Were Kant and Hegel right about women?
>>399911
What did they say bout bitches?
>>399911
never read kant, never read hagel. You're going to need to explain for novices...
I wish I was a woman
>>399974
Kant practically said that women can have reason but they are incapable of having any morality.
>>400023
What's the basis for this argument?
Wasn't Kant talking about how utterly illogical and emotional females tend to be, and that they have capabilities to not be as such but never do so?
>>400031
To be frank i dont really know i just picked it up during courses and wanted to know if it is true
>>399911
B-bump
>>400023
what a reeaallly ironic thing to say considering he was fucking his mate's wife behind his back
what did hegel say?
>>400324
Wait really? Source on this. I heard Kant died a virgin.
>>399911
>mfw continental philosophers were all /r9k/ autists
Literally everyone of them has written at least one essay sperging over grillz. Not to mention they all had autistic views on life and they all had basically zero friends.
And you are free to post that one essay made by a literally who analytic philosopher about his waifu being real, too bad it doesn't change anything.
Continentals are literally over-glorified robots.
>>400533
> Forgetting muh Modal realism Waifu
>>400546
You wanna know why modern-day continentals are taken seriously?
Because we have the internet and all the autistic shit they say gets filtered in communities like /r9k/.
Nietzsche, Schopenhauer and Kant are all popular solely because during their time the internet wasn't around.
>>400557
are not taken seriously*
>>400557
Has more to do with that you have to be dead before people start caring.
What modern day philosophers are even somewhat known, for the better and worse?
There's John Searle famous for pissing off every undergraduate with a degree in computer science but he's old as fuck and will die fairly soon.
There's Kripke.
That's it. There's no Focault, there's no John Rawls and the like.
>>400612
If the internet existed back then all the works of Schopenhauer would have just been used on /r9k/ for meme purposes.
>>400621
Probably. He'd be that gay who constantly shitposted about Hegel.
>>400628
So my point still stands, these hacks are all over-glorified robots.
If a continental can be considered a ''philosopher'' then all of /r9k/ should be too
>>400612
>>400621
This in addition to people being generally mindwashed to serve as perfectly efficient drones, making mockery of any attempt at thought or refusal to accept the conditions presented, makes for a downfall in philopsphical growth. Question reality itself, moralism, and what ground governments stand on, and be branded an angsty teenager rebel who needs to grow up, get a girlfriend, and get a job.
>>400639
tell me more about your feelingz, anon
>>400557
What the hell are you talking. The "contentinals" ARE taken seriously. The analytics are a tiny Anglo-Saxon circle jerk. A quick look at book sales will you tell that Nietzsche and Schopenhauer are super stars while the 'analytics' (Russel's history book excluded) are 3rd rate.
Or just take a look at the international scene. Every fucking country eats up Nietzche he has been translated into all sorts of languages while the analytics don't even see book sales outside of the Anglo-sphere.
Here's a quick compassion.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=zarathustra+[Japanese+Edition]
^
5 different editions of Zarathustra in Japanese. All of them with still in demand, with new copies still being printed.
http://www.amazon.com/Tractatus-Logico-Philosophicus-Japanese-Edition-Wittgenstein/dp/4588000063
^
Wittgenstein's Tractus get's 1 edition and has almost zero demand.
So yes. Even a country as completly removed from Western philosophy as Japan can see Nietzsche is a genius and the biggest star of the analytics is barely worth looking at. And these sales differences actually get BIGGER when you look at other countries. China purchases more copies of Zarathustra than any nation on earth and I don't think Wittgenstein even has a single translation there.
It's simply amazing how out of touch analytic fanboys are. The whole community is a tiny circle while the rest of the world is ignoring you.
>>400688
>it's popular so it's good
>>400643
It is quite obvious that I am inherently superior to the weaklings who never even consider things such as how the spores of bread functions or how orks reproduce in similar manner, it is quintessential for everyone to know just exactly how superior I am compared to them, and how I am not a normal anybody, but indeed, a special individual that none can match up to.
So smart am I that I am indeed an atheist, for it is the one true faith, the lack of faith, because we have proven through SCIENCE that we cannot believe in a god. How utterly stupid is it that we could ever believe in we god we we
Face it. I am superior in every regard, a normal person doesn't even think about life and death because they are not smart enough for that sort of thinking! They don't even consider it once in their lifetime! har! di! har!
>>400699
You're joking but this was literally them back then.
How this type of cringe-fest was taken seriously is beyond me.
>>400699
/his/ have the best satire.
>>400704
well it was all new back then. It was exciting.
>>400695
The difference is WHO it's popular with. Even in places as foreign to western philosophy as Japan and China will have professors who will tell you that Nietzsche was a great man while the analytic philosophers will be "literally who?"
So the "contential" philosophers fate will be that they continue to influence ideas on an international scale an the "analytics" will continue to only be relevant to a tiny circle jerk.
>>399911
>Is my wikipedia knowledge of the trivial aspects of two otherwise immense philosophers well founded?
No. Now actually read their damn works.
>>400533
>Kant and Hegel
>Continental
The distinction didnt even exist dipshit. If anything Kants categories of modality put him much closer to analytics.
People who talk shit over continental vs analytic tend to not really know much about philosophy. Theyre both great fields that strived towards the same goal and without the rigour of logic AND the imaginative capabilites of art philosophy would be for the worse.
>>400634
>That pic
Jesus, people REALLY dont understand the division do they?
Pro-tip: Hegel greatly influenced Wittgenstein, Russel himself thought set theory was garbage, the Post Structuralists were influenced by early analytic work, neo-Peircian logic ala Quinne is heavily founded in Neitzsche, etc.
They are instrumental in the others developement.
>>400810
What's funny is modern philosophers don't think there ever was a divide. Quin BTFO the logic positivism position in the 50s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Dogmas_of_Empiricism
Essentially the "analytic" on 4cha are a bunch of whiny losers that treat Russel's history book as a bible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=us3Ke1tF9dU
>>400851
quin didnt btfo nothing. logical positivism is still alive in physics departments all over the world, i.e. the only places that matter.
