modern western women especially are materialistic and superficial...they behave like bunch of whores with no self-respect...mere objects to be used by men for sexual pleasure.... They are incapable of producing anything beautiful or of value... they are incapable of profound philosophical thoughts... The only things they value are shopping and cosmetics...
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...
Politics has no place in philosophy. Philosophy is about creating a system of thought, and therefor must be void (as far as this is possible) of anything but objective reasoning. This is why it isn't politics or religion (some of you think it's like religion? really? Idiots!)
@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 The major political philosophical field is Marxism, but I don't want to say too much about that in case some berret wearing maniac starts replying lol. You can have a system of thought for most things. But Schoppenhauer´s oppinion is that the two shouldn´t mix, and I think he was right about that.
@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.
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 Normally, I do prefer Kant, but I consider frames of thought in context to both what they had to deal with and what I have to deal with now.
Good and Evil do very much exist. To ignore that is pure stupidity because it seeks only to see the material of the world rather than principles, causes, and ethics. I laugh at atheists, who generally believe in something that is more a miracle than anything Christians could conjure. And I see no value in it.
@MaxxTheMerciless Stupidity is to use outdated labels as good and evil while it is clear that we are a product of our genetic heritage and surroundings. We have no real agency. You're claiming that everything Schoppenhauer wrote was true, but you're battling his life work by clinging on to a set of values rather than thought.
@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.
@Piatasify Hahahah!!!!!!! Socrates never thought so. Nor did Plato or Aristotle. They never thought they were ahead of anything. When the Oracle said to Socrates that he was wiser than other men, it was because he said he knew nothing. Humanity is what it is, not as we'd all like it to be, and that's the crux of it.
My brother (infinitely wiser in these things than anyone) is a homicide detective with, literally, a 100% conviction record. This man can tell you the truth of the world. c
@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.
@MaxxTheMerciless And claiming "noone back then was an atheist" and pretending it is a real arguement with any weight behind it is insanity. Not only was the age of enlightment well under way, he was greatly influenced by Darwin evolution theory. In fact, before the t.o.e. people already didn't take the bible literally, but it opened their eyes to there being non inherent fairness in life.
@MaxxTheMerciless "My brother (infinitely wiser in these things than anyone) is a homicide detective", this is nothing but a blancket statement. Stick to 17th century philosophy if you want easy absolute meanings you can go over step by step.
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?
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.
@loai050 Florence Nightengale agreed with him whole-heartedly. Schopenhauer was talking about women in general. The usual defense of this, as you did, is to say "not all women are like that." But this is a deflection from the truth. When you're talking about social dynamics, you have to speak in the generalities that make up the nature of the world at large, and to sit there and make distinctions ignores the issue, and condones the problem.
@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 .
@loai050 Ahh, this old chestnut; she's not an expert therefore she doesn't know what she's talking about. Here's a question: what qualifies you to judge what she says, then? Are you a scientist? I guess only scientists can make valid observations. That's a horribly weak argument.
@MaxxTheMerciless . I'll accept scientific facts- let the chips fall where they may- but not this man's fiddle-diddle opinions. If a female philosopher wrote such insulting generalities about men , she'd be castigated as a bitter woman who had lost her objectivity, it would be an embarrassment. Schopenhauer showed himself to be an odd and bitter man when he wrote this unworthy treatise.
@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 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 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 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.
@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).
@Piatasify The only women I've ever known that do not fall into the general analysis are women who have been forced to take responsibility for themselves and their own lives. Such women are also not feminists in any sense of the term. But I guarantee you that if given an option these very same women will fall into the general schema because it's easier, and they'll get away with it. So, it only stands to reason for men to impose their expectations on them, because society won't.
@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.
@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 Can't say I share your high opinion of men. Either behaviour you describe is the unsophisticated way the majority of the populace behaves. Being manipulative is how a chimp would use it's brain, as it's a simple action towards gaining something worldly. There is no intelectual substance to it. So both man and woman in that situation would not be what I call human.
@Piatasify I don't necessarily consider my opinion high or low, but as it is. We have, on the other hand, abrogated our natural authority to women, and women wonder why there aren't any real men out there anymore. This is a cry for male authority to bring some order in their lives, which they crave yet at the same time have denounced it as oppression thanks to the efforts of Leftism and Feminism which seek to destroy the family. Leadership is not, nor has ever been, oppression.
@MaxxTheMerciless It is oppresion when you're talking about enforcing. Left and right has no clear meaning anymore, as it often even differs per nation, and we'd be all the better for completely ridding ourselves of the notion of choosing our politicians by some pre-determined system of values, which can't adapt itself to new times.
@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.
@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?
@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.
@MaxxTheMerciless So you mean refusing to work with someone. I'm getting the impression you're trying to bait people by using stronger terms than you mean. It is totally up to you if you refuse to interact with someone based on their behaviour. It would be bizzare to demand anything else. Did someone in some make this ridiculous demand from you at some point?
@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.
@Piatasify cont..This is anecdotal, but it serves as an example. Not long ago, my girlfriend and I made a date for us to go out to dinner. But 3 hours before I'm to go pick her up, she calls me to cancel it so she could go see a film with her friends. I told her to quit acting like a bitch, that I'm more important than her friends, and she doesn't just up and cancels a date on the day we're going to have it, and I told her to get ready for dinner. I didn't budge from that. And she complied.
@Piatasify That is absolute nonsense. That is precisely what the Left wants you to think. These people want to get you to stop thinking critically about things so that you don't criticize them about anything, meanwhile they get people to criticize everything that is good in society. This is known as Critical Theory, concocted by The Frankfurt School. Philosophy is useless unless you can apply it on the basis of good and evil and right and wrong.
@MaxxTheMerciless Are you even reading what I type? The left (and right) want nothing more then you to blindly side with them. What I say obviously means looking at everything critically. In some nations you get a bigger choise than 2 parties to vote for. Left and right have no meaning because their VALUES DIFFER PER NATION. Besides, Schoppenhauer would hate nothing more than politics linked to his systems of THOUGHT (not value, see?). Good night.
@Piatasify I am, but you're largely wrong. When it comes to certain values they don't differ per nation. We generally hold to the same ideas of fairness, of crime and punishment, and other things. Where their centers are is different, but when it comes to values they're generally the same. In America, when we talk about the Right, at the very least we're talking about a political force that isn't trying to deny the existence of right and wrong to its own ends. cont...
