any political pressure would distort any truth because of the need to appeal to a value.
@MaxxTheMerciless Wouldn't you say women impose expectations on men as well? I've know women (well, 2) who don't want to follow and don't have an urge to lead either. One is an academic and the other a scientist, and all the women (sadly many) I've know who do fit into any given cathergory were a bit stupid.
@MaxxTheMerciless Florence N. was a nurse, not an expert on gender attributes, she spoke from her personal observation, same as anyone else. What qualified her as a source ?Indeed what qualified Schopenhauer as a source of information on gender attributes ? Nothing. He was a man who mixed little with women, did no scientific studies, just ranted on mean -spiritedly .
Truth is truth ?! There are no truths in philosophical treatises, only opinions. Moral truths don't exist, in the words of philosophers or anywhere else. I am a female. I don't agree with most of Schopenhauer's views on women, but I don't hate him for them or think of him as misogynistic. Schopenhauer lived from the late 1700s to the mid 1800s. He was a man of his time. Society's views of women have evolved since then. If Schopenhauer had lived to today, his views would have evolved as well.
I think some of these comments are ridiculous. A childhood is the most impressionable time and when little girls are exposed to what they're supposed to be, (this has been going on for THOUSANDS of years though we deny it to this day) they become what they see/think is good. They BECOME materialistic through society, they aren't BORN stupid/biologically unintelligent. In fact, Nietzsche once said that women are the only creatures to understand true "Will to Power" and true Love.
I used to ask my self why did the men of antiquity and ancient religions write so harshly about women. In this 2010 Gynocracy i now understand why.
"Only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex."
This quote alone helps guide me through the Gynocracy we live in.
thank you Schopenhauer
ALL BOW BEFORE THE VAGITOCRACY!
Most people's critiques of Schopenhauer was that he was a misogynist who hated women, nothing more. That, to me, is attacking the man, not the argument. I've noticed that with so-called "academics", they are all too ready to label him a misogynist, but not really critique his work. Feminist authors are able to get away with completely slandering men and are applauded! What a double standard.
''Pity we don't have any men in academia giving his sort of analysis today on female nature and the sexes.''
I can't agree more.
One of the best philosophers ever. Saw through the vanities of our existence.
holy crap, this is timeless
I feel like I've thought this stuff up before. Arthur just puts it more eloquently than I ever could have.
A voice of reason. Thank you.
@S2Cents Being female is all I can relate to since I'm female, and I can't compare that to the perspective of a male. I can interpret how a man views life, but it's not reality since it's interpreted through my perspective. And since my perspective is what I know, I prefer it infinitely over that of the male perspective because it works for me.
I wouldn't say this is misogynistic. Schopenhauer couldn't have been more accurate, and his choice of words was, if anything, not severe enough. I think he beautifully described women, and I still infinitely prefer being female.
Would you say the same now? 10 years later
Simply a true Genius.
he should've mentioned their primitive attraction wich leads them to fall in love with murderers, rapists and basically any scumbag as long as he is notorious. There have been many cases where female prison guars/nurses, or psychiatrists simply fall in love with a man that has done heinous crimes.
Probably has something to do with Social Status. A killer tells the female brain that "if the guy kills others, he's probably a good protector & provider".
The whole "badboy" issue basically...
Damn, these comments are ten years ago but this is still timeless and even more prevalent now.
Losing traditional values brings back problems you didn't realize it stopped.
"chasing unattainability" -- wow, that really sums it up. Im glad I located all these videos on youtube.
I've been at university, i'm in a 2 yrs break, to see the world.
A university used to be a way to open the mind, explore new perspective. Now the ideology take the place of the philosophy, everyone think the same, you only have to repeat what learn.
@JimmySmers This treatise was written in 1851 by a life long bachelor.
@Piatasify Everything in life mixes into philosophy. The whole point of philosophy is meant to explain things in life and offer approaches that helps to either work with life or offer an alternative approach (which is what Marx and The Frankfurt School tried to do - a Taoist would say they went against the Tao).
I guess, as an engineer, I tend to apply things to practical application (which is a philosophy too), and try to give too many things the benefit of the doubt.
Which came first, Schopenhauer's misogyny or his lady troubles?