It is only the man whose intellect is clouded by his sexual instinct that could give that stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped, and short-legged race the name of the fair sex; for the entire beauty of the sex is based on this instinct. One would be more justified in calling them the unaesthetic sex than the beautiful. Neither for music, nor for poetry, nor for fine art have they any real or true sense and susceptibility, and it is mere mockery on their part, in their desire to please, if they affect any such thing.
This makes them incapable of taking a purely objective interest in anything, and the reason for it is, I fancy, as follows. A man strives to get direct mastery over things either by understanding them or by compulsion. But a woman is always and everywhere driven to indirect mastery, namely through a man; all her direct mastery being limited to him alone. Therefore it lies in woman’s nature to look upon everything only as a means for winning man, and her interest in anything else is always a simulated one, a mere roundabout way to gain her ends, consisting of coquetry and pretence. Hence Rousseau said, Les femmes, en général, n’aiment aucun art, ne se connoissent à aucun et n’ont aucun génie (Lettre à d’Alembert, note xx.). Every one who can see through a sham must have found this to be the case. One need only watch the way they behave at a concert, the opera, or the play; the childish simplicity, for instance, with which they keep on chattering during the finest passages in the greatest masterpieces. If it is true that the Greeks forbade women to go to the play, they acted in a right way; for they would at any rate be able to hear something. In our day it would be more appropriate to substitute taceat mulier in theatro for taceat mulier in ecclesia; and this might perhaps be put up in big letters on the curtain.
>>400866
>The only places that matter
Since when does anyone give a shit about Physicists views on epistemology?
>>400634
Analytic guy sounds like a grande A autist supported on one leg by unsubstantiated a prior assumptions.
>>400869
spoken like an angry manlet
>>400879
since people realized physicists are at the top of the academic food chain and philosophers are bumbling idiots who fail to grasp their work
>>400894
Next time you post try adding some content.
>ITT: waah i cant get a gf i hate girls for not going out with me im gonna masturbate to the opinions of neurotic misogynists with mommy issues to justify my salt
>>400894
It's interesting that peoples opinions are of higher worth purely because they are more ancient.
>>400902
>hurr women r dumb
>this passes for "content"
all schoppy ever did with women was try and get inside their dresses.
>>400899
Then irs fascinating that physicists have taken this long to realize qualities of the universe that have been well known to Philosophers since Aquinas or earlier
>>400903
Anyone of such an opinion are worth far less to anything than those who further the concepts pointed out by people like Schopenhauer, as they are unreasonable beyond extents.
>>400911
physicists realized that stuff long before you did because they're smarter than you. they just made it rigorous and developed real theories instead of the hand wavy BS that passes for knowledge in philosophy circles
>>400910
>>hurr women r dumb
Not true. You can lie to yourself, but don't try to pass this nonsense onto us.
It's a complete waste of both our time.
Shoppy might be wrong, but at least say as to why.
>>400919
Can you rephrase that in non-broken English?
>>400919
i don't understand your post desu
you sound like an angry bitter virgin though
>>400931
it's nonsense. "The exception that proves the rule" is a fallacy. In manlethauer's time women weren't allowed to set their foot in academia, much less ponder about philosophy. Nowadays that it has allowed both genders to participate we get female philosophers and scientists that make their contributions in their own way. I certainly doubt that Miss PhD went that far into her career in order to woo a dumb man, or a smart one for that matter.
>>400911
>Aquinas
lmao
modern physicists BTFOs his notion of causality
>>400948
>in their own way
nice weasel words
>>400934
>>400939
Anyone of such an opinion as that displayed in the previous post, are quite indubitably worth considerably less in terms of valued gold or otherwise, than the very people who further the concepts brought up by Schopenhauer, namely the concepts that women put on a guise and men are tricked by it in a pursuit of furthering their own biological seed. This is indeed doubly true, for the formerly mentioned people are superbly unreasonable, both logical and otherwise, compared to the latter whom is merely confused and deluded.
It is a simple sentence, but if you need it to be drawn out, so be it.
>>400948
Whats up with your obsession with short men?
>>400948
>In manlethauer's time women weren't allowed to set their foot in academia, much less ponder about philosophy. Nowadays that it has allowed both genders to participate we get female philosophers and scientists that make their contributions in their own way.
This still holds true in today's times though. Women hardly have any interest in science or engineering, the trends are OVERWHELMINGLY slanted towards men. Women couldn't give a shit about understanding things for their own sake, they always seek studies that provide benefits to themselves or other people. This holds especially true for countries that have actively enticed women and men to careers/studies that have been dominated by the opposite sex. 90% of nurses are women, 90% of engineers are men.
Apart from careers and studies, women as a whole have very little interest in poetry, movies, or art FOR THEMSELVES. This obviously comes down to personal experience, but i don't think you've been paying attention as much as you should have. Women are not "movie junkies" or "gamers" in the male sense of the world. Women play video games and watch movies, men ARE video games and ARE movies. Men can eat, drink, and breathe art. Men generally have something that they're bent to, something that they want to master and get good at for its own sake. For women its almost every time for some tangential reason. Men who have actually had girlfriends and wives can actually attest to this, but in a more gentle way then shoppy. Women will watch a movie, but they get bored with the details, the plot ,the characters. Men want to understand and experience what the movie is, women want to be the women in the movie.
>>400899
>I don't know the entire basis for the scientific method comes from philosophy
>>400911
....Aquinas....seriously? He didn't do anything. He re-regurgitated Avicenna's physics which itself is a rework of Aristotle physics.
>>400954
Yes Aquina/Aristotle physics are wrong. But philosophy has been aware of this for some time. This is what Xeno's paradox were about, showing that our current understanding of motion was wrong.
It would take until the birth of Einstein to fix this shit.
>>400973
Short, brutish men are the only type of men that make such comments about women.
In schope's case it's probably because his slut mother fucked every single thing that moved.
>>400982
Which makes me ponder what people are even blaming these things on. It is obvious women want nothing to do with becoming great artists, engineers, or anything of that sort, but people need scapegoats so they come to the "logical" conclusion to just blame it on men in general because they are oppressors or something.
>>400959
I don't understand.
You're saying that people who think that schope's opinion a shit are crazy, while those who don't are deluded?