@Piatasify cont.. At the very least, Schopenhauer would've not only recognized that, but he would chastise the Left over it. Any ideology that seeks to obscure the meaning of language, of philosophy, and cloud the issues with dishonest rhetoric, tactics, and legerdemain would've gotten his ire. True, the right has its flaws too, but they're manageable on principle. The Left's flaws lie in their tolerance and acceptance of evil.
@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.
@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.
@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.
@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.
@MaxxTheMerciless I think you're not getting the point. Ofcourse he would see it, like anyone can. My point is that he wouldn't deem it worthy of comment. Right-wing left-wing as it stands today is much too banal to waste time thinking on if you're pursueing intellectual achievement.
@Piatasify Why? Why wouldn't he? Because he doesn't see a good or an evil? Not until he sees the World Left. He might change his mind. Never before in history up til his point had the world seen anything as depraved, as barbaric, as horrible as the Left. And I think he would certainly agree.
@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.
@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.
@Piatasify But labels is how we identify things. It's how we arrive at conclusions in a truthful manner. The American Right tries very hard to abide by that, despite its shortcomings, whereas the American (WORLD) Left ignores it for a particular tyrannical goal. To ignore that is not only silly, it's childish, an effort to try to get above the fray when you are, in fact, in the middle of the street, as it were, and those who sit there get mangled.
@MaxxTheMerciless Are you just trying to wind me up? Labels helps us understand things, though as an engineer I can see how you feel it is the only way to understand things as you want absolute certainty (which, is again something Schoppenhauer deinies the possibility of, I really don't see why you like him so much when everything you write shows you're at the opposite).
@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.
@MaxxTheMerciless If you can't think beyond the group, if the group mentality rules you, if you can't think for yourself, you might as well be a chimp.
@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.
@MaxxTheMerciless In the very least say "I comply with the right (in your case I think you really mean one of the republican parties, keep in mind youtube is international, so using words like left and right have no clear definition) because it's the lesser of two evils.
@MaxxTheMerciless And then ofcourse there is Schoppenhauer's influence on animal rights and atheism, aren't those considered "left" in the states? He considered the gaining of wealth a secondary purpose after the arts, what about that? Not only is using left and right as definitions stupid because it originated in 18th century France, today's left and right won't fit in Schoppenhauer because he was also a product of his time.
@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.
@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 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?
@Piatasify I'm not sure I understand the question here.
I do distinguish males into Men and Boys, however. Boys have not yet matured into Men, despite their age. Men are leaders. Boys aren't. Men know when it's time to enforce their expectations; Boys wouldn't know what those expectations are, let alone how to enforce them. Men know how to handle women. Boys are led around by them.
. Men handing over their pay to women, it was few who did............of course he lived in days when women followed the script , as the oppressed best do. Place him in today's world and I doubt he'd write this load of fiddle-diddle.Women allowing themselves to go to seed- yep - and the men, no different.'. More sober in their judgement - but their reasoning powers are weak - whereas men tend towards exaggeration' . Hard to believe he actually committed this nonesense to paper.
gender is a social construct. Just look at all the cross-dressers today! It's quite shocking, actually. The population that get sex changes is what really convinced me that gender was a social construct. I don't think that gender is anything physical. I'm usually very skeptical of feminists, but on this point they are right.
@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 Actually now that I actually think about it you must be right. Evolution guaranteed that there would be differences between the genders. It was naive of me to think otherwise. What is very interesting is that some women behave in more of a masculine manner than some men and some men behave more feminine. I'm sure evolution didn't construct a very strict boundary when it comes to gender.
I'm really not a big fan of the "type" of woman that Schopenhauer is describing here. In all honesty I think his assessment of women is true in general, but he is wrong in specific cases. I like the strong willed, independent, and aggressive type. The type of women I just described probably didn't even exist in Schopenhauer's epoch. I forgive Schopenhauer for the generalization because the evidence during his time pointed toward the truth of his statements. There's my rant. lol
Schopenhauer highlights that men overlook the obvious more than women, but omits that Whites overlook the obvious much more than non-whites, particularly regarding race.
Schopenhauer was racially aware, like every other sensible man of his time or any other, but his was a homogenous society, so this went unsaid, if not unobserved.
If he had been forced to deal with the Multikult, he'd have this and many other things to say. People say he was pessimistic when Europe was White!
Seymoore's a beta, lol. "Alphas are MEANIES, mother me, and I'll lick your toes!" >:P
@Ruka: I was saddened to see the troll-stampede from The AmazingFatassHumanist and his crowdist Enlightenment-squad. Must have done something incredibly RIGHT to provoke fatties ire so. You are valued. You matter. You are recognized. An invite is in order, for you have good taste in foes. |; -\
@HeyRuka: Neither monogamy or polygamy is "the goal". A goal to be given the higher consideration, within Schopenhauers thought, is the creation of better quality humans, within races, empires, dynasties, kingdoms, nations, castes, tribes, clans, families, etc. I share that goal. Polygamy, however, prevents the negative consequences of superfluous and/or degenerated females such as spinsters, tribads, lesbos, etc. while hardly eliminating the necessity, the FACT, of relation between the sexes.
Women waste their time on Vogue and gossip, men waste it on sports trivia and pissing contests of various sorts. From my observation (I don't know if this is the case with Schopenhauer) when men have bad experiences in their relationships with women, they assign traits to women as a whole to explain why their relationships went badly. Though women do the same about men. Neither sex has a monopoly on foolishness.
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.
@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?
@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.
Waaaaah waaah wah. You chicks don't realize how generous he was to your kind. The idea that any man, no matter how well-fit he keeps himself, will and MUST never experience impotence and furthermore, always be able to satisify ONE woman, even after 30 yrs., while working the entire time to support the offspring, will lead either to misery or to illicit relief among millions of married men, and among the merely miserable, it produces a condition of chronic sex-starvation, depression, even suicide
There's no truth to this! At the time this crap was written, it was accepted that women were inferior to men and women were not granted opportunities to learn, test or practice their abilities as men did. The 100% male dominated culture ensured that achievements by women were unrecognized. Women who broke through the social barriers as writers or philosophers had to use male pen names in order to publish their intellectual contributions, hence George Elliot was really Mary Ann Evans.
lol yes so men feed me, bathe me and wipe my ass, and in return I will entertain you and I will take all that I can get off you................ how attractive
I suggest those critical of this or interested in further content, read the other chapters of Schopenhauer's Studies in Pessimism. His other views such as the explanation of the "will" lend greater insight into this chapter. All audiobook chapters are available on Librivox.org.
