Schopenhauer on Women

[Ibrahim]

You should read Schopenhauer on women. See what else he has to say before selecting him as your pet philosopher.

[Bronze Age Pervert]

You should read Schopenhauer on women. See what else he has to say before selecting him as your pet philosopher.

That's going to be my next post actually. His ideas on women are excellent and true, and many men could live better if they understood the true nature of women.

[AzariLoveIran]

.

. . and many men could live better if they understood the true nature of women.

.

have to admit, there is some truth to that

not necessarily negative

man and woman are different spicy

Nature, evolution, made it so


BTW, Ibrahim & Pervert, would like some elaboration of "Schopenhauer on women" please


.

[Ibrahim]

Ah, trolling then.

[Marcus]

Views on women

In Schopenhauer's 1851[35] essay "Of Women" ("Über die Weiber", full text), he expressed his opposition to what he called "Teutonico-Christian stupidity" on female affairs. He claimed that "woman is by nature meant to obey", and opposed Schiller's poem in honor of women, "Würde der Frauen" ("Dignity of Women"). The essay does give two compliments, however: that "women are decidedly more sober in their judgment than [men] are" and are more sympathetic to the suffering of others. However, the latter was discounted as weakness rather than humanitarian virtue.

Schopenhauer's controversial writings have influenced many, from Friedrich Nietzsche to nineteenth-century feminists.[36] Schopenhauer's biological analysis of the difference between the sexes, and their separate roles in the struggle for survival and reproduction, anticipates some of the claims that were later ventured by sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists.[37]

After the elderly Schopenhauer sat for a sculpture portrait by Elisabet Ney, he told Richard Wagner's friend Malwida von Meysenbug, "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."[38]
*******************

On Women.—much more at the site
by Arthur Schopenhauer

These few words of Jouy, Sans les femmes le commencement de notre vie seroit privé de secours, le milieu de plaisirs et la fin de consolation, more exactly express, in my opinion, the true praise of woman than Schiller’s poem, Würde der Frauen, which is the fruit of much careful thought and impressive because of its antithesis and use of contrast. The same thing is more pathetically expressed by Byron in Sardanapalus, Act i, Sc. 2:—

“The very first
Of human life must spring from woman’s breast,
Your first small words are taught you from her lips,
Your first tears quench’d by her, and your last sighs
Too often breathed out in a woman’s hearing,
When men have shrunk from the ignoble care
Of watching the last hour of him who led them.”

Both passages show the right point of view for the appreciation of women.

One need only look at a woman’s shape to discover that she is not intended for either too much mental or too much physical work. She pays the debt of life not by what she does but by what she suffers—by the pains of child-bearing, care for the child, and by subjection to man, to whom she should be a patient and cheerful companion. The greatest sorrows and joys or great exhibition of strength are not assigned to her; her life should flow more quietly, more gently, and less obtrusively than man’s, without her being essentially happier or unhappier.

[Bronze Age Pervert]

Ah, trolling then.

No I am not trolling. Correct understanding of female nature is necessary, and Schopenhauer has it.

[Bronze Age Pervert]

.

. . and many men could live better if they understood the true nature of women.

.

have to admit, there is some truth to that

not necessarily negative

man and woman are different spicy

Nature, evolution, made it so


BTW, Ibrahim & Pervert, would like some elaboration of "Schopenhauer on women" please


.

I will soon make a post about this, evolutionary psychology, and the modern "game" movement that, through a correct understanding of female nature, helps men avoid indentured servitude and slavery to the modern marriage/divorce industry and to the modern "liberated" female.

But this thread is for discussing the views on Islam.

[YMix]

Ah, trolling then.

I hope so.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

The problem with game theory; game theory in general and not just its application applied to dating across the web, is relies on the winner to be so deceitful that you can only understand the losers in that particular game. In other words, it tells us nothing. The "reason" it works for dating and has become a phenomena is because it gives men confidence- like a lucky talisman in showing what hasn't worked in experience; but it (like Schopenhauer) tells us nothing of woman outside of its fantastical constructs.

And considering Schopenhauer, he gets stumped when dealing with Islamic Women.

[Typhoon]

It's not clear to me that one should take advice on women from a guy who spent his solitary life with poodles for companions,



no more than, say, the stereotypical contemporary basement gamer.