>>400982
the problem is monogamy. if you take monogamy away then women can become equals to men, because until then, men will compete for mates a lot harder and try to give women the most benefits as possible making women not try as hard anymore.
it is in fact, that men are the ones who engage in their "passions" simply because they want to get laid, while a woman, as kant says, has a natural inclination for beauty.
>>401008
cück
>>401008
> It is obvious women want nothing to do with becoming great artists, engineers, or anything of that sort
There are exceptions, there are some women who really DO have a genuine fascination with the thing in itself. But they're rare.
>>401011
The people who apply Schopenhauer's logic wrong, that is, "tfw no gf i hate women" by the simplest terms, are utterly despicable fools. Far worse than any person whom, whether unknowingly or not, ignores Schopenhauer's logic entirely in favour of furthering what he pointed out by continuing to do those exact things[that he pointed out].
>>401001
Why do you guys think that the napoleon complex is prevalent among us? It makes no sense we are most of the time either quit or easy going we cant afford to be arrogant and aggressive like some tall people. And im pretty sure height didnt mean shit back then and that schopenhauer wasnt especially short.
>>401045
so now you're saying the opposite?
i'm sorry mate but can you please make your shit more intelligible? i don't feel like playing derrida with you right now
>>401053
fuck off kike
>>401067
well what the fuck? i keep reading his initial posts and he seems to say that people who rant about schope's misogyny are irrational, and his last post says the opposite (that those /r9k/ manlets are the ones being irrational)
>>400982
>Women play video games and watch movies, men ARE video games and ARE movies
While there some truth in this, I feel like this statement is heavily influenced by cognitive bias
First of all whether you enjoy, for instance, videogames or not heavily depends on your education. Most vidya enjoyers got it from their parents, at an age (the 90s) where it was preposterous for little girls to play vidya. Besides, it's not just most women, but the most part of the population who enjoy vidya or movies either from a casual point of view or not at all. Men that "ARE video games and ARE movies" are themselves an extreme minority amongst their gender (4chan is full of them so you might get influenced that way), saying that it's typically male is a dubious statement, given than it's only true for a minority of men (who happens to be more important than the minority of women in the same case for the before-mentioned reason).
Plus one of the reasons you play vidya and watch movies is to talk about it with other people (otherwise /v/ and /tv/ wouldn't be that succesful), or ot play with each other (dudebros). Since people tend to prefer discussions with members of the same gender, that tends to men speaking about vidya only inciting more men to speak about it, not more women (exact same reason why men don't like to talk about shoes or knitting)
>>401072
He's probably saying that r9k is cancer, the appliers of his ideology are decent chaps, and the rest are idiots who don't know any better.
Kant Hegel and Schopenhauer put forth ideas that are still relevant to just about every modern philosopher alive.
And all you can argue about is whether or not they were sexist?
>>401001
I am 6'3 and have thought such things. I try not think that way, but anyone who has been in a relationship will hate women at least once.
>>401126
It is much less boring
>>401126
Women are fascinating. I think that they are utlimately much more emotionally complex than men. You can see a logic in the emotions of most men, but not in women. I am not sexist at all, I just really enjoy reading men's opinions on women, because they are such weird creatures.
>>401145
Women are considered deep - why? Because one can never discover any bottom to them. Women are not even shallow.
~Freddy
>>401154
Freddy Nitch?
>>401145
>but not in women
Usually it's the same logic as men, but it's hindered by fears, insecurities and a general level of introvertness that men do not possess
>>400982
Anon, how is anyone supposed to debate your perceived vision of reality?
Literally everything you're saying is you making assumptions and then projecting them into everyone.
Like here for example
>Men who have actually had girlfriends and wives can actually attest to this
No I can't, therefore your entire point becomes invalid.
>>401145
Autism: the post
>>401283
I am actually autstic, but I'm not a virgin, so whatever.
>>401310
And I could add, your entire argument is based on assumptions and anecdotes fueld by confirmation bias.
Even if people used their own anecdotes to disprove you, they'd do nothing because you wouldn't change your mind and you'd actually try to rationalize them
I could point out how my wife has a fuckton of hobbies and interests, how she reads much more than I do and how immersed she gets in games with good story and worldbuilding (like New Vegas)
But you know what you'd do then? Here:
>W-WELL M-MAYBE YOUR WIFE IS JUST HOW HOW I'VE DESCRIBED WOMEN, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW HER VERY WELL
This is precisely what you'd do, there's no winning with you.
Honestly I don't care since it's your problem not mine, but know that not everyone you'll meet is gonna be happy with you trying to project your own biased views into them.
>>401324
I see you've made an imaginary friend of your own hand.
>>401327
Case in point, there's just no winning here
>>401324
I am not the guy who doesn't think that women can't have hobbies. All I am saying is that I can't make sense of most of the women that I have met, compared to men at least.
>>401332
how about not making shit up?
here's this:
>i've a got a harem of over 100 women all dying for my sperm and they're vapid cunts
like, who the fuck goes on making this shit up and expects others to believe them? only a retard would say that women can't have a passionate interest in things, but another retard would assert that those type of women aren't rare
>>401349
tl;dr you're stupid and your posts are shit. women are all whores. now stop replying.
>>401352
Oh I see you just wanted to shitpost, alright.
>>401353
tumblr would consider every reasonable post a shit-post - and every reasonable person would consider a tumblr post a shit-post.
>>401349
Autist here, I don't hate women at all. I understand your frustration though, a lot of /r9k/ posters are bitter little ogres and perpetuate their own virginity by pretending women are inclined towards manipulation. I haven't had that experience myself, most seem inclined to hysteria, but not to the extemes that they have been portrayed in gothic fiction, for example.
>>401362
I mean, they aren't inclined to manipulation more than men are.
>>401362
No I get you, I was trying to give you advice.
Stop considering women to be some kind of complex creatures man, this shit is all in your head.
Just treat them how you'd treat anyone else.
>>401361
define ''reasonable''
>>401375
"agreeable to reason or sound judgment; logical."
>>401386
but isn't reason completely subjective in the end?
>>401390
When everything is subjective, nothing is.
