Women and Philosophy

[speed]

I think that women contemplate the more social issues dealing with the people in their life and how it affects them and the ones they care about. Where as men tend to think more on an Ideology. My Philosophy Prof explained this in terms of a very contoversial topic, abortion. Men like to say, its either wrong(killing), or its right(womens choice) but a woman would definately consider how it will affect not only herself, but her lover, parents, friends, and anyone else she might affect from her decision. Obviously its a generalization but proves a point.

Thats an excellent post.

 

[infoterror]

I think that women contemplate the more social issues dealing with the people in their life and how it affects them and the ones they care about.

This is effective insofar as everyone else is in the same situation.

 

[Nightendday]

The faggotry, the blatant unashamed faggotry of the lot of you!

Someone pointed out the basis for most opinions here: an egalitarian standpoint. My profound gratitude to those who prevented another degenerate thread saturated with ridiculous, populist opinions in perfect accord from developing. I believe I must also declare how I am not employing a technical approach - any literal criticisms may be dealt with in a manner harsh and befitting.

Before anyone makes the magic deduction, yes, I am an insecure individual: I fear the world may be still more infested with the likes of you.

Schopenhauer will, I believe, amuse sufficiently:

"It is only the man whose intellect is clouded by his sexual impulses that could give the name of the fair sex to that undersized, narrow-shouldered, broad. hipped, and short-legged race: for the whole beauty of the sex is bound up with this impulse. Instead of calling them beautiful, there would be more warrant for describing women as the unaesthetic sex. Neither for music, nor for poetry, nor for fine art, have they really and truly any sense or susceptibility; it is a mere mockery if they make a pretence of it in order to assist their endeavour to please. Hence, as a result of this, they are incapable of taking a purely objective interest in anything; and the reason of it seems to me to be as follows. A man tries to acquire direct mastery over things, either by understanding them, or by forcing them to do his will. But a woman is always and everywhere reduced to obtaining this mastery indirectly, namely through a man; and whatever direct mastery she may have is entirely confined to him. And so it lies in woman's nature to look upon everything only as a means for conquering man; and if she takes an interest in anything else, it is simulated -- a mere roundabout way of gaining her ends by coquetry, and feigning what she does not feel. Hence even Rousseau declared: Women have, in general, no love of any art; they have no proper knowledge, of any; and they have no genius."

"They form the sexus sequior -- the second sex, inferior in every respect to the first; their infirmities should be treated with consideration; but to show them great reverence is extremely ridiculous, and lowers us in their eyes. "

"Accordingly, it would be a very desirable thing if this Number Two of the human race were in Europe also relegated to her natural place, and an end put to that lady-nuisance, which not only moves all Asia to laughter, but would have been ridiculed by Greece and Rome as well."

"The nobler and more perfect a thing is, the later and slower it is in arriving at maturity. A man reaches the maturity of his reasoning powers and mental faculties hardly before the age of twenty-eight; a woman, at eighteen. And then, too, in the case of woman, it is only reason of a sort -- very niggard in its dimensions. That is why women remain children their whole life long; never seeing anything but what is quite close to them, cleaving to the present moment, taking appearance for reality, and preferring trifles to matters of the first importance. "

And there's more, but then I'll risk being bombarded with ridiculous social-science research results aimed at promoting equality.

 

[speed]

The faggotry, the blatant unashamed faggotry of the lot of you!

Someone pointed out the basis for most opinions here: an egalitarian standpoint. My profound gratitude to those who prevented another degenerate thread saturated with ridiculous, populist opinions in perfect accord from developing. I believe I must also declare how I am not employing a technical approach - any literal criticisms may be dealt with in a manner harsh and befitting.

Before anyone makes the magic deduction, yes, I am an insecure individual: I fear the world may be still more infested with the likes of you.

Schopenhauer will, I believe, amuse sufficiently:



And there's more, but then I'll risk being bombarded with ridiculous social-science research results aimed at promoting equality.

Jesus man, are you a member of the Taliban? Schopenhauer was a wellknown misogynist, but he took it a little too far. Have you never known an intelligent woman? If that is so, I pity you.