@MaxxTheMerciless Would you distinguish between men who follow any cultural identity and those who don't?
@Piatasify That's possible too. I'm just saying that he was also dealing with an irrational being, and saying whatever needed to be said to get compliance out of her. Because remember that women place their feelings at top priority over logic, reason, and anything else. They validate their feelings, irregardless of how transitory they are.
...well that makes sense. Sorry I miss interpreted your point, it was kind of late at night, and i was a little tired. what else do you think of the sentence "mere objects to be used by men for sexual pleasure" ?
are men and women the same? If not, then what are the differences? Any suggestions?
In one sense, I do believe I am “like a man,” as Parthe [the writer’s sister] says.But how? In having sympathy. ... Women crave for being loved, not for loving.They scream out at you for sympathy all day long, they are incapable of givingany in return, for they cannot remember your affairs long enough to do so. ...They cannot state a fact accurately to another, nor can that other attend to itaccurately enough for it to become information. Now is not all this the result of want of sympathy?
@Piatasify Evil is a valid philosophical, sociological, and theological premise and condition.
No. I mean that term truly struck a chord with me. I have been chasing unattainability my whole life. But now that ive come across these videos, no longer.
In other words, I am Canadian, & what most Canadians think is moral may not be seen as moral in a country on the other side of the world. Morality is thus a function of space. Similarly, what people view as moral now, in the 21st Century, may have been considered immoral in the 8th Century, or may be considered immoral in the 35th Century. Morality thus becomes a function of time.
So, morality is a function of space & time. It changes as space & time changes. Thus, no moral truths can exist.
well put sir, I completely agree
@MaxxTheMerciless Exactly what do you understand as enforcing?
@TheDavid2222 No, it's not just a social construct, but an outcropping of the proclivities, strengths, and character of the genders. Those that get sex changes have a lot of psychological issues that often involve a distinctly low self-esteem and an inferiority complex. Habitual cross-dressers, more often than not, are quite the opposite, tending toward narcissism and a need for attention on some level that they feel they aren't able to get being themselves.
@MaxxTheMerciless As an engineer, don't you prefer Kant?
Anyway, he was definitely an atheist, he could be called the proto-type atheist. His most important work is all about how we are goverened and made by forces out of our controll, which he calls the will (not god like Spinoza), which also means good and evil can't exist, as we have no real agency.
@Piatasify No, it's Leadership 101. Since you can't hit a woman (which I wouldn't advise anyway unless she attacked you physically), you have to deal with the situation in a manner that she would understand. You have to make it clear to her that you're not going to put up with behavior that defies your expectations, and no amount of pleading, cajoling, or pouting from her is going to change your position. And it works. Example....cont.
@HeyRuka "infinitely"? Merely curious by this word choice in addition to being interested in why you prefer being a member of the fairer sex to that of male, may I respectfully ask for reasons?
'although not "easily"'
Its pretty easy in fact, there's some exercise you can do. Around 18, i didn't read a lot and i was more in the party/sport. A good brain who don't do exercise sometime become weak, like every muscle.
Could you provide arguments?
@spentonmediocrity
Does this include Nietzsche?
@Piatasify Enforcing? Well, you don't need to hit anyone. If someone fails to meet your expectations, you simply deprive them of your services, your interaction, and your protection. If a woman fails to meet your expectations (which, if you're fair, you'll clearly spell out to her), you punish her through chastisement, reasserting your expectations, and if those fail, you begin cutting her off from yourself. You cast her in the doghouse, until she genuinely changes her behavior.
Emotion are the present, is the present 'need', important to take care of child.
Rationality think the future, sometime you need to do something who look bad or unmoral who find its sense in a long term perspective.
As the ancient philosopher said:
Women are too much bound to the earth to elevate in the air of metaphysic.
Schopenhauer did say late in his life - "I have not yet spoken my last word about women. I believe that if a woman succeeds in withdrawing from the mass, or rather raising herself above the mass, she grows ceaselessly and more than a man." He was evolving as he aged.
Schopenhauer was also racist - "The highest civilization and culture, apart from the ancient Hindus and Egyptians, are found exclusively among the white races". Would he have thought the same today? I don't think he would have.