We could being applying appeal to authority here or - I could just begin ignoring your posts since it's a large waste of time trying to come to conclusive evidence when faith in men will generally grant that whatever I say, provided it is backed up by reasonable arguments and sound judgement, will be at the very least listened to even if it's ultimately wrong.
Unlike you're dumb asses "women aren't manipulative at the least and have passions as much as men do :^) over 3 billion men in history and every single writer worth is salt was just a pre-/r9k/ robot shitposter."
>>401397
So to you being ''reasonable'' is simply agreeing with you and not trying to burst your bubble with actual logic.
I see.
>>401406
What you call "actual logic" is probably a bunch of sophistry you use as a roastie enabler. I could begin discussing what makes things true a priori and probably bring up big names, but this isn't my fucking doctoral dissertation, if you want to go be an aspie you can go make a thread discussing Kant's and Hegel's epistemology rather than bringing it here where we discuss whether their views on the fairer sex were correct (which for some reason, we brought that angry manlet Schopenhauer into this discussion)
>>401411
You made this claim:
>''all women cannot hold any real interest''
However, this goes against my perceived reality, as I've already explained.
Therefore, your claim becomes logically invalid.
And let's your previous post for a second, shall we?
>over 3 billion men in history and every single writer worth is salt was just a pre-/r9k/ robot shitposter
First of all, these over 3 billion men do not exist, in the sense that they are nothing but you trying to project your own unsubstiantued views into the general population.
A common behavior among people who only rely on anecdotes and assumptions.
Second of all, writers like Schopenhauer were all indeed bitter misanthropes who could not connect properly with other people.
So it's not surprise they wrote what they did about the opposite sex.
> Question political, religious, and philosophic systems of the time
> Completely internalize gender roles present at the time
>>401462
>>401453
Your perceived reality is bullshit. Why? because my perceived reality goes against it
>not noticing your own inconsistencies
>First of all, these over 3 billion men do not exist, in the sense that they are nothing but you trying to project your own unsubstiantued views into the general population.
oh baby, if I begin quoting /his/ texts on what men generally observed on women - from the bible all the way up to the enlightenment you'll probably answer the same what you did about schopenhauer
you're such a fucking kek
Go ahead and name one female philosopher who has ever made a significant intellectual contribution, and then explain that contribution is.
>inb4 Elizabeth of Bohemia's shallow criticism of Cartesian Dualism
>inb4 Hildegard of Bergan cause that qt really was something else I'll tell you what
>inb4 Ayn Rand
>inb4 Simone de Beauvoir who basically just piggybacked on Sartre who wasn't even a philosopher
>inb4 Hypatia cause all she really did was commentary
>>401461
>gender roles
philosophically insignificant
>>401464
>Your perceived reality is bullshit. Why? because my perceived reality goes against it
Right.
So who's correct here?
Well let's use logic for a second.
Your claim is that all women can't like things.
My claim is that I know women that like things.
Therefore, your ''all'' becomes meaningless as long as I know at least one ''exception''.
>oh baby, if I begin quoting /his/ texts on what men generally observed on women - from the bible all the way up to the enlightenment you'll probably answer the same what you did about schopenhauer
Oh I would.
Wanna know why? Because there also are plenty of texts out there of people praising women.
It all boils down to morals and personal experiences, but you're way too close-minded to realize it.
>>401397
>When everything is nothing, nothing is everything.
2deep4mem8
>>401470
Well let's see, you're essentially throwing out possible examples out the window because according to you they ''don't count''.
This indicates you're not looking for an unbiased impartial discussion and all you want to do here is winning.
So why should anyone bother?
>>401473
>So who's correct here?
Me
>logic
your observations are erroneous, they are biased for WOMEN cannot hold any thing they like, this is a factual thing and as such, it means that the mistake does not lie in my observation but in yours. REVISE.
And about those texts. All those texts written about women are worthless - or do not hold female intellect as the object of their appreciation (least it's the simplicity of their intellect which is being appraised here)
Even that ultra turbo edgy nerd emo Schopenhauer brought women's compassion into appreciation in his parerga. Truth is, this is just your opinion, and YOUR opinion is objectively shit.
I bet you're a wittol as well. I suggest reading Stirner, he was a wittol and he would agree with what you're saying - namely that your view is all that matters. That being the case, I'll stop replying since you're clearly trying to go full on Robert Anton Wilson here telling me everything is subjective and cannot be known, which is fine and all, but anyone who ever wants to discuss anything (or anyone worth discussing things with) will not bother with it.
Bye.
>>401484
>significant
>"don't count" for the reasons he's stated
better start prepping the bull
>>401484
>throwing out possible examples
no I'm just listing a couple and what they did and saying I want something different, hoping that someone knows more than me.
why are you being such a faggot?
>inb4 Mary Wollstonecraft's "muh vindication, we're not stupid, we're just uneducated"
>>401516
>great men, writers and philosophers
>their views are dumb and bad because they rant on women
>this opinion isn't objectively shit
>>401524
When did I mention any of that exactly?
If anything I'd say their views are biased due to social isolation, but that's it.
I'm not the guy who made fun of Schopenhauer for being a manlet.
>>401283
>Anon, how is anyone supposed to debate your perceived vision of reality?
You can't, that's why social "science" is a complete joke. You're not going to find hard facts here, there are extremely nuanced things.
But you can attack the statistics about percentages of women and men in certain careers/studies, even in countries that have actively fought against the apparent divide.
>No I can't, therefore your entire point becomes invalid.
Have you?
>>401528
>Second of all, writers like Schopenhauer
>aka anyone written unfavorably towards women
>social isolation
C U C K
U
C
K
>>401532
I agree, social sciences are retarded.
The statistics you mention also are from social sciences though.
>>400869
`You could change some parts with video games and you would have your average /v/ post
>>401599
>not posting the updated version
Add Nietzsche to the list of misogynistic philosophers
>>401628
But it's not misogyny, it's misanthropy.
Those people hated everyone in general, they were just very pessimistic about life.
>>399911
Never read them but I'm 99.9999% sure they weren't
This tfw no gf tier shit belongs on r9k and pol
>>401640
I'ts interesting that people pay so much attention to negative things stated specifically about women, but don't care about their overall view of men or humans in general.