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.
@truthemulator - I said there are no truths in philosophical treatises. I said there are no moral truths.
That's a big difference from saying "there are no truths". I didn't say "there are no truths". There are plenty of truths. Science has provided us with many, many truths. Add two atoms of hydrogen to one atom of oxygen & you get water. That is a truth. I was born in Canada. That is a truth.
But, since morality changes as time and space changes, you cannot say there are moral truths.
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.
@truthemulator - "babble" is the wrong word, as it implies meaningless, idle chatter.
Philosophy is not meaningless. Philosophy is meaningful, and has influenced and inspired people for centuries. Me being one. I am not anti-philosophy. I am anti-people who think it contains moral truths. As society evolves, morality changes. And, like I said, if morality is a function of time and space, which it is, no moral truths can exist.
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.
He forgot to mention that if a man confides in a woman, she will, in anger, use his vulnerabilities against him - every time. I suppose Schopenhauer couldn't foresee the caliber of the hardened, disrespectful, inferiority-complex addled harridans of our reflexively feminist age.
Look at yourself, now look at me. Now back to yourself, now back to me. Fortunately, you're not me, but if you stop being a rational man and starting making ugly blanket statements about women, you can look like me.
Look down, look up. Where are we? This video with a comment section full of angry men. See this? A comment refuting both the video and the comments. Look again. THE COMMENT HAS BEEN MARKED AS SPAM.
Anything is possible when you're an internet misogynist.
The natural harmony between men and women was going fine UNTIL radical feminists came in with their victim mentality and started to break all moral and ethical values placed on men and women by promoting promiscuosity, sexual liberation, destruction of marriage, etc.
@TimeGod12 women were not treated fairly. Women didn't have the right to vote, could not own property while married, discriminated in higher education,etc. I am against promiscuity but there was a sexual double standard. Men were not condemned for premarital sex or extramarital sex. Having a mistress was not scandulous and prostitution was legal.
@fashionhistorylover NOBODY was & is still not treated fairly. It is in human nature to get and use power to oppress other races, ethnicities and people.
In UK men were forced to sign for conscription and give their lives fighting a stupid world war 2
The only difference then and now is that back then traditional family values were strong and supported, now thanks to feminism no one gives a damn about having a family.
Its all about sex, money, war and alcohol in western civilizations today.
@TimeGod12 what the other person is saying is that the limited lives women were forced to lead, created their social nature. Hiding behind the word "fairly" is childish. Yes, it's not fair if my mother gives me less than my sister, also slavery= not fair. Women could not, and are not encouraged to express a range of humanity as men are. Not just jobs, but personality, everything. Any type of man is expected, two or three types of women are expected, two accepted by 1/2 the population at a time.
I don' t think he's necessarily putting down women here, not at all.
They live in the moment, and they are cheerful.
Let us learn from this wise, natural intuition.
Our male faculties are putting the Earth into a fucking oblivion. Let's balance ourselves a little better gentlemen. After all, in reality all is unified. Black is White, Woman is Man. Let's not judge as if we are 'higher'. There are just degrees of difference, degrees of seeing how it is to our advantage to be man, or woman.
@darklord220 I'd rather self abort with a rusty nail than have a daughter who will most likely grow up to reject my intellectual teachings for Vogue magazine. For this reason, the liability of motherhood is best spent on a son. If only Schopenhauer could be read to my husband-to-be's testicles....
I often wonder why men look to a woman for approval. If I was a man, I would never, ever seek the approval of a creature whose only merit is her judgment. Instead, I would look to those who merit their actions on achievement. Women pollute men, as men pollute women and yet the former is a death to the human spirit while the latter is just spite. Nature takes all the achievement, women merely gloat in her creation as they do in the success of men. It is never their (our) victory.
Women want money and attention.............simple?. The only things they're good at is either cooking, arguing, and sucking dick (for money). Women don't have self-respect because they call eachother bitches and envy eachother. Women seduce to get what they want. Men have it much, much harder, Jesus Christ knows. Women seem to love Jesus Christ now.... I don't think Jesus Christ had a lover when He was on Earth. After the Man dies, all the women wants Him now.... figures.
I usually agree with Schopenhauer but come on, raising a kid is not the hardest thing a person can go through. These words are from a different time when men were sexist. Men and women are both given the free will to be equal or one surpassing the other. It's all a choice. A female Olympic trackstar could outrun me anyday.
@josegotwood I think it's safe to say that women have the potential to endure suffering [mentally] better than men (through menstrual cycle and child birth,) but men have the potential to become physically mightier. Women also have their neuron differences which allow them to multitask, etc . However, the instinct of women is to find a man who they deem as powerful. Equality, in my book, is subjective in overall status, because it is dependent on what is held as most valuable by the judge.
Women become the women they become for the same reason men become the men they become. It has little to do with nature, but mostly to do with the surroundings and the atmosphere they were brought up in.
No, not true love in a spousal way, but in an UNDERSTANDING way, loving philosophy, etc. Women may be biologically proven to generally be not as great in math/science but they are biologically proven to be more understanding/compassionate and good with human relations, foundations for what Nietzsche says is true living. Despite all the controversy on his seemingly misogynistic views, if you have TRULY read his work, you'd understand his views on women.
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.
@Skepdisc Isn't that like asking . . . well. Which came first, Hitler's antisemitism or his jealousy of Jews? Or is that your point? Whatever. It's a little too simple to attach him to hatred of the opposite sex like that. It requires little hearing of the passage. So I'll leave it at that.
Wow, Schopenhauer was definitely a product of his times, but those attitudes were entrenched in Europe and early America since the beginning of the crimes against women under Greek and Roman society when the goddess traditions were stamped out, and later under of the Holy Roman Empire that burned so many women at the stake. The were essentially castrated of any power and position by those institutions. Sad that the attitudes of modern men below are no better than than those ignorant times.
@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.
Women are naturally inclined or predisposed towards lower self esteem so that she can be preoccupied with external securities, (fashions and fads)-an irrational reponse to stress and other undesirable feelings. So she becomes a 'peackock' to attract for mating ,making women victims as well mates to predators- a man.