As for the egalitarian comments: I for one think a certain form of populism ( which is infected with egalitarian strains) is absloutely critical to anyone that wishes to change or impact the world. As most of the anus.com'ers have the idealistic desire to remake the world, they too should take heed of the power of populism. Even Hitler and Lenin brought their extreme policies down to populist levels; bush has done the same with the neo-con ideology. No one cares for obscure elite opinions and beliefs; they are discussed by a select few, and never have any impact unless some bright mind gets the idea to popularize them or water them down. This is my central crticism of many on this board.

 

[Nightendday]

I'm amused by your condescending treatment of the term 'misogynist'. I've put in a lot of effort, really, but I simply cannot understand why the word should have a negative connotation to it.

Have I ever known an intelligent woman? An answer to that question will not be very conclusive, since it relies upon several assumptions, the foremost of which is a formal definition of the intellect that you so casually refer to. Further, it is highly irrelevant. As has been pointed out before, my experiences are essentially the most questionable form of evidence that could be dragged into this conversation. This is not to say that I will present any evidence at all, since issues like these have little, if any evidence, except judgement itself.

I for one think a certain form of populism ( which is infected with egalitarian strains) is absloutely critical to anyone that wishes to change or impact the world.

You assume, firstly, that I wish to change or impact the world. I may wish to distance myself from it, and I may be using this forum to acquire pleasure out of angering impressionable morons like you into greater stupidity. And then again, I may not; the point being that my motives are irrelevant to the issue. Also, when I scoff at your populist influences, I do so not because I deny the utility of such a standpoint, but simply because men of the world rarely come up with something remotely intelligent collectively.

Egalitarianism is just another instance of the same. Your defend your leanings with reference to the utilitarian value of egalitarianism in rallying enough support to make an impact. I have hardly encountered anything more base and deprived of the principle-highground that you continually refer to. Unless you happen to be an nihilist-turned-egoist who would do all that is necessary to acquire power - which in itself is something that should inspire respect - you're adopting a highly contradictory stance, and are handing the argument over by declaring that the basis of your views is their populist nature and little else.

Where did the anus.com reference come from? Are you as ignorant as to understand a bunch of pseudo-intellectuals trying to afford to metal a populist ideology in the name of non-conformity to be worthy of an unwarranted mention in a post that did not specifically aim to cater to the venting of your frustrations against your intellectual counter-parts?

And now the populist ideal of an unhampered freedom of expression will permit you to reply, and even drive you to consider yourself justified in doing so. If there is any charm at all in Hitler and Stalin, it is their eventual abilities to permanently silence the likes of you.

 

[infoterror]

Populism is for those who don't care about truth. Bullets, bullets.

 

[Demiurge]

Keep up the good work, Nightendday. Great quotes, by the way.

 

[Cythraul]

It depends on the person: I care what the halfway smart or better ones are saying. People who repeat truly stupid things do not interest me, yet they insist on participating in this debate.

Well, well. An impasse. And what to do? In real, practical terms, what should be done? I'm not going to bend over backward explaining concepts they can't understand to them; I want to move forward and talk about the debate itself, not pander to their deficiencies!

Dude I know as well as anyone that you really don't have any legitimate concepts to explain in the first place. What are you but simply another obscurantist among many others? I've seriously never seen you put forward a strong argument and even when I've questioned you, you've never given a straight answer on anything. You hide your lack of skill in argumentation behind this "I'm not going to bend over backward" pretense.

 

[speed]

I'm amused by your condescending treatment of the term 'misogynist'. I've put in a lot of effort, really, but I simply cannot understand why the word should have a negative connotation to it.

Have I ever known an intelligent woman? An answer to that question will not be very conclusive, since it relies upon several assumptions, the foremost of which is a formal definition of the intellect that you so casually refer to. Further, it is highly irrelevant. As has been pointed out before, my experiences are essentially the most questionable form of evidence that could be dragged into this conversation. This is not to say that I will present any evidence at all, since issues like these have little, if any evidence, except judgement itself.