@Piatasify But, he would've been smart enough to recognize the key differences that separates the Right from the Left in our era, which is distinctly different from his era.
@Piatasify I remember something along those lines, but I consider that following in line with what he was saying about women in general, meaning he was stroking the artist's ego in order to achieve something he wanted, namely a sculpture. Still, the question is why would women want to throw off "social bonds?" If women weren't made to be angry at their supposed plight, which is entirely mythical, they'd happily submit to male authority because it gives them security and order.
@MaxxTheMerciless I feel I should stretch that there is indeed a clear difference between left and right, but the labels are what I have an issue with. Because of these labels and other interests, these sides aren't ruled by common sence but by ideals. "We're right/left, this is what we stand for, so this is what we'll do" and then they ignore arguements and evidence against their course of action by shouting out blancket statements.Neither side lends itself to thought.
'I don't see any women around NOT needing a goal in their lives'
Tell, what's the goal of you're nation? What you're country will be in 30yrs?
'Men focus on social status and competition'
Social status is important as its the only way to get women. Competition and evolution are one.
Because women only think of the present, never the future, you're kids. Who are doing the hard work? Who don't have hundred of governmental program to help them?
@MaxxTheMerciless What I have obviously been saying, and I did so clearly enough, is that placing yourself in the label, is stupid. It is complying to the label.
I feel bad for Schopenhauer. He speaks the truth and gets labelled a misogynist. Such a shame.
Less honourable ,conscientious - women are generally thought of as MORE honourable,conscientious. This is certainly an indictment of the women in HIS family - he probably didn't know any better, poor man.
@Mayacam07 Let me guess. Da Vinci Code?
this essay was a personal outlash against his mother, but he has some points.
@Piatasify True, but he was a thinker, and he wasn't an atheist. Good philosophers take as much of things in life into account.
@MaxxTheMerciless First of all, nobody know for certain what Socrates thought, as we only have acounts of what other people reported on him. Secondly, I didn't say Schoppenhauer THOUGHT he was ahead of his time, he simply was, and I even gave you a clear example.
how can all races not be equal when the only thing that separates faces is facial features and skin color( and a different culture as well i guess)? o.o just a question
@spentonmediocrity
He wasn't willing to accept that noone says "yes" to life; and noone ever will.
umad ?
@JimmySmers : true, also for most men today.
Great mind.
@MaxxTheMerciless The moment you would side with either left or right is the moment you might as well give up on reading any more philosophy.
So youre saying the coin could have landed either way then? That the conditioning and learning isnt at all related to anything more, shall we say 'programmed' than arbitrary convention?
@smurfieboo please read schopenhauer to your daughters. give us hope
Are those not two red herrings? He never says women are stupid or shallow, does he? He simply says that they are childish and unable to think further ahead than man. In fact, there is a lot of depth a man can derive from consultation with a woman that he would otherwise find more difficult attaining from another man. The second red herring is that I don't recall him ever saying women cannot understand philosophy. Could you give me some evidence of this?
@MaxxTheMerciless @loai050 Didn't Schoppenhauer famously confided in a female artist that he believed that women could surpass men if they made their own decisions regardelss of what society tells them?
@Piatasify Nobody was an atheist in those days. I'd say he was agnostic at the least. Perhaps I am confusing his work with others, but I tend to extrapolate these people and give them the benefit of the doubt that they aren't strict ideologues who stick to all their conclusions in the face of what's going on in front of them.
@MaxxTheMerciless Personally, the impression I got was that he might be after sex. But I don't think he would have actually lied, seeing as he devoted so much effort (and sometimes anger) to truthfullness.
@Piatasify I mean, seriously. Is a Football Coach oppressing his players by making them practice? Is a sergeant oppressing his men by giving them orders? Is a cop oppressing people by enforcing the traffic laws or taking someone who robbed someone into custody? By your comparison, they all must be oppression; but that's stretching the blanket a bit thin, don't you think?
@Mayacam07 They burnt a lot men too. And there probably would have been a lot of men taken out of higher positions and burned too; considering the man to woman ratio was most likely higher in any position regarding significance.
Those who profess "strength" are weak.