>>401774
feminism
and also /r9k/ and /pol/ unironically causing people here to become even more biased when this subject is brought up
we just don't want to deal with the autism of those boards, how can you blame us?
>>400634
>>401786
ironically*
>>401505
found the beta.
go back fulfilling your life in eating pussy.
>>401808
great, now this thread is fucked
>>401528
>Schopenhauer
>social isolation
that nigga got laid literally all the time according to the wiki apparently
>>401808
>mfw this guy is still here BTFOing whiney beta whiteknight cûcks and retarded women
Fucking based.
How's it going friend?
We've met before.
>>401505
>ending your post with Bye[period]
Holy shit, you could not be more of a commie bottom faglord if you tried.
>>400688
The fact that so many books still name Nietzsche as "the greatest or most significant or most influential" philosopher ever only tells you how far philosophy still is from becoming a serious method of inquiry. Historians have long recognized that the greatest historians of all times are Herodotus and Thucydides, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Scientist rank the highly controversial Einstein over classical physicists who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Philosophers are still blinded by commercial success. Nietzsche sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore he must have been the greatest. Historians grow up reading to a lot of history of the past, scientists grow up studying to a lot of science of the past. Philosophers are often totally ignorant of the philosophy of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that Nietzsche did anything worthy of being saved.
>>400869
>>403215
That's a nice copy paste (I think the origenal was about the beatles).
I'll repeat myself again. The people who praise Nietzsche are not laymen, they are the people who actually move the field forward. Pretty much all the influential philosophers of today have Nietzsche as one of their influences and if they do not directly have Nietzsche they will probably have someone that was them-self influenced by Nietzsche. Foucault, Baudrillard, really every philosopher that ever came from France. Than you have the fact that Nietzche was a huge influence on Freud, to the point where Freud admitted he couldn't do his work without him. And Freud went on to influence Marcuse who would in turn influence a ton of stuff. Who was the most influential philosophers of the first half of the 1900s? Heidigegger and who was his biggest influence. It was Nietzsche.
Now I will ask you? Who are the people that DON'T say Nietzsche was important. Even the analytic acknowledge him. Rorty said Nietzsche was one of the 3 most important philosophers for contemporary study. People might disagree with him but only someone with zero knowledge of philosophy would say he isn't a giant in the field. So I will repeat again. Who are the people NOT saying Nietzsche is important other than a few children on 4chan?
>>401788
Lol
>>401001
>wah, you generalize women as dumb dont do thaaat.
>all short men are dumb and have an abusive past. lol
>>401606
holy shit the butthurt
>>401606
This is pure ressentiment.
>>399911
Hegel uses Antigone as an archetype for the moral position of women, they represent the divine law just as men represent the human law. Since we're no longer living in a greek polis, I doubt that this division of gender roles has any bearing anyomere, though.
>>400035
T O P K E K
O
P
K
E
K
>>402450
>>402468
>gets BTFO by actual logic
>w-white k-knight! c uck!
>oh wait here's this guy who supposedly can destroy my opponent's logic and make the conflicting feelings go away
>oh wait shit no he's against me too
>FUCKING WHITEKNIGHTS
Oh you continentals are so pathetic.
And a ''whiteknight'' is someone who defends a woman on the internet just for the fact she's a woman, even when she's clearly in the wrong.
It's not someone who disagrees with your stupid shit, quit spewing buzzwords.
>>403941
But the 2015 one is mocking females though? Why would r9gays get triggered?
>>404488
don't pay attention to him, he's just trying to >bait
>>404488
How's that reading comprehension going?
Read that pic again, it's mocking whoever was so butthurt to make that list in the first place.
>>400324
well you need at least two people to cheat someone
>>399911
Their claims are that women can't follow universal laws/maxims/principles. For Kant, this means his ethical rules, for Hegel its more, women need to stay in the house as a stepping stone for men to achieve the universal (unity of politics/philosophy/religion into one big idea).
None are particularly wrong per se. Although they may seem shocking.
There have been many feminists who agree with this but argue you shouldn't hate women because they don't think universally, and that this isn't selfish or vain but actually good for society/the world etc
>>405017
>None are particularly wrong per se.
It's based on anecdotes (and morals) and there's no scientific basis for it.
So how is it not wrong exactly?
>>405199
Not even fucking psychology has a theory saying ''women can't think universally'', I just did a quick research.
So is this what continentalism is all about? Pulling things straight out the ass with no actual scientifical evidence whatsoever?
Ayy lmao
>>405017
>There have been many feminists who agree with this
Sauce? That sounds incredibly unlikely unless we're talking about suffragette types that were still largely conservative. A modern feminist even entertaining the notion for a second seems almost impossible to me.
>>405285
A feminist would spin the notion around in her favor so that it turns into ''patriarchal oppression''.
Too bad it's all bullshit, but I guess you continentals are triggered by science huh?
>>405296
I don't have a dog in this fight, but claiming a feminist would admit something like that is almost too outrageous to be believed, especially if it's from the last 30 or 40 years, hence my request for proof.
>>400634
This image was made as a joke but I guess I shouldn't be surprised that people would eventually start using it unironically.
>>405382
>implying continentalists are backed up by science in any way whatsoever
if anything psychology might side with them, but psychology is barely science so who cares
>>400639
>This in addition to people being generally mindwashed to serve as perfectly efficient drones, making mockery of any attempt at thought or refusal to accept the conditions presented, makes for a downfall in philopsphical growth. Question reality itself, moralism, and what ground governments stand on, and be branded an angsty teenager rebel who needs to grow up, get a girlfriend, and get a job.
Exactly like the modern day. This is literally why SJW's and every other brand of idiot you can think of exists
>>405619
>everyone who doesn't agree with my stupid edgy shit is an SJW
>>405619
>Exactly like the modern day. This is literally why SJW's and every other brand of idiot you can think of exists
Of course, because everyone are idiots except me and whatever little circle-jerk I'm part of. You and your guys have it all figured out.
>>405653
The ironic thing is that is exactly the mentality SJWs have.
>>405388
What exactly are you getting at? It's not like analytical philosophy is any more scientific than continental. That's what's being made fun in the picture, all of Russel's attempts to back his ideas up with 'logic' blew up in his face. Quin would later prove the entire basis for logical positivism in philosophy is a self-contradicting.