Philosophy; noun. The collective grudges of solitary men.

[Demon of Undoing]

I see stupid stuff like this and wonder if the men that hold these opinions have ever sat down and actually talked to a woman. Not at a woman, not around a woman, but actually to them.

And anybody that thinks mercy is a weakness has never been held at gunpoint. That's a damnable conceit that makes me of a mind to design experiments whereby they may change their perspective.

[Typhoon]

I see stupid stuff like this and wonder if the men that hold these opinions have ever sat down and actually talked to a woman. Not at a woman, not around a woman, but actually to them.

. . .

The personal is the philosophical . . .

[Bronze Age Pervert]

It's not clear to me that one should take advice on women from a guy who spent his solitary life with poodles for companions,



no more than, say, the stereotypical contemporary basement gamer.

Philosophy; noun. The collective grudges of solitary men.

Of course this thread was rather started without me and so I haven't had a chance yet to lay out the case I was going to make. Game, however, works, and is based on sound ideas about female nature that are supported by numerous scientific studies and also the personal experience of countless men who have notices that women, indeed, respond well to jerks and blue-ball niceguys. It is rather the experience of men who are successful with women that confirm this, whereas the men stuck in basements by themselves more often like to entertain salutary deusions about female kindness and loyalty.

The idea that you shouldn't pay attention to Schopenhauer because he lived by himself is not good in my opinion...a man can make very good observations abotu any number of things and educate others about it, whereas those who practice a craft may not necessarily understand why they do well at it or do poorly at it. The only thing that matters is whether he's right, and it's a low-blow to comment on his personal life...that can easily be turned around by the way. Furthermore you are not even right on this one, since in his youth Schopenhauer was a good-looking man who had many affairs with women.

I will try to get soon to actually writing what I was going to write on this subject, but what you guys are doing so far is just "preemption."

[Demon of Undoing]

It is rather the experience of men who are successful with women that confirm this, whereas the men stuck in basements by themselves more often like to entertain salutary deusions about female kindness and loyalty.

What do you call " being successful"? Shagging a lot of women? Is this the Austin Powers standard? I have news, this is not hard. I look like a troll, axe and everything, and had to turn down opportunities not two nights ago. Sex isn't difficult to find. Animals genuflect.

If we are talking about success, I'd call a multidecade marriage a success, where the object was courted only once, rather than dipping your wick repeatedly. How does game theory look at that?

[Enki]

I see stupid stuff like this and wonder if the men that hold these opinions have ever sat down and actually talked to a woman. Not at a woman, not around a woman, but actually to them.

And anybody that thinks mercy is a weakness has never been held at gunpoint. That's a damnable conceit that makes me of a mind to design experiments whereby they may change their perspective.

Raymond K Hesell will wake up tomorrow, his breakfast will be the best he's ever tasted...

[Enki]

Of course this thread was rather started without me and so I haven't had a chance yet to lay out the case I was going to make. Game, however, works, and is based on sound ideas about female nature that are supported by numerous scientific studies and also the personal experience of countless men who have notices that women, indeed, respond well to jerks and blue-ball niceguys. It is rather the experience of men who are successful with women that confirm this, whereas the men stuck in basements by themselves more often like to entertain salutary deusions about female kindness and loyalty.

The idea that you shouldn't pay attention to Schopenhauer because he lived by himself is not good in my opinion...a man can make very good observations abotu any number of things and educate others about it, whereas those who practice a craft may not necessarily understand why they do well at it or do poorly at it. The only thing that matters is whether he's right, and it's a low-blow to comment on his personal life...that can easily be turned around by the way. Furthermore you are not even right on this one, since in his youth Schopenhauer was a good-looking man who had many affairs with women.

I will try to get soon to actually writing what I was going to write on this subject, but what you guys are doing so far is just "preemption."

I think the issue here is that we should examine why Schopenhauer would say such foolish things? So, who he was, and how he lived is important to understanding why he has nothing of value to say on the topic.

The only thing I read there that I have found to be true, is that women tend to be more sympathetic to others.

Certain sorts of men weaned on European philosophy love these binaries where something is either a weakness or a strength, rather than simply an attribute.

In my experience it is MEN who love being told what to do, and love following orders. Historically it has been very common for women to be the actual head of the household.