That's all there is to it. If you truly believed you were stronger than others, you would not have lived long enough to tell this tale.
The fact that you have to go to such a fundamental question in order to evoke more skepticism of his work is a sign that you've no sound criticism of his work. How his arguments appear to you mean nothing to anyone but yourself.
@MaxxTheMerciless Just think of his influence on psychoanalysis, the reason he loved the arts so much was that they conveyed something beyond the normal state o mind. Would he still feel that way now that we don't only have much better understanding of psychology but neuroscience is discovering how our brains work as a physical entity too?
Schopenhuer was not pessimistic; that epithet only reflects the thought from average-critics. And no, he DID NOT see women as inferior.
Not to be chauvanistic or anything, but Schopenhauer does have a point about men having greater reasoning faculties. A woman judges what is good or not by how it makes her FEEL, thus she can be easily won over by one who knows how to play to and manipulate her emotions. It's also been shown that the overwhelming majority of those with genius level IQs are indeed men. While, on average, I think both genders are of equal intelligence, genius is an almost universally male attribute.
Example:
The video games industry will lead to an incredible development. We will be able to built virtual interface to train cop, firefighter, etc... The possibility have no limit.
How many women are interest in it, how many like computer and internet? Few.
Its the future and as always we will be the responsible for it, because we subvention it when buying a computer, a game, etc...
You spend all your money in cloth and expendable stuff, any long time possibility? No.
'Autism is an abnormal state'
Did i said that it was surplus of testosterone, i think so...
'Testosteron'
I saw a studies last week about men with more Testosterone who were more successful in the finance domain. They do aprox 11% more money.
Its about focusing all you ability on one goal.
I have a strange question, did you read Dune from Frank Herbert?
@MaxxTheMerciless I've know some women who don't fall into that cathegory though. I'd say that with both men and women, we can distinguish between those who flow with the zeitgeist or any other type of hive mind and those who at least partly make their own mind (ignoring oc that we can have no real agency as a product of our genes and environment).
you forgot mindless television and binge weekend drinking to 'serendipitously stumble' upon randos for sexual encounters to then 'feel guilty' about later.
Because sometime the dialog is not an option.
The humanity is violent... why? Because the humanity lost the ability to control their emotion, what separate us from the animal. 50 yrs ago, the crime rate was really low. Since we emphasize on emotion and not reason, its the result. Hate, violence..etc are all uncontrolled emotion.
Rape are mainly non-occidental on occidental, that happen when you let emotional/un-evolve population enters you're country.
@NKVism3 I think monogamy is the goal, and polygamy is the result, maybe?
@MaxxTheMerciless He was most defnitely an atheist lol. To be more precise, he was a nihilist. If you're comparing his "der Welt als wille und representation" (basically stating everything is ruled by the laws of physicss besides other thing) with a form of theism, I think you might be confusing him with Spinoza, who did indeed call the laws of physics as far as he could observe them the true manifestation of god.
Very strong words. Generally speaking this is sadly true, but this is obviously because of the culture they are exposed to, not some feminine gene or archetype that inhibits critical thinking or genuine aesthetic appreciation. Women are men's counterpoint if you will; our balance in this world, and appreciated and educated as such can be much more than current society produces of them
@Piatasify No, it isn't. Enforcing expectations is not oppression. And no, Left and Right do have meanings where it comes to right and wrong. Values help shape a people and a society; gives it stability and promotes decency. But we're getting off topic. Oppression is something like real slavery, or where people were slaughtered in gas chambers or things like that. Leadership is not oppression. Leadership is a relationship that guides those in its charge toward good and genuine goals.
@MaxxTheMerciless and the point of great philosophers is that they tend to be ahead in terms of thinking. Recent behavioural studies about how arguing on the internet works have pretty much only given empirical proof to what Schoppenhauer wrote about diadectics, and that was really Hegel's subject, so imagine how easy it would be for him to turn away from religion.
@loai050 All of them do. You have to learn to listen to what he's saying.
@josegotwood I have to agree on this.
@MaxxTheMerciless No, he still wouldn't have been political. He would have see our current political situation and history as proof that he was right when he stated that philosophy becomes untruthfull as soon as there's political interest involved.
@josegotwood If I could travel back to that time I would.