You assume, firstly, that I wish to change or impact the world. I may wish to distance myself from it, and I may be using this forum to acquire pleasure out of angering impressionable morons like you into greater stupidity. And then again, I may not; the point being that my motives are irrelevant to the issue. Also, when I scoff at your populist influences, I do so not because I deny the utility of such a standpoint, but simply because men of the world rarely come up with something remotely intelligent collectively.

Egalitarianism is just another instance of the same. Your defend your leanings with reference to the utilitarian value of egalitarianism in rallying enough support to make an impact. I have hardly encountered anything more base and deprived of the principle-highground that you continually refer to. Unless you happen to be an nihilist-turned-egoist who would do all that is necessary to acquire power - which in itself is something that should inspire respect - you're adopting a highly contradictory stance, and are handing the argument over by declaring that the basis of your views is their populist nature and little else.

Where did the anus.com reference come from? Are you as ignorant as to understand a bunch of pseudo-intellectuals trying to afford to metal a populist ideology in the name of non-conformity to be worthy of an unwarranted mention in a post that did not specifically aim to cater to the venting of your frustrations against your intellectual counter-parts?

And now the populist ideal of an unhampered freedom of expression will permit you to reply, and even drive you to consider yourself justified in doing so. If there is any charm at all in Hitler and Stalin, it is their eventual abilities to permanently silence the likes of you.

Super duper. Another one of you. But you appear as intelligent as Demiurge, so at least this may turn into a worthwhile discussion.

I still find it sad that you hate the potential of women to be more than childbearers and maids. I agree, I personally dont care for Women's forays into writing and philosophy ( I agree with Nabokov's quote , that in appreciating writing I have homosexual tastes--as I have yet to read a woman writer I care for, and many of the great writers were gay: Proust, Gide, Joyce, etc.) So women are a bit different in the intellectual sphere? Maybe this is a good thing-- refreshing even.

And I cant imagine anyone stating what you just said in anything other than our system. Of course, if you said it outloud I'm sure you would be kicked out of wherever you were, which higlights the hypocrisy of our egalitarian system but anyway. Why would one of your totalitarian governments allow nonconformists like you to even voice their opinion? If such a government comes back into power, whats to stop it from changing its mind on a variety of issues? Hitler, Stalin, Mao, all changed their opinions on a variety of issues a number of times, and they all cracked down hard on any academic or non conformist.

Of course I am arguing a contradiction. But I ask how you will spread your obscure message without touches of populism? You quote Schopenhauer, well if one remembers history, Schopenhauer had no influence upon his time, and it was not until the next generation that men like Nietszche picked up his books and started building upon them. And oh yes, Nietszche published just a few hundred copies of his books in his lifetime. Still today, despite the popularization of both men, few understand their ideas, and they have had little impact on society as a whole.

This contradiction is sort of torturing me as it should you. How does one spread a non egalitarian message? If you read my posts it is easy to see I agrue non-egalitarian ideas, but accept egalitarian methods. I dont know of any other way in our society to go about it. If you do, please share.

 

[Nightendday]

...so at least this may turn into a worthwhile discussion.

I'd highly doubt that.

I still find it sad that you hate the potential of women to be more than childbearers and maids.

I have not - as yet - implied that childbearers and maids are what women should be reduced to. I can, however, reasonably defend their proposed reduction to worse, so for the sake of not nitpicking, I'll assume that I have.

Do you realise that your quoted statement is perhaps the most blatant display of dogma so far on this thread? You pretend that we will invariably conclude identically on the actual 'potential' of women, and that I just happen to hate the same. I do not hate the potential of women to be more than childbearers and maids, I do not find their potential to be anything more than that.

So women are a bit different in the intellectual sphere?

A bit different in the intellectual sphere? I thought that was the only sphere where they were a bit similar. In any case, these are subjective judgments that are not admissible without definitions, and I've touched upon the issue merely to point out a well-concealed prejudice.

Maybe this is a good thing-- refreshing even.

And maybe it isn't. Maybe diversity is just another of the ideals you've formulated and cling to, perhaps with the same objectives as your other ideals: popular support.

Maybe. Lesson at hand: subjectivity.