[Typhoon]

Of course this thread was rather started without me and so I haven't had a chance yet to lay out the case I was going to make. Game, however, works, and is based on sound ideas about female nature that are supported by numerous scientific studies and also the personal experience of countless men who have notices that women, indeed, respond well to jerks and blue-ball niceguys. It is rather the experience of men who are successful with women that confirm this, whereas the men stuck in basements by themselves more often like to entertain salutary deusions about female kindness and loyalty.

The idea that you shouldn't pay attention to Schopenhauer because he lived by himself is not good in my opinion...a man can make very good observations abotu any number of things and educate others about it, whereas those who practice a craft may not necessarily understand why they do well at it or do poorly at it. The only thing that matters is whether he's right, and it's a low-blow to comment on his personal life...that can easily be turned around by the way. Furthermore you are not even right on this one, since in his youth Schopenhauer was a good-looking man who had many affairs with women.

I will try to get soon to actually writing what I was going to write on this subject, but what you guys are doing so far is just "preemption."

I think the issue here is that we should examine why Schopenhauer would say such foolish things? So, who he was, and how he lived is important to understanding why he has nothing of value to say on the topic.

The only thing I read there that I have found to be true, is that women tend to be more sympathetic to others.

Certain sorts of men weaned on European philosophy love these binaries where something is either a weakness or a strength, rather than simply an attribute.

In my experience it is MEN who love being told what to do, and love following orders. Historically it has been very common for women to be the actual head of the household.

Western feminists like to go on about the alleged subservient role of women in Japan.

However, traditionally, all household issues including finances are managed by the wife. The husband brings home the paycheck and is given an allowance from it.

Some companies deposit the husband's paycheck directly into the wife's account.

Not claiming this is an ideal arrangement, rather that reality is more complex that what is found in philosophy.

[Demon of Undoing]

I'm a good chunk Cherokee. We were matriarchal in many ways. The old people said it was right that a man should walk in front of the woman. That way she could tell him witch way to go.

[Enki]

Western feminists like to go on about the alleged subservient role of women in Japan.

I have one Japanese friend who grew up in Long Island but was raised by her traditional Grandmother. She is DEFINITELY not subservient.

However, traditionally, all household issues including finances are managed by the wife. The husband brings home the paycheck and is given an allowance from it.

That's pretty normal in American WASP families too.

Some companies deposit the husband's paycheck directly into the wife's account.

Well that would be a matter of where they arrange to have the paycheck deposited no?

Not claiming this is an ideal arrangement, rather that reality is more complex that what is found in philosophy.

Yes.

But any philosophy worth its salt tries to reflect reality. And Western Civilization has always had a love affair with misanthropic nerds who due to lack of a family have the free time to produce prolific amounts of material, whether it's Paul, Friedrich, Augustine, or Schopenhauer.

[Ibrahim]

Schopenhauer's misogyny is infamous, and widely dismissed by students of his philosophy who study the main body of his work. For somebody to come out and talk about how right Schopenhauer was on this particular issue is highly suspicious. Usually a modern misogynist will look for religious justification, or cite ancient philosophers, so that the venerable age of the text takes some of the edge off of the actual content. E.g. its somehow easier to read Aristotle speak of slavery than 19th century American anti-abolitionists.

This is why I think BAP is just trying to push buttons. Wasn't there a noted misogynist on the original Spengler forum? Perhaps everyone old is new again?

[Demon of Undoing]

Nergol, is that you?

Few people could stir lavender like Nergol, and you had a bitch of a time finding daylight between the arguments. Ran a tight case. From a Victorian perspective, but a tight case none the less. This ain't quite that, but it'd be worth it to give him room to run if it were. Guy could write when he wanted to.

[Typhoon]

Nergol, is that you?

Few people could stir lavender like Nergol, and you had a bitch of a time finding daylight between the arguments. Ran a tight case. From a Victorian perspective, but a tight case none the less. This ain't quite that, but it'd be worth it to give him room to run if it were. Guy could write when he wanted to.

Contentious views are fine, if well argued, and Nergol could argue with the best.

[Enki]

Nergol was a great poster on any topic BUT women. His notion that women of flesh and bone were not 'real' women, that his idealized fantasy woman was what a 'real' woman was like, was twisted.

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.

[Miss_Faucie_Fishtits]

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.......

[noddy]

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