Let's not forget that in the 21st century there's plenty of Women men and Men women, and anything between the two.
@MaxxTheMerciless You obviously haven't read the majority of Schoppenhauer's work. He clearly stated that politics can only take the truth out of philosophy. There's no argueing about what he would do as far as this is concerned, as he himself has given a definite answer.
@Piatasify Politics has everything to do with philosophy. It just seems to you that it doesn't. For some people, they don't consider it, but philosophy can be applied to the most unscrupulous scoundrels in politics. Philosophy helps to explain the way of things and how to approach things to meet certain outcomes.
@MaxxTheMerciless Just because Schoppenhauer wrote some things that are considered un-pc now doesn't mean he automatically is a spokesperson for right wing politics. As I keep stating, using any of his philosophies for politics, shows you have either not read enough or didn't understand.
'Dialog is always the option for the more evolved human being'
I agree, but try to dialog someone who have a leverage on you.
''separates us for the animals''
Also the ability to think the future. But primarily the philosophy, the ability to think without emotional and instinctive interference.
Language don't control emotion, its just another way of expression.
Strangely, all the greatest orator and writer and men...?
@alukkkard
I didn't say I disagreed with Schopenhauer, did I? You like to make up stuff, don't you? I actually agree with him on women.
What I don't agree with is what you're talking about.
@Piatasify But he would've, I believe, understood the difference between both sides, and where they principally differ. I refuse to believe that he would be so blinded by that motif that he wouldn't see the obvious and acknowledge it. It's too simplistic, and narrow-minded.
''where women and men were far from having equal opportunities in life''
The question is why?
@Mayacam07 I think you mean if no women ever get's recognized. Not "If not always". Not all men get recognized. Think.
'To be able to diagnose people, one must have a higher degree '
HAhaha you perfectly represent what i talk about, our system fail.... just paper, no skill. You probably are one of those use to fill the quota :)
You want me to stated a few great thinker who never been to the university? :P
@BigBruinekool That's nature.
@Piatasify Yes, but only because men tolerate it. Any man worth his salt could turn the tables, especially where there are no clear lines of authority. Even so, whatever authority women have over men is because of men, not because of anything they're capable of doing on their own. If a woman doesn't comply to what you want, you chastise her and then ignore her, depriving her of your resources and protection. That's all you have to do. Eventually, they either find another man or comply.
@MaxxTheMerciless He wouldn't have chastised anyone in politics because he refused to be invlolved! He has chastised ALL of politics from the very beginning, reasoning that any political pressure would distort any truth because of the need to appeal to a value.
@MaxxTheMerciless Wouldn't you say women impose expectations on men as well? I've know women (well, 2) who don't want to follow and don't have an urge to lead either. One is an academic and the other a scientist, and all the women (sadly many) I've know who do fit into any given cathergory were a bit stupid.
@MaxxTheMerciless Florence N. was a nurse, not an expert on gender attributes, she spoke from her personal observation, same as anyone else. What qualified her as a source ?Indeed what qualified Schopenhauer as a source of information on gender attributes ? Nothing. He was a man who mixed little with women, did no scientific studies, just ranted on mean -spiritedly .
@ApocalypsePlough Well he was factually correct on western/european (white race) advancement being the highest
Truth is truth ?!
There are no truths in philosophical treatises, only opinions.
Moral truths don't exist, in the words of philosophers or anywhere else.
I am a female. I don't agree with most of Schopenhauer's views on women, but I don't hate him for them or think of him as misogynistic. Schopenhauer lived from the late 1700s to the mid 1800s. He was a man of his time. Society's views of women have evolved since then. If Schopenhauer had lived to today, his views would have evolved as well.
@loai050 But, he's right. About everything he wrote. He might be bitter. But he's absolutely right. I know, Truth hurts, but it helps.
omg his voice.
I think some of these comments are ridiculous. A childhood is the most impressionable time and when little girls are exposed to what they're supposed to be, (this has been going on for THOUSANDS of years though we deny it to this day) they become what they see/think is good. They BECOME materialistic through society, they aren't BORN stupid/biologically unintelligent. In fact, Nietzsche once said that women are the only creatures to understand true "Will to Power" and true Love.