@SorenK1987 Gynocracy? Laughable.. Men have less of something called ''Mirror neurons''.... Woman have alot more.. That alone makes them followers, and men leaders. Look it up, I won't explain it to some simpleton anyway.
@JimmySmers, you are correct and by the way @hjchjk, you would be hard pressed to name anymore famous female authors. You pretty much named the only significant ones right then, you only missed Plath, who's shit and Dickinson, who's also shit. But where to even begin on great male authors........
And, you're and idiot who doesn't read. Great modern writers include: Joyce Carol Oates, Nadine Gordimer, Barbara Kingsolver, Alice Walker, and Isabel Allende to name a few.
If women don't always get recognized is because they get ignored by insecure men.
Schopenhauer saw life as fundamentally evil. His main beef with women is that he saw them as the personification of the reproductive principle. Seeing as the ideology of sociobiology claims that is men who have the sex drive, Schopenhauer's logic would have to blame life on men. Either way most of the misogynist defenders of Schopenhauer strike me as more Nietzsche and life-affirming. Thus Schopie's arguments don't apply.
Wow, what a smart man. As true today as it was in his day.
johnman1911 2 days ago in playlist More videos from ken1d
modern western women especially are materialistic and superficial...they behave like bunch of whores with no self-respect...mere objects to be used by men for sexual pleasure.... They are incapable of producing anything beautiful or of value... they are incapable of profound philosophical thoughts... The only things they value are shopping and cosmetics...
TheUndertakerSaysRIP 6 days ago
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...
BigDog91527 3 weeks ago in playlist Schopenhauer
Politics has no place in philosophy. Philosophy is about creating a system of thought, and therefor must be void (as far as this is possible) of anything but objective reasoning. This is why it isn't politics or religion (some of you think it's like religion? really? Idiots!)
Piatasify 3 weeks ago
@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 3 weeks ago
@MaxxTheMerciless The major political philosophical field is Marxism, but I don't want to say too much about that in case some berret wearing maniac starts replying lol. You can have a system of thought for most things. But Schoppenhauer´s oppinion is that the two shouldn´t mix, and I think he was right about that.
Piatasify 3 weeks ago
@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.
MaxxTheMerciless 3 weeks ago
@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 3 weeks ago
@Piatasify Normally, I do prefer Kant, but I consider frames of thought in context to both what they had to deal with and what I have to deal with now.
Good and Evil do very much exist. To ignore that is pure stupidity because it seeks only to see the material of the world rather than principles, causes, and ethics. I laugh at atheists, who generally believe in something that is more a miracle than anything Christians could conjure. And I see no value in it.
MaxxTheMerciless 3 weeks ago
@MaxxTheMerciless Stupidity is to use outdated labels as good and evil while it is clear that we are a product of our genetic heritage and surroundings. We have no real agency. You're claiming that everything Schoppenhauer wrote was true, but you're battling his life work by clinging on to a set of values rather than thought.
Piatasify 3 weeks ago
@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.
Piatasify 3 weeks ago
@Piatasify Hahahah!!!!!!! Socrates never thought so. Nor did Plato or Aristotle. They never thought they were ahead of anything. When the Oracle said to Socrates that he was wiser than other men, it was because he said he knew nothing. Humanity is what it is, not as we'd all like it to be, and that's the crux of it.
My brother (infinitely wiser in these things than anyone) is a homicide detective with, literally, a 100% conviction record. This man can tell you the truth of the world. c
MaxxTheMerciless 3 weeks ago
@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.
Piatasify 3 weeks ago
@MaxxTheMerciless And claiming "noone back then was an atheist" and pretending it is a real arguement with any weight behind it is insanity. Not only was the age of enlightment well under way, he was greatly influenced by Darwin evolution theory. In fact, before the t.o.e. people already didn't take the bible literally, but it opened their eyes to there being non inherent fairness in life.
Piatasify 3 weeks ago
@MaxxTheMerciless "My brother (infinitely wiser in these things than anyone) is a homicide detective", this is nothing but a blancket statement. Stick to 17th century philosophy if you want easy absolute meanings you can go over step by step.
Piatasify 3 weeks ago
@MaxxTheMerciless Really, are you just trolling? Do you read philosophy just to misunderstand it and wind people up? In that case, well trolled sir.
Piatasify 3 weeks ago
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?
MaxxTheMerciless 4 weeks ago
@MaxxTheMerciless cont...Florence Nightengale.
MaxxTheMerciless 4 weeks ago
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.
loai050 1 month ago
@loai050 Florence Nightengale agreed with him whole-heartedly. Schopenhauer was talking about women in general. The usual defense of this, as you did, is to say "not all women are like that." But this is a deflection from the truth. When you're talking about social dynamics, you have to speak in the generalities that make up the nature of the world at large, and to sit there and make distinctions ignores the issue, and condones the problem.
MaxxTheMerciless 4 weeks ago
@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 .
loai050 4 weeks ago
@loai050 Ahh, this old chestnut; she's not an expert therefore she doesn't know what she's talking about. Here's a question: what qualifies you to judge what she says, then? Are you a scientist? I guess only scientists can make valid observations. That's a horribly weak argument.
MaxxTheMerciless 3 weeks ago
@MaxxTheMerciless . I'll accept scientific facts- let the chips fall where they may- but not this man's fiddle-diddle opinions. If a female philosopher wrote such insulting generalities about men , she'd be castigated as a bitter woman who had lost her objectivity, it would be an embarrassment. Schopenhauer showed himself to be an odd and bitter man when he wrote this unworthy treatise.
loai050 4 weeks ago
@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.
MaxxTheMerciless 3 weeks ago
@MaxxTheMerciless I'm honestly sorry that the women you have come across in your life match his description.
loai050 3 weeks ago
@loai050 All of them do. You have to learn to listen to what he's saying.
MaxxTheMerciless 3 weeks ago
@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 3 weeks ago
@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 3 weeks ago
@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 3 weeks ago
@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.
MaxxTheMerciless 3 weeks ago
@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).
Piatasify 3 weeks ago
@Piatasify The only women I've ever known that do not fall into the general analysis are women who have been forced to take responsibility for themselves and their own lives. Such women are also not feminists in any sense of the term. But I guarantee you that if given an option these very same women will fall into the general schema because it's easier, and they'll get away with it. So, it only stands to reason for men to impose their expectations on them, because society won't.
MaxxTheMerciless 3 weeks ago
@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.