Genealogy of Morals has about the same level of proof as anything Wittgenstein wrote. Arguably less since Nietzsche at least refers to history to make his point while Witty is just about thought experiments.
Martha Nussbaum and Christine Korsgaard are two contemporary female philosophers who are pretty badass. It makes sense we didn't see more before the social changes that have taken place with regards to gender in the last half century... This is just obvious right? There are like 16 great figures in philosophy that are part of the essential cannon for all of western thought, and they get there basically by being perceived as the most influential... Not really something you would be able to achieve unless you were writing under a psuedonym if you had vagina
>>400907
They're if higher worth because they're right and and the ancient knew what they were on about. The fact that many people refuse to listen or learn anything got us into much of the buckshot were in
>>400023
Isn't it the opposite?
Women can't seem to temper their perspective with morality with reason.
>>401008
Because it lets them escape their problems and not have to take responsibility for their own failures and shortcomings and work on a way to solve them
>>401628
>muh soggy knees
get the fuck back to tumblr. Feminisms bullshit and fucking meme tier at this point. Actual misogyny happens in places where shit like female genital mutilation with can lids goes on and SJW s don't give a fuck about those or any other actual problems
>>399911
AWALT.
All women can be like that but not all women are
>>400786
You're retarded. Yeah, the distinction may not have existed but Hegel and Kant are the basis for Continental Philosophy.
What you said is literally the equivalent of saying Keats or Shelley aren't Romantic poets because we didn't have such a classification during their lives.
>>407931
Not that guy, but Kant is considerably more important in analytic philosophy than he is in continental. Then again, you don't have a clear concept of how to even make that distinction, otherwise you'd see that neither of them did what our contemporary analytics and continentals are doing which gives them their respective names.
>>407825
This. I find men tend to be more rational than women, but usually more immoral. Of course, some butthurt incel will cry foul, but overall, men commit way more crime and violence.
>>407919
Oh great, now we have Red Pill bullshit on /his/ too
>>407854
Oh boy ironic you're posting this on 4chan of all places.
>>400612
Baudrillard was before his death.
But no to give a final anwser to this autistic discussion, they aren't right.
Everything they say is based on not even anecdotes, it's based on them making assumptions and then projecting them into every female on the planet.
There's no scientifical basis whatsoever for ''women not being able to appreciate art'', the whole ''theory'' is literally just one sperg assuming that women cannot like things.
He didn't come up with that conclusion with empirical data or research, he literally just assumed that girls don't like things because he says so.
It's like, the easiest counter-argument to this type of ''thesis'' is pointing out the fact that you do know women who appreciate art just like men. Too bad this type of rebuttal would do nothing as pointed out here >>401324 and it would also meet you with buzzwords and ad hominem such as ''muh white knight''.
And it's fine really, because in the end philosophy is more about finding a way to give everything a meaning according to your own morals than being scientifical.
So if you are an autisic /r9k/-like person you'll come up with this this type of conclusion and nothing will change your mind.
And honestly, whatever.
Nietzsche totally was.
>In the three or four civilized countries of Europe women can through a few centuries of education be made into anything, even into men: not in the sexual sense, to be sure, but in every other sense. Under such a regimen they will one day have acquired all the male strengths and virtues, though they will also of course have had to accept all their weaknesses and vices into the bargain: thus much can, as aforesaid, be extorted. But how shall we endure the intermediate stage, which may itself last a couple of centuries, during which the primeval properties of women, their follies and injustices, are still asserting themselves over what has been newly learned and acquired? This will be the age in which the actual masculine affect will be anger: anger at the fact that all the arts and sciences have been choked and deluged by an unheard-of dilettantism, philosophy talked to death by mind-bewildering babble, politics more fantastic and partisan than ever, society in full dissolution, because the custodians of ancient morality and custom have become ludicrous to themselves and are striving to stand outside morality and custom in every respect.
Women have in many regards been removed from the cloister or pedestal to bump shoulders with men, but most are still too weak (and are actively WEAKENED by most female cultures) to deal with it.
>>407904
>Actual misogyny happens in places where shit like female genital mutilation with can lids goes on and SJW s don't give a fuck about those or any other actual problems
This is actually a logical fallacy called the fallacy of relative privation. It's like saying "How can you judge MY meth addiction when it's so much worse in the Czech republic?" Not to mention the anti-feminists making this argument generally don't give a fuck about women in third world countries and just want to shift the argument via red herring into focusing on how horrible brown people are.
You also falsely assume feminists "don't give a fuck about those or any other actual problems". I doubt you bothered to investigate, but here's a list of international women's organizations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_women%27s_organizations#International
>>400000
>>408052
See maybe it's because I look up way too much into the practical side of things, but I just can't bring myself to take any of this seriously.
There's no scientifical basis for any of this and he was well aware of that too.
So why should I listen to it?
This is not even about women, it's more about philosophy in general.
How can you listen to a bunch of people who pretty much pull everything they say straight out their asses with no empirical evidence whatsoever?
How?
>>408016
that rebuttal literally has no weight because a person can claim he's never met a women that can and be right
it's like russel's tea pot
good fucking luck proving it you cück
>>408079
I don't disagree with your premise - asserting arguments without empirical evidence is basically what a philosopher does - but you don't seem very educated in philosophy. Don't get me wrong, Nietzsche is more poetic and existential than concerned with the notion of objective reality by his own admission, but the fact that you didn't bring up well-known concepts within modern philosophy like logical validity and proper inference gives me the impression that you're only really acquainted with figures from the 19th century and earlier. Analytic philosophy is pretty much based on reducing obfuscating language and addressing problems with reference to mathematics and the natural sciences.I'm not saying continental or pre-20th philosophy doesn't have value, either. Synthetic knowledge isn't all knowledge, bro. If you haven't read Hume or Kant's work on reason and empiricism, I suggest you do so, because the empiricism you support didn't just pop out of the ground in spite of philosophy, it was developed over the centuries by philosophers themselves. Modern science would be very different without Karl Popper or Thomas Kuhn.
>>408103
You're right, it's all anecdotes in the end.