And I cant imagine anyone stating what you just said in anything other than our system. Of course, if you said it outloud I'm sure you would be kicked out of wherever you were, which higlights the hypocrisy of our egalitarian system but anyway. Why would one of your totalitarian governments allow nonconformists like you to even voice their opinion? If such a government comes back into power, whats to stop it from changing its mind on a variety of issues? Hitler, Stalin, Mao, all changed their opinions on a variety of issues a number of times, and they all cracked down hard on any academic or non conformist.

The issues you've attempted to raise suffer from an improperly formulated dichotomy: egalitarianism and totalitarianism. The two terms are neither encompassing in the representation of any system, nor are they polar opposites.

Egalitarianism is just a social standpoint that can be adopted in some form or the other by most systems inbetween totalitarianism and anarchy, and the adoption need not be absolute. A unconstitutional monarch, for instance, may not be bothered with social equity but may still have a firm belief in gender equality. The example exemplifies the totalitarian system that is allegedly the most removed from egalitarian views as being compatible, in some respects, with such views.

My point, therefore, being that to expect me to argue in favour of totalitarianism and simultaneously against egalitarianism, to present totalitarianism as the positive solution to such equality, are expectations I'm afraid will not be met.

Lastly, if it has to be a debate about the merits and non-merits of the status quo, the existing system, you may shift it to another thread and go on about it endlessly, for I have little interest in debating with you on the issue.

But I ask how you will spread your obscure message without touches of populism? You quote Schopenhauer, well if one remembers history, Schopenhauer had no influence upon his time, and it was not until the next generation that men like Nietszche picked up his books and started building upon them. And oh yes, Nietszche published just a few hundred copies of his books in his lifetime. Still today, despite the popularization of both men, few understand their ideas, and they have had little impact on society as a whole.

You're guilty of the very first assumption that I pointed out: you assume that I wish to impact society, and that too for the better. Altruism, thus, is the latest addition to what I see as an eventual basketful of notions that you will unswervingly toss out for as long as you are plagued with bias. Schopenhauer and Nietzsche are irrelevant insofar as this is concerned, since their motives are something I happen to be - owing to my humiliating inability to transcend time - unaware of.

This contradiction is sort of torturing me as it should you. How does one spread a non egalitarian message? If you read my posts it is easy to see I agrue non-egalitarian ideas, but accept egalitarian methods. I dont know of any other way in our society to go about it. If you do, please share.

I believe your question has excluded a necessary premise: Why should one spread a non-egalitarian message? Are the corresponding benefits of any value to the agent? These are questions that precede the issue of pragmatism that you have prematurely brought up.

Assuming that to an individual, however, there do exist individually-defined benefits of propagation, I believe I am not bound to presenting a solution. He may acquire a balance that reduces the commercialism to a tolerable degree, or he may use influence to impose. I'm highly unconcerned with what he decides, for this is a forum, not psychotherapy for unintelligent rebels.

My personal opinion on this particular issue, which has absolutely no bearing on the argument and which I digress to touch upon simply to ensure you do not spend another post questioning it, is that I see no tangible benefits to the propagation of my opinions, except possibly intellectual recreation as is the case on this forum.

And just to further illustrate the standpoint, I'll borrow a quote from Demiurge's signature above:

We’ve not the slightest yearning for the social world:

The storms and omens of the Cosmos will suffice

-Ludwig Klages

 

[speed]

So just what is your point? That you have wasted all this time and basically only wish for some esoteric neoplatonism?

I cannot believe one can argue in such a way. My god man, you attack the meanings of words, value systems etc. In essence, there is no possible argument either you or I could ever possibly make. You nullify your own opinions on previous posts: "My personal opinion on this particular issue, which has absolutely no bearing on the argument and which I digress to touch upon simply to ensure you do not spend another post questioning it, is that I see no tangible benefits to the propagation of my opinions, except possibly intellectual recreation as is the case on this forum."

I do not question the statement about your opinion; it is valid. Thus you have no inherent argument as your argument was predicated upon your own view of the world. So why waste your time? Why bother? Obviously you have an opinion or you would not post.