Piatasify 3 weeks ago
@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 3 weeks ago
@MaxxTheMerciless Can't say I share your high opinion of men. Either behaviour you describe is the unsophisticated way the majority of the populace behaves. Being manipulative is how a chimp would use it's brain, as it's a simple action towards gaining something worldly. There is no intelectual substance to it. So both man and woman in that situation would not be what I call human.
Piatasify 3 weeks ago
@Piatasify I don't necessarily consider my opinion high or low, but as it is. We have, on the other hand, abrogated our natural authority to women, and women wonder why there aren't any real men out there anymore. This is a cry for male authority to bring some order in their lives, which they crave yet at the same time have denounced it as oppression thanks to the efforts of Leftism and Feminism which seek to destroy the family. Leadership is not, nor has ever been, oppression.
MaxxTheMerciless 3 weeks ago
@MaxxTheMerciless It is oppresion when you're talking about enforcing. Left and right has no clear meaning anymore, as it often even differs per nation, and we'd be all the better for completely ridding ourselves of the notion of choosing our politicians by some pre-determined system of values, which can't adapt itself to new times.
Piatasify 3 weeks ago
@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 3 weeks ago
@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?
MaxxTheMerciless 3 weeks ago
@MaxxTheMerciless Exactly what do you understand as enforcing?
Piatasify 3 weeks ago
@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.
MaxxTheMerciless 3 weeks ago
@MaxxTheMerciless So you mean refusing to work with someone. I'm getting the impression you're trying to bait people by using stronger terms than you mean. It is totally up to you if you refuse to interact with someone based on their behaviour. It would be bizzare to demand anything else. Did someone in some make this ridiculous demand from you at some point?
Piatasify 3 weeks ago
@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.
MaxxTheMerciless 3 weeks ago
@Piatasify cont..This is anecdotal, but it serves as an example. Not long ago, my girlfriend and I made a date for us to go out to dinner. But 3 hours before I'm to go pick her up, she calls me to cancel it so she could go see a film with her friends. I told her to quit acting like a bitch, that I'm more important than her friends, and she doesn't just up and cancels a date on the day we're going to have it, and I told her to get ready for dinner. I didn't budge from that. And she complied.
MaxxTheMerciless 3 weeks ago
@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.
Piatasify 3 weeks ago
@Piatasify That is absolute nonsense. That is precisely what the Left wants you to think. These people want to get you to stop thinking critically about things so that you don't criticize them about anything, meanwhile they get people to criticize everything that is good in society. This is known as Critical Theory, concocted by The Frankfurt School. Philosophy is useless unless you can apply it on the basis of good and evil and right and wrong.
MaxxTheMerciless 3 weeks ago
@MaxxTheMerciless Are you even reading what I type? The left (and right) want nothing more then you to blindly side with them. What I say obviously means looking at everything critically. In some nations you get a bigger choise than 2 parties to vote for. Left and right have no meaning because their VALUES DIFFER PER NATION. Besides, Schoppenhauer would hate nothing more than politics linked to his systems of THOUGHT (not value, see?). Good night.
Piatasify 3 weeks ago
@Piatasify I am, but you're largely wrong. When it comes to certain values they don't differ per nation. We generally hold to the same ideas of fairness, of crime and punishment, and other things. Where their centers are is different, but when it comes to values they're generally the same. In America, when we talk about the Right, at the very least we're talking about a political force that isn't trying to deny the existence of right and wrong to its own ends. cont...
MaxxTheMerciless 3 weeks ago
@Piatasify cont.. At the very least, Schopenhauer would've not only recognized that, but he would chastise the Left over it. Any ideology that seeks to obscure the meaning of language, of philosophy, and cloud the issues with dishonest rhetoric, tactics, and legerdemain would've gotten his ire. True, the right has its flaws too, but they're manageable on principle. The Left's flaws lie in their tolerance and acceptance of evil.
MaxxTheMerciless 3 weeks ago
@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.
Piatasify 3 weeks ago
@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.
MaxxTheMerciless 3 weeks ago
@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.
Piatasify 3 weeks ago
@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.
MaxxTheMerciless 3 weeks ago
@MaxxTheMerciless I think you're not getting the point. Ofcourse he would see it, like anyone can. My point is that he wouldn't deem it worthy of comment. Right-wing left-wing as it stands today is much too banal to waste time thinking on if you're pursueing intellectual achievement.
Piatasify 3 weeks ago
@Piatasify Why? Why wouldn't he? Because he doesn't see a good or an evil? Not until he sees the World Left. He might change his mind. Never before in history up til his point had the world seen anything as depraved, as barbaric, as horrible as the Left. And I think he would certainly agree.
MaxxTheMerciless 3 weeks ago
@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 3 weeks ago
@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.
Piatasify 3 weeks ago
@Piatasify But labels is how we identify things. It's how we arrive at conclusions in a truthful manner. The American Right tries very hard to abide by that, despite its shortcomings, whereas the American (WORLD) Left ignores it for a particular tyrannical goal. To ignore that is not only silly, it's childish, an effort to try to get above the fray when you are, in fact, in the middle of the street, as it were, and those who sit there get mangled.
MaxxTheMerciless 3 weeks ago
@MaxxTheMerciless Are you just trying to wind me up? Labels helps us understand things, though as an engineer I can see how you feel it is the only way to understand things as you want absolute certainty (which, is again something Schoppenhauer deinies the possibility of, I really don't see why you like him so much when everything you write shows you're at the opposite).
Piatasify 3 weeks ago
@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.
Piatasify 3 weeks ago
@MaxxTheMerciless If you can't think beyond the group, if the group mentality rules you, if you can't think for yourself, you might as well be a chimp.
Piatasify 3 weeks ago
@MaxxTheMerciless And "evil", what century are you living in? Stick to sociology, religion and theology.
Piatasify 3 weeks ago
@Piatasify Evil is a valid philosophical, sociological, and theological premise and condition.
MaxxTheMerciless 3 weeks ago
@MaxxTheMerciless evil does not fit in Schoppenhauer's main work AT ALL, quite the opposite actually.
Piatasify 3 weeks ago
@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.
Piatasify 3 weeks ago
@MaxxTheMerciless In the very least say "I comply with the right (in your case I think you really mean one of the republican parties, keep in mind youtube is international, so using words like left and right have no clear definition) because it's the lesser of two evils.