So what's the point of this discussion?
>>408144
Well in the case of Nietzsche's quote I do actually agree with the premise.
My personal theory is that the reason women still don't have a huge relevant presence is because the concept of egalitarinasim is still relatively new and still not completely ingrained in culture and society.
The thing is that Nietzsche's reasoning instead tends to be way too "spiritual" for something as simple as this.
>>408103
>Russel's tea pot
You're the one who made the original claim though, so it's up to you to actually prove it with hard scientifical evidence and nkt up to that other skeptical anon who tried to dispute your original point.
Right now you are basically saying
>you can't prove god doesn't exist
>>408061
>male genital mutilation is perfectly acceptable
>Muh soig uh nee
>>408643
blame the jews and phimosis
>>408684
Is that whole, they use it for hand cream, thing real?
The evidence seemed pretty convincing but I didn't want to bandwagon it.
>>408684
>blame *jews*
>>405199
>It's based on anecdotes (and morals) and there's no scientific basis for it.
this undergrad has studied science,
>>408689
All I know is that America is the only first world country that practices that shit.
Everywhere else it's only done if you have a condition like phimosis.
>>408643
Who are you quoting?
>>408699
That picture is fucking retarded.
Your point?
>>408643
>>408702
An implication,
>Female mutilation is muhsoiginy
>;;;;__;;;;
>let's ignore it's only practiced in third world shit holes and has no relevance for anything "feminists" care about
>in a first world country male genital mutilation is perfectly acceptable
>but it would never be considered misandry
Fucking jews.
>>408694
>>408706
Tbh senpai the picture fit you perfectly.
>>408714
sorry I disagree with you anon, must be tough to handle
>>408716
SJW faggot (^:
I bet you eat your jewish cornflakes too.
Misandrist.
>>408712
you're the one who brought that up in the first place though
>>408712
Wait, so when someone disproves your claim that feminists do not care about third world women's issues, you turn around and say that this does not matter, because they do not care about male circumcision in the first world? That doesn't even make sense m80, not one fucking bit.
>>408730
you are not allowed to use logic here you white knight sjw
Why is thread still up and what is it even about anymore?
Mods please do you fucking job.
>>408737
>There is no way you're not a "feminist" in the slightest. Don't try and act like you're not one
I like how pointing out logical flaws makes you automatically part of the boogeyman group.
The funny thing is that feminists do it too, guess the horseshoe theory is real after all huh?
How is this a logical behavior exactly? How is this NOT a strawman?
Are strawmen ok when you do them?
>>404611
>tries mocking whoever was so butthurt to make that list in the first place
>by writing a fuckhuge tldr rant and spamming it on 4chan
kek
>>408742
The point is that your asserting a straw man onto me, and me unto you.
You say
>anti-feminazis
And project them upon your vision
And I then project yours.
I love your acclimations of logic and reason btw, continue.
>>405269
>Pulling things straight out the ass with no actual scientifical evidence
that's literally all of philosophy
>>408737
>There is no way you're not a "feminist" in the slightest.
I don't know who you think I am, but I never said anything to signal any attitude towards feminism, neither critical nor affirmative. Whatever my attitude may be, I have not attempted to deceive you about it.
>First world "feminists" care practically nothing about it, no
This has literally been disproven in front of you and everyone saw it, just sayin
>>408755
Yes, third world "feminists groups" are now attributed by first worlders.
Group acclimation is such a retarded concept.
Your average feminist college butch dyke doesn't give a shit until you tell her about it, then she pretends she cares as apart of her facade.
I find it funny when Zizek talks about the man on the plane during 9/11 and what is honest and Noble and what is not.
>>408768
You make some assumptions about what kind of person the average western feminist is, and mention a zizek video or book which I can't remember having watched/read...are you sure you have a point?
Mods please.
>>408789
The point is, they are completely absorbed with retaining their ideological predisposition of righteousness and correctness as they see it. So, they have their issues that they care about because it is advantageous to them if they change it. But they rarely will venture out to other issues that actually concern what they see as a problem, in this case some unidentified and unfalsifyable "misogyny", as a whole. As soon as you bring up another issue that might be relevant, they proclaim it as their cause as to retain their image, but never actually making a sacrafice for themselves to fulfill it.
That is the point.
>>408797
You've just described every modern activist movement ever.
>>408797
At this very moment, you are engaging a strawman college feminist lesbian which isn't present, to what end are you criticizing that poor imaginary woman, she can't help the way you made her?
>>408806
Thank you.
I was merely addressing the worst of what he is so valiantly defending.
Actually the white nationalism groups seem to be the most ideologically solid, but will always fail in practice.
>>408809
>Muh straw man
No, I was addressing the thing you're so valiantly defending.
You're taking this to the extent of a no true scotsman.
You even commited a strawman saying she. I never used a gender pronoun you sexist shitlord.
Men can be feminists too.
>>408817
>No, I was addressing the thing you're so valiantly defending
What do you think I am defending, valiantly or not? I never once said anything regarding the average western feminist, which is, quite frankly, a person I have never met, I merely stated that that other anon's post had dispelled the notion that they are on principle disinterested in third world issues. You then began a detailed description of the attitudes of said person, which is both of low epistemic status and of little interest to me, as it is literally irrelevant to my post.
>You even commited a strawman saying she
>Men can be feminists too
Men can't be dykes though.
>>408643
>male genital mutilation is perfectly acceptable
I never said this. I'm against circumcision, too. I've never heard feminists advocate for it, and I've actually heard them criticize it as being inherited from patriarchal religious traditions. In any case, while I oppose circumcision on the grounds of consent, to equivocate the male circumcision with female "circumcision" is an anatomical fallacy. Removing a clitoris is much more akin to removing the entire penis..
>>409549
Also, I never postured as not being a feminist or a social justice advocate. I admit to being one, but even if I wasn't. your arguments were still entirely based on logical fallacies.
>>405285
There's a whole vein of feminism that claims that women do not follow universal laws but think about morality in terms of "care" and personal relationships.
Yes, many Feminists would criticize the idea of a universal law being a desirable guide for morality.