What rock did you anus guys crawl out of? I swear, you are guilty of the very same disease as Infoterror and Blaphee, and many times Demiurge. You post all of these outrageous Ultra Fascist arguments and when someone questions you on it, you do one of two things: 1) Smear, insult, act superior; 2) Argue Semantics and the definitions of terms, values, etc, based on your own judgments of these terms, throw in some obscure outrageous definitions, and always come the conclusion that there is no conclusion and there can be no opinion. Can you ever, ever address the heart of the matter? Are you afraid to? What is it?

Its almost comical. I suggest trying these tactics in the real world and see what happens. The insults probably would work, but the second tactic you just employed would have everyone laughing at you for being a fool.

 

[speed]

For some reason the quote function is making my posts disappear, so sorry about that.


Lets continue the fun, here is what you said about Women:

"Have I ever known an intelligent woman? An answer to that question will not be very conclusive, since it relies upon several assumptions, the foremost of which is a formal definition of the intellect that you so casually refer to. Further, it is highly irrelevant. As has been pointed out before, my experiences are essentially the most questionable form of evidence that could be dragged into this conversation. This is not to say that I will present any evidence at all, since issues like these have little, if any evidence, except judgement itself."

How compelling. But you posted a long misogynistic quote of Schopenhauer and then say this defending your view of women:

" 'Im amused by your condescending treatment of the term 'misogynist'. I've put in a lot of effort, really, but I simply cannot understand why the word should have a negative connotation to it. "

What kind of logic is this? You have just undercut yourself.


And then after quoting Schopenhauer's criticism of women, and implying you agree, you then state you cannot understand what they had in mind.

"You're guilty of the very first assumption that I pointed out: you assume that I wish to impact society, and that too for the better. Altruism, thus, is the latest addition to what I see as an eventual basketful of notions that you will unswervingly toss out for as long as you are plagued with bias. Schopenhauer and Nietzsche are irrelevant insofar as this is concerned, since their motives are something I happen to be - owing to my humiliating inability to transcend time - unaware of."

This is just bizarre.

And then you go on to state what impacts you think an individual can have on society. You support imposing his influence and reducing commercialism, but you also state an individual will choose whichever he decides and you are unconcerned. Which one is it?

"Assuming that to an individual, however, there do exist individually-defined benefits of propagation, I believe I am not bound to presenting a solution. He may acquire a balance that reduces the commercialism to a tolerable degree, or he may use influence to impose. I'm highly unconcerned with what he decides, for this is a forum, not psychotherapy for unintelligent rebels."


I can only imagine what you will post next.

 

[NeverIsForever]

Schopenhauer and Nietzsche were prisoners of their time with regard to their views on women. This is, in fact, my most significant complaint with Nietzsche--he writes of "free spirits" yet is himself entirely fettered by the views of his contemporaries.

Nightendday, stop mincing words and further clarify why the question of whether or not you've known an intelligent woman is "irrelevant." Unless you are prepared to tell me that contact with individual women has in no way impacted your view of the gender--in which case, what are you basing your opinions on?--don't think you can evade the question simply by declaring it beneath you.

I'm also (seriously) interested in knowing how you manage in life, if you genuinely hate 50% of the people with whom you come in contact based on gender alone. How can you bring yourself to deal with such inferior beings on a daily basis?

 

[DiscipleOfPlato]

That being said, you both raise many interesting ideas, but they are ignored by everyone because of your childish and insecure behavior. Really, read over your posts. You are addressing everyone on this board like children, or you attack them like a grade school bully. Anyone left responding is doing so out of contempt for your behavior.

Really, I agree with you guys on a vast majority of your points, but if you ever want to have anyone take you seriously, or read what you write, you have to at least meet people half way, or pretend you care what they are saying and then tell them why they are wrong.

As for the egalitarian comments: I for one think a certain form of populism ( which is infected with egalitarian strains) is absloutely critical to anyone that wishes to change or impact the world. As most of the anus.com'ers have the idealistic desire to remake the world, they too should take heed of the power of populism. Even Hitler and Lenin brought their extreme policies down to populist levels; bush has done the same with the neo-con ideology. No one cares for obscure elite opinions and beliefs; they are discussed by a select few, and never have any impact unless some bright mind gets the idea to popularize them or water them down. This is my central crticism of many on this board.

Speed, I echo your sentiments entirely. The central flaw with their ideological high-horses is that, truth be told, nobody cares.
You know, an old political sciences professor of mine once said that there are two components that merit an ideology's existence; a) that it be a system of beliefs that is logical and coherent on its own terms (i.e. stable infrastructure), and b) that it entail some adaptative quality that renders it applicable in the modern sense of practicality. I think he was on to something.

Nightendday makes the ever so bold assertion:

You're guilty of the very first assumption that I pointed out: you assume that I wish to impact society, and that too for the better. Altruism, thus, is the latest addition to what I see as an eventual basketful of notions that you will unswervingly toss out for as long as you are plagued with bias. Schopenhauer and Nietzsche are irrelevant insofar as this is concerned, since their motives are something I happen to be - owing to my humiliating inability to transcend time - unaware of.

In essence (meaning, when stripped of the twaddling and ineffectual verbiage that any half-competent writer would be ashamed to produce), Nightendday is saying that he is perfectly content just...talking to himself. Stewing in thoughtful introversion has its charms, I suppose, to the likes of those who pleasure themselves on clopping out literature of little or no consequence.

The real question is whether it has any place on an internet discussion forum.

We’ve not the slightest yearning for the social world:
The storms and omens of the Cosmos will suffice
-Ludwig Klages

There's no 'storm' to be found here. Kindly delete your account and search elsewhere.

 

[Nightendday]

In all honestly, what follows will embarass me greatly at any given time. The tone I've appointed belongs more to University professors than debators, but as I see it, the circumstanes necessitate it.

My god man, you attack the meanings of words, value systems etc. In essence, there is no possible argument either you or I could ever possibly make.

Precisely. While you have cocooned yourself, in alliance with all your enlightened contemporaries, in innumerable 'givens' which form the basis of all your argument and, unfortunately, all your thought, there exist those who will differ with you on what you would almost certainly refer to as universal. I am not appreciative of egalitarianism, and neither of diversity nor of altruism. For as long as such ridiculous values fuel your thought process, you and I are argumentatively incompatible.

I have 'nullified' my opinion simply because an opinion I hold is irrelevant to any argument, and that I need to produce impersonal, objective and empirically determinable arguments to swing the flow in my favour. Although this happens to be a very intuitive formulation that needs not be taught, with your intellect, I believe it is going to take time.

Further, I'm certain you'll disagree, but I have endeavored to maintain some decency in this thread. Another parallel drawn to anus.com, however, will inevitably result in my decision to shred the civility in this thread to pieces. Such parallels serve your lesser desires to categorize, I understand, but refrain from it.

You post all of these outrageous Ultra Fascist arguments and when someone questions you on it, you do one of two things: 1) Smear, insult, act superior; 2) Argue Semantics and the definitions of terms, values, etc, based on your own judgments of these terms, throw in some obscure outrageous definitions, and always come the conclusion that there is no conclusion and there can be no opinion. Can you ever, ever address the heart of the matter? Are you afraid to? What is it?

'Outrageous'. I'll take the word to reiterate what should now be pounding at the doors of your grey matter. When you declare something outrageous, do you see how you have imposed upon an argument a subjective treatment that may vary with individuals? Perhaps incapability unites you in an understanding of the term, but it certainly does not warrant its absolute usage in all forums. Other instances of such terms would be 'childish', 'a bit' and so on. These terms, therefore, are inadmissible in argument and open to all criticism. If their use is absolutely necessary, you employ what we generally refer to as a formal definition, and the argument will proceed only when a mutual decision on the definition has been arrived at.

The heart of the matter? I am addressing the heart of the matter. As for acting superior, how you wish I were acting.

People in the 'real' world that you have arbitrarily drawn up, which I assume means the non-Internet world, respond almost identically as users of this forum: they are intimidated into accusations and outright stupidity.

How compelling. But you posted a long misogynistic quote of Schopenhauