noddy wrote:all i can say is luckily they arent all the same or id be stuck in some crazy groundhogs day thing with that mad cow i hooked up with fresh out of highschool.
viva les variations
Indeed.
When I reflect back, I'm amazed at my good fortune that none of my previous relationships worked out.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
Enki wrote:People like Nergol and Schopenhauer are both flawed in their thinking because they think that 'what a woman is' should properly be defined by a man. Ultimately they are at odds with a woman being sovereign over herself.
Women and men strive to be sovereign over themselves and often do a bad job of it. Schopy catalogued the trainwreck from his POV and it's valid far as it goes, but nothing on how it should work out because..... things go forward and ain't goin' back.......
Well, I think that regardless of how one defines oneself, the job of maintaining one's own identity is the job of the individual. It is not my place to tell you who you are. Regardless of how poorly you may or may not implement your own sovereignty.
My point is that 'real women' are the 'real women', not Nergol's fantasy woman, which is by definition, not a real woman.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
Schopenauer was a terrible crank on the subject of women, owing to the very difficult relationship he had with his very difficult mother. His writings on the subject are best ignored like a crazy aunt in the attic.
If we're disregarding cultural context and applying a litmus test on social views to our philosophers, we're in real trouble. All "serious" philosophers before the advent of post-modern multi-culturalism are going to have to be disregarded, and all the more recent philosophers who would pass the test have nothing of value to say.
"The fundamental rule of political analysis from the point of psychology is, follow the sacredness, and around it is a ring of motivated ignorance."
Ibrahim wrote:So what's your solution? If somebody says Schopenhauer had a bad attitude towards women the correct response is....?
Do the same thing you do with St. Paul, or the Prophet, or Lao Tzu, and sort out for yourself whether, in a given instance, they are offering insight on first principles, or conditioned responses to secondary social issues that can disregarded. Schopenhauer had some interesting things to say, other things are not interesting at all. Pretty simple.
"The fundamental rule of political analysis from the point of psychology is, follow the sacredness, and around it is a ring of motivated ignorance."
Ibrahim wrote:So what's your solution? If somebody says Schopenhauer had a bad attitude towards women the correct response is....?
Do the same thing you do with St. Paul, or the Prophet, or Lao Tzu, and sort out for yourself whether, in a given instance, they are offering insight on first principles, or conditioned responses to secondary social issues that can disregarded. Schopenhauer had some interesting things to say, other things are not interesting at all. Pretty simple.
Indeed. No need to throw away the baby with the bathtub water.
Ibrahim wrote:So what's your solution? If somebody says Schopenhauer had a bad attitude towards women the correct response is....?
Do the same thing you do with St. Paul, or the Prophet, or Lao Tzu, and sort out for yourself whether, in a given instance, they are offering insight on first principles, or conditioned responses to secondary social issues that can disregarded. Schopenhauer had some interesting things to say, other things are not interesting at all. Pretty simple.
Well the thread is called "Schopenhauer on women," so if somebody points out that he had repellent ideas about women what is the problem exactly? Seems "pretty simple." Chiming in about how it was a different context, and the various cruelties of history doesn't seem relevant, and is probably obvious to and assumed by all.
Ibrahim wrote:So what's your solution? If somebody says Schopenhauer had a bad attitude towards women the correct response is....?
Do the same thing you do with St. Paul, or the Prophet, or Lao Tzu, and sort out for yourself whether, in a given instance, they are offering insight on first principles, or conditioned responses to secondary social issues that can disregarded. Schopenhauer had some interesting things to say, other things are not interesting at all. Pretty simple.
Well the thread is called "Schopenhauer on women," so if somebody points out that he had repellent ideas about women what is the problem exactly? Seems "pretty simple." Chiming in about how it was a different context, and the various cruelties of history doesn't seem relevant, and is probably obvious to and assumed by all.
The thread didn't materialize by some random internet birthing system. You started the thread. You started the thread to warn people against taking Schopenhauer too seriously, due to his view of women. The problem is that you could start an unlimited number of threads entitled {Philosopher} on {Subject}, and warn everyone to "Read {Philosopher} on {Subject} before adopting him/her as your pet philosopher."
I know there are plenty of message board folks who have no function save for throwing lavender at things other people like just to see what sticks, but it's more annoying when the trolls seem to take themselves seriously and pretend that throwing turds is noble indignation.
"The fundamental rule of political analysis from the point of psychology is, follow the sacredness, and around it is a ring of motivated ignorance."
Ibrahim wrote:So what's your solution? If somebody says Schopenhauer had a bad attitude towards women the correct response is....?
Do the same thing you do with St. Paul, or the Prophet, or Lao Tzu, and sort out for yourself whether, in a given instance, they are offering insight on first principles, or conditioned responses to secondary social issues that can disregarded. Schopenhauer had some interesting things to say, other things are not interesting at all. Pretty simple.
Well the thread is called "Schopenhauer on women," so if somebody points out that he had repellent ideas about women what is the problem exactly? Seems "pretty simple." Chiming in about how it was a different context, and the various cruelties of history doesn't seem relevant, and is probably obvious to and assumed by all.
The thread didn't materialize by some random internet birthing system. You started the thread.
Actually IIRC it came up in another thread and then it was moved into its own thread by a moderator. I did not initially bring up Schopenhauer or his views on women. Another poster (who stopped posting shortly thereafter) specifically praised Schopenhauer's views on women as incisive.
I know there are plenty of message board folks who have no function save for throwing lavender at things other people like just to see what sticks, but it's more annoying when the trolls seem to take themselves seriously and pretend that throwing turds is noble indignation.
Well since you have no idea what you are talking about or how this issue arose I'll just ignore this irrelevant comment.