>>405199
>>405269
Lawrence Kolhberg, Jean Piaget are some psychologists who come to mind. They basically argue children slowly learn how to follow universal rules but females never make it this far and are essentially stunted children.
Schopenhauer says something similar, albeit different.
>>409078
>Brianna Wu
>woman
Please buy new glasses.
>>400982
I've had female friends put on films they claim to love before and I end up having to explain to them (who has seen the film at least once before) what the plot is half way into it.
The same with games, without fail every girl who says "I used to love this game! I'd spend weeks at a time on it" is the same type to forget that crash bandicoot can spin.
>>409577
>psychology
>>409086
I wonder in what kind of world whoever made this picture lives in
>if you reject a girl you are considered gay
What? Where does this even happen?
>nice guy
Ah now it all makes sense, ayy lmao.
Fucking reddit.
>>409608
The sad thing is to that anon your anecdotes will be much more valuable than the ones of that other anon.
You can't have an impartial discussion about this, it's all biased.
>>409577
>fucking psychology has somehow managed to find out how something as subjective as morality works while real science still doesn't even understand what things like consciousness are
Nah anon, just no.
>>409596
I'm not the same person they were responding to, I'm >>408061, and branding me an "ideological failure" is just a red herring to distract from the fact that I specifically demonstrated why your arguments of "The third world is worse!!!" and "Feminists don't help them" were wrong. It's easy to fall back on general blanket statements when you haven't refuted any actual points I made, just brought up total non-sequitur topics like circumcision which nobody mentioned before you.
>>408699
I only agree with the fourth point here
>>409706
Medieval Europe is a really overused setting desu. Not that I don't like it, but even in regards to other periods of European history it just feels saturated. My opinion on historical accuracy depends on whether the game is set in a fantasy world. Shit like black Vikings pisses me off, but I can see why a black person would be freaked out that the original Star Wars trilogy had more green people than brown ones.
>>409727
WE
>>409727
Tbh the best version of Javert in Les Miserables was a black guy, as historically inaccurate as it was.
>>399964
Holy shit.
>Live, Laugh, Love
I see this fucking shit on almost every second window in my neighborhood. The fuck is this crap? New YOLO or something?
>>408079
You can't have empiricism without statistics. You can't have statistics without math.
>>408354
His reasoning isn't even remotely spiritual. Maybe you have poor reading comprehension.
What were they supposed to be right about?
The fact that women are simple creatures that want safety, security and a good dicking?
Wow, such rocket science.
>>409645
>>409614
The story goes is that they did some tests on children and adults and found that there's a moral ladder you climb with the final being "follow abstract universal rules."
Women would never make it this far. Maybe it's true? Are women not infamous for being worse drivers than men? Do they simply not pay attention to rules of the road, which should apply universally? This will trigger a lot of people even though it's probably true.
The problem is really more enlightenment philosophy which presupposes an articulable universal rule. The ancients don't have this problem and an Aristotelian morality would actually be much more attentive to the way women do make choices which is different from the manner in which men make choices.
If you deny this difference you'll end up with a rational discourse that assumes all women are retarded. Enlightenment morality is an aberration, all of this is a pseudo-problem.
>>400982
>videogames are art
>glorified escapism toys invented for literal children and with the sole concept of consumption are now art
What the fuck, your argument sucks anyway and while a lot of Western women might be stupid and boring as shit, so are most men, the only thing most of the guys I know about are interested in are the exact same things that women are interested in, the only people who honestly care about art (not you obviously) are intellectuals and they are found on both sexes, the problem here is that a lot of women have a lot of social stuff to tend to, while a lot of men are outcasts by choice or because they're human garbage, so they have to focus on at least 1 thing, for most it will be videogames anyway, because surprise: They are lazy, unimaginative sloths just like most of the supposed bitches you tend to despise.
>>409804
You can't have reliable stats with only anecdotes though.
>>409827
Look man, you can try sounding like an intellectual with those big words but how in the fuck are those ''tests'' even reliable in the first place?
What was the methodology? Was the scientifical method fully followed? Were there no biases involved?
These are the questions you should answer.
>>409841
This argument is as retarded as the one of the guy you responded too.
>stop liking what I don't like
>>409841
>implying all art isn't glorified escapism
>>409608
>I've had female friends put on films they claim to love before and I end up having to explain to them (who has seen the film at least once before)
I do that too and I'm a dude tbqh.
I might really love a movie but there's always at least one plot point that I end up missing.
Some people really have short attention spans, regardless of their gender. That doesn't stop them from enjoying things though.
Also you know what's ironic? Guess who's the person who always ends up explaining the parts I did not get? My wife lel.
None of this shit is gender specific.
>>409701
Good christ.
Women should be banned from the Internet.
>>409884
>I'm a dude tbqh
No you're not.
>>409885
Can you please explain how this kind of behavior is rational in any way whatsoever?
First of all you don't even know the gender of the person you're speaking with.
Second of all, even if it really is a woman you did not offer a proper rebuttal.
>>409886
>THERE'S NO WAY MY ASSUMPTIONS CAN BE POSSIBLY WRONG!
>R-RIGHT?
>>409895
I agree with him, you write like woman.
Post penis as proofs that you are what you claim to be.
>>409910
So shitposters are not men now?
What?
>>409884
>>409935
>he says something I don't agree with in regards of the female gender, he must be a feminist
>>409916
>implying not all of us are cute girls
>>409939
>he
>>409941
Also English isn't my first language so I don't know if ''gender specific'' is an actual term to be honest familia.
>>409945
>has
what is going on in this thread
>>409960
mods not doing their work, that's what
>>409869
I like videogames, I just dont pretend that it has any meaning or is in any way productive let alone art. I love film, not in the "i watch whats on the imdb 250 and browse /r/truefilm" way but actually have a deep interest in more unknown stuff (altough I know this sounds stupid, I dont know how to put it otherwise) and I like a lot of other stuff including music, literature or history, but wouldnt call myself an expert on any of those topics, I dont see why people like the guy I responded to think that theyre so deep because they "dont party" or some shit like that, it doesnt make you interesting to be a contrarian and an outcast, you have to be interesting too.
>>410007
Well I agree with that, nothing more shallow than thinking you're superior to others just because of your interests.
Literally fedora behavior.