Piatasify 3 weeks ago
@MaxxTheMerciless And then ofcourse there is Schoppenhauer's influence on animal rights and atheism, aren't those considered "left" in the states? He considered the gaining of wealth a secondary purpose after the arts, what about that? Not only is using left and right as definitions stupid because it originated in 18th century France, today's left and right won't fit in Schoppenhauer because he was also a product of his time.
Piatasify 3 weeks ago
@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 3 weeks ago
@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.
Piatasify 3 weeks ago
@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 3 weeks ago
@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?
Piatasify 3 weeks ago
@MaxxTheMerciless Would you distinguish between men who follow any cultural identity and those who don't?
Piatasify 3 weeks ago
@Piatasify I'm not sure I understand the question here.
I do distinguish males into Men and Boys, however. Boys have not yet matured into Men, despite their age. Men are leaders. Boys aren't. Men know when it's time to enforce their expectations; Boys wouldn't know what those expectations are, let alone how to enforce them. Men know how to handle women. Boys are led around by them.
MaxxTheMerciless 3 weeks ago
. Men handing over their pay to women, it was few who did............of course he lived in days when women followed the script , as the oppressed best do. Place him in today's world and I doubt he'd write this load of fiddle-diddle.Women allowing themselves to go to seed- yep - and the men, no different.'. More sober in their judgement - but their reasoning powers are weak - whereas men tend towards exaggeration' . Hard to believe he actually committed this nonesense to paper.
loai050 1 month ago
@loai050 I wonder how Schopenhauer, as a man, would've handled childbirth?
I think that would sort the men out from the..err..women! (LOL)
It's easy for pseudo-intellectuals on here to comment on things they don't understand.
They talk about TRUTH but there is NO truth.
Humans have created theories, ideas but this doesn't mean it's the TRUTH.
Philosophy has only created confusion and arguments...so much like religion in many ways.
"To the making of books there is no end".
taildragger53 4 weeks ago
gender is a social construct. Just look at all the cross-dressers today! It's quite shocking, actually. The population that get sex changes is what really convinced me that gender was a social construct. I don't think that gender is anything physical. I'm usually very skeptical of feminists, but on this point they are right.
TheDavid2222 1 month ago
@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 4 weeks ago
@MaxxTheMerciless Actually now that I actually think about it you must be right. Evolution guaranteed that there would be differences between the genders. It was naive of me to think otherwise. What is very interesting is that some women behave in more of a masculine manner than some men and some men behave more feminine. I'm sure evolution didn't construct a very strict boundary when it comes to gender.
TheDavid2222 4 weeks ago
@TheDavid2222 I don't believe in Evolution. I believe in REALITY.
MaxxTheMerciless 4 weeks ago
@MaxxTheMerciless yeah, whatever
TheDavid2222 4 weeks ago
I'm really not a big fan of the "type" of woman that Schopenhauer is describing here. In all honesty I think his assessment of women is true in general, but he is wrong in specific cases. I like the strong willed, independent, and aggressive type. The type of women I just described probably didn't even exist in Schopenhauer's epoch. I forgive Schopenhauer for the generalization because the evidence during his time pointed toward the truth of his statements. There's my rant. lol
TheDavid2222 1 month ago
a vegetarian who fough tfor animals rights, he would turn over in his grave to see todays factory farms.
normalguyable 1 month ago
Schopenhauer highlights that men overlook the obvious more than women, but omits that Whites overlook the obvious much more than non-whites, particularly regarding race.
Schopenhauer was racially aware, like every other sensible man of his time or any other, but his was a homogenous society, so this went unsaid, if not unobserved.
If he had been forced to deal with the Multikult, he'd have this and many other things to say. People say he was pessimistic when Europe was White!
11pinrelay 4 months ago
Thank God I'm a girl. This non-sense goes right over my head.
imperfectionKillz 4 months ago 2
simply man's consideration
ivan89705 4 months ago
Seymoore's a beta, lol. "Alphas are MEANIES, mother me, and I'll lick your toes!" >:P
@Ruka: I was saddened to see the troll-stampede from The AmazingFatassHumanist and his crowdist Enlightenment-squad. Must have done something incredibly RIGHT to provoke fatties ire so. You are valued. You matter. You are recognized. An invite is in order, for you have good taste in foes. |; -\
NKVism3 5 months ago
@HeyRuka: Neither monogamy or polygamy is "the goal". A goal to be given the higher consideration, within Schopenhauers thought, is the creation of better quality humans, within races, empires, dynasties, kingdoms, nations, castes, tribes, clans, families, etc. I share that goal. Polygamy, however, prevents the negative consequences of superfluous and/or degenerated females such as spinsters, tribads, lesbos, etc. while hardly eliminating the necessity, the FACT, of relation between the sexes.
NKVism3 5 months ago
Women waste their time on Vogue and gossip, men waste it on sports trivia and pissing contests of various sorts. From my observation (I don't know if this is the case with Schopenhauer) when men have bad experiences in their relationships with women, they assign traits to women as a whole to explain why their relationships went badly. Though women do the same about men. Neither sex has a monopoly on foolishness.
seymoore3 5 months ago 2
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.
HeyRuka 6 months ago
@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?
S2Cents 5 months ago
@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.
HeyRuka 5 months ago
Waaaaah waaah wah. You chicks don't realize how generous he was to your kind. The idea that any man, no matter how well-fit he keeps himself, will and MUST never experience impotence and furthermore, always be able to satisify ONE woman, even after 30 yrs., while working the entire time to support the offspring, will lead either to misery or to illicit relief among millions of married men, and among the merely miserable, it produces a condition of chronic sex-starvation, depression, even suicide
NKVism3 6 months ago
@NKVism3 I think monogamy is the goal, and polygamy is the result, maybe?
HeyRuka 6 months ago
There's no truth to this! At the time this crap was written, it was accepted that women were inferior to men and women were not granted opportunities to learn, test or practice their abilities as men did. The 100% male dominated culture ensured that achievements by women were unrecognized. Women who broke through the social barriers as writers or philosophers had to use male pen names in order to publish their intellectual contributions, hence George Elliot was really Mary Ann Evans.
watchtheduck1 6 months ago
@hgchjk thats irrelevant.
AEVautomatic 7 months ago
lol yes so men feed me, bathe me and wipe my ass, and in return I will entertain you and I will take all that I can get off you................ how attractive
nics10able 7 months ago
I suggest those critical of this or interested in further content, read the other chapters of Schopenhauer's Studies in Pessimism. His other views such as the explanation of the "will" lend greater insight into this chapter. All audiobook chapters are available on Librivox.org.
Chapter 9, "on noise" is particularly amusing.
Dilliboy63 7 months ago
I feel like I've thought this stuff up before. Arthur just puts it more eloquently than I ever could have.
TheDavid2222 8 months ago
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.
ApocalypsePlough 10 months ago
@ApocalypsePlough how can you say there are no truths when saying that is itself a claim to truth?
truthemulator 10 months ago
@truthemulator - I said there are no truths in philosophical treatises. I said there are no moral truths.
That's a big difference from saying "there are no truths". I didn't say "there are no truths". There are plenty of truths. Science has provided us with many, many truths. Add two atoms of hydrogen to one atom of oxygen & you get water. That is a truth. I was born in Canada. That is a truth.
But, since morality changes as time and space changes, you cannot say there are moral truths.
ApocalypsePlough 10 months ago
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.
ApocalypsePlough 10 months ago
@ApocalypsePlough so philosophy is essentially just moral babble?
truthemulator 10 months ago
@truthemulator - "babble" is the wrong word, as it implies meaningless, idle chatter.
Philosophy is not meaningless. Philosophy is meaningful, and has influenced and inspired people for centuries. Me being one. I am not anti-philosophy. I am anti-people who think it contains moral truths. As society evolves, morality changes. And, like I said, if morality is a function of time and space, which it is, no moral truths can exist.
ApocalypsePlough 10 months ago
@truthemulator yeahh its value equations!
AEVautomatic 7 months ago
@ApocalypsePlough It gets as close to truth as can be reasonably expected. He is already right.
AEVautomatic 7 months ago
Comment removed
ApocalypsePlough 10 months ago
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.
ApocalypsePlough 10 months ago
@ApocalypsePlough Well he was factually correct on western/european (white race) advancement being the highest
darklord220 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
He forgot to mention that if a man confides in a woman, she will, in anger, use his vulnerabilities against him - every time. I suppose Schopenhauer couldn't foresee the caliber of the hardened, disrespectful, inferiority-complex addled harridans of our reflexively feminist age.
Every other point is right on the money.
trjGandL 11 months ago
Look at yourself, now look at me. Now back to yourself, now back to me. Fortunately, you're not me, but if you stop being a rational man and starting making ugly blanket statements about women, you can look like me.
Look down, look up. Where are we? This video with a comment section full of angry men. See this? A comment refuting both the video and the comments. Look again. THE COMMENT HAS BEEN MARKED AS SPAM.
Anything is possible when you're an internet misogynist.
I'm in my basement.
GrahamCrackerStudios 11 months ago
Comment removed
trjGandL 11 months ago
The natural harmony between men and women was going fine UNTIL radical feminists came in with their victim mentality and started to break all moral and ethical values placed on men and women by promoting promiscuosity, sexual liberation, destruction of marriage, etc.
TimeGod12 1 year ago
@TimeGod12 women were not treated fairly. Women didn't have the right to vote, could not own property while married, discriminated in higher education,etc. I am against promiscuity but there was a sexual double standard. Men were not condemned for premarital sex or extramarital sex. Having a mistress was not scandulous and prostitution was legal.
fashionhistorylover 7 months ago
@fashionhistorylover NOBODY was & is still not treated fairly. It is in human nature to get and use power to oppress other races, ethnicities and people.
In UK men were forced to sign for conscription and give their lives fighting a stupid world war 2
The only difference then and now is that back then traditional family values were strong and supported, now thanks to feminism no one gives a damn about having a family.
Its all about sex, money, war and alcohol in western civilizations today.
TimeGod12 7 months ago 2
@TimeGod12 what the other person is saying is that the limited lives women were forced to lead, created their social nature. Hiding behind the word "fairly" is childish. Yes, it's not fair if my mother gives me less than my sister, also slavery= not fair. Women could not, and are not encouraged to express a range of humanity as men are. Not just jobs, but personality, everything. Any type of man is expected, two or three types of women are expected, two accepted by 1/2 the population at a time.
boobootoob 6 months ago
@boobootoob what ?
If you r saying that "gender is a social construct", then that is just a myth invented by feminists.
Our media is dominated by women's issues and you are saying they are not encouraged to express their personality....lol.
The rest of your statement does not make sense.
TimeGod12 6 months ago 3
Let's not forget that in the 21st century there's plenty of Women men and Men women, and anything between the two.
wahnano 1 year ago
Great mind.
wahnano 1 year ago
holy crap, this is timeless
l337pwnage 1 year ago
I don' t think he's necessarily putting down women here, not at all.
They live in the moment, and they are cheerful.
Let us learn from this wise, natural intuition.
Our male faculties are putting the Earth into a fucking oblivion. Let's balance ourselves a little better gentlemen. After all, in reality all is unified. Black is White, Woman is Man. Let's not judge as if we are 'higher'. There are just degrees of difference, degrees of seeing how it is to our advantage to be man, or woman.
alliant 1 year ago 2
...Thank you Schopenhauer, you made me a better woman.
smurfieboo 1 year ago 10
@smurfieboo please read schopenhauer to your daughters. give us hope
darklord220 6 months ago 2
@darklord220 I'd rather self abort with a rusty nail than have a daughter who will most likely grow up to reject my intellectual teachings for Vogue magazine. For this reason, the liability of motherhood is best spent on a son. If only Schopenhauer could be read to my husband-to-be's testicles....
smurfieboo 5 months ago
@smurfieboo dangit I want sane women! oh well. one less faggy male will do, I suppose.
darklord220 5 months ago
I often wonder why men look to a woman for approval. If I was a man, I would never, ever seek the approval of a creature whose only merit is her judgment. Instead, I would look to those who merit their actions on achievement. Women pollute men, as men pollute women and yet the former is a death to the human spirit while the latter is just spite. Nature takes all the achievement, women merely gloat in her creation as they do in the success of men. It is never their (our) victory.
smurfieboo 1 year ago
As someone once said: Women are material, men are eternal
smurfieboo 1 year ago
I like schopenhauer but this segment of his book pisses me off. And im not even a feminist.
idontgiveashit0930 1 year ago
Women want money and attention.............simple?. The only things they're good at is either cooking, arguing, and sucking dick (for money). Women don't have self-respect because they call eachother bitches and envy eachother. Women seduce to get what they want. Men have it much, much harder, Jesus Christ knows. Women seem to love Jesus Christ now.... I don't think Jesus Christ had a lover when He was on Earth. After the Man dies, all the women wants Him now.... figures.
QueefKinsu 1 year ago
@QueefKinsu lol u said sucking dick for money!
joelt420 1 year ago
I usually agree with Schopenhauer but come on, raising a kid is not the hardest thing a person can go through. These words are from a different time when men were sexist. Men and women are both given the free will to be equal or one surpassing the other. It's all a choice. A female Olympic trackstar could outrun me anyday.
josegotwood 1 year ago
@josegotwood I think it's safe to say that women have the potential to endure suffering [mentally] better than men (through menstrual cycle and child birth,) but men have the potential to become physically mightier. Women also have their neuron differences which allow them to multitask, etc . However, the instinct of women is to find a man who they deem as powerful. Equality, in my book, is subjective in overall status, because it is dependent on what is held as most valuable by the judge.
mikeyskywalker 1 year ago
@mikeyskywalker But were smarter than animals.
josegotwood 1 year ago
@josegotwood I have to agree on this.
Pavignon 1 year ago
@josegotwood If I could travel back to that time I would.
leostomicek 1 year ago
Women become the women they become for the same reason men become the men they become. It has little to do with nature, but mostly to do with the surroundings and the atmosphere they were brought up in.
BigBruinekool 1 year ago
@BigBruinekool Nope, guess again.
2rocker4life 1 year ago
@2rocker4life Explain your position then, Mr. I go back through comments to find people I disagree with.
BigBruinekool 1 year ago
@BigBruinekool That's nature.
NeverAloneForever 1 year ago
No, not true love in a spousal way, but in an UNDERSTANDING way, loving philosophy, etc. Women may be biologically proven to generally be not as great in math/science but they are biologically proven to be more understanding/compassionate and good with human relations, foundations for what Nietzsche says is true living. Despite all the controversy on his seemingly misogynistic views, if you have TRULY read his work, you'd understand his views on women.
UltraViolencex 1 year ago
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.
UltraViolencex 1 year ago
75% of advertising budgets are aimed at women.. relevant or irrelevant?
MrJimus1 1 year ago
are men and women the same? If not, then what are the differences? Any suggestions?
MrJimus1 1 year ago
soooooooo boriiiiiiiiiiiiing
kibateo 1 year ago
Which came first, Schopenhauer's misogyny or his lady troubles?
Skepdisc 1 year ago
@Skepdisc Lady trouble mostly come first for any man to see the truth about women!!!
alukkkard 1 year ago 4
@Skepdisc Isn't that like asking . . . well. Which came first, Hitler's antisemitism or his jealousy of Jews? Or is that your point? Whatever. It's a little too simple to attach him to hatred of the opposite sex like that. It requires little hearing of the passage. So I'll leave it at that.
NeverAloneForever 1 year ago
@SomethingSeaTrashed Are you sure this comment was for me? i dont even remember the last time i commented on this vid.
alukkkard 1 year ago
WOW...he capsulized so many thoughts I've had about women over the years.
DIRTYDUNNZ 1 year ago
Wow, Schopenhauer was definitely a product of his times, but those attitudes were entrenched in Europe and early America since the beginning of the crimes against women under Greek and Roman society when the goddess traditions were stamped out, and later under of the Holy Roman Empire that burned so many women at the stake. The were essentially castrated of any power and position by those institutions. Sad that the attitudes of modern men below are no better than than those ignorant times.
Mayacam07 1 year ago 2
@Mayacam07 My wife would agree ,I`ll ask her when shes finished cooking my dinner and putting the kids to bed.
thatfingio 1 year ago
@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.
druglover200 1 year ago
@Mayacam07 Let me guess. Da Vinci Code?
NeverAloneForever 1 year ago
Women are naturally inclined or predisposed towards lower self esteem so that she can be preoccupied with external securities, (fashions and fads)-an irrational reponse to stress and other undesirable feelings. So she becomes a 'peackock' to attract for mating ,making women victims as well mates to predators- a man.
superlyger 1 year ago
Schopenhauer was correct! He was a genuis!
kaysnow2 1 year ago
i think he's being nice to women.. because in my treatise i claim they are all back stabbing whores...
kutthroat84 1 year ago
OMG!!
kutthroat84 1 year ago
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
SorenK1987 1 year ago 23
@SorenK1987 Gynocracy? Laughable.. Men have less of something called ''Mirror neurons''.... Woman have alot more.. That alone makes them followers, and men leaders. Look it up, I won't explain it to some simpleton anyway.
K4inan 11 months ago
@JimmySmers, you are correct and by the way @hjchjk, you would be hard pressed to name anymore famous female authors. You pretty much named the only significant ones right then, you only missed Plath, who's shit and Dickinson, who's also shit. But where to even begin on great male authors........
bobdy9988 1 year ago
@bobdy9988
I hardly doubt you have the authority to call well respected authors 'shitty'.
MelloMimi23 1 year ago
@MelloMimi23 It's a value judgment. Authority isn't relevant.
Cunt
bobdy9988 1 year ago
Comment removed
Mayacam07 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
And, you're and idiot who doesn't read. Great modern writers include: Joyce Carol Oates, Nadine Gordimer, Barbara Kingsolver, Alice Walker, and Isabel Allende to name a few.
If women don't always get recognized is because they get ignored by insecure men.
Mayacam07 1 year ago
@Mayacam07 I think you mean if no women ever get's recognized. Not "If not always". Not all men get recognized. Think.
NeverAloneForever 1 year ago
schopenhauer was right!
Jtking3000 1 year ago
Schopenhauer saw life as fundamentally evil. His main beef with women is that he saw them as the personification of the reproductive principle. Seeing as the ideology of sociobiology claims that is men who have the sex drive, Schopenhauer's logic would have to blame life on men. Either way most of the misogynist defenders of Schopenhauer strike me as more Nietzsche and life-affirming. Thus Schopie's arguments don't apply.
marxotube 1 year ago
0:51
"without women, the beginning of our life would be helpless, the middle devoid of pleasure, and the end, of consoulation"
Now that is what I call pessimistic.
prac2 1 year ago 3
thinking of danzig. love schopenhauer.
dulle3000 1 year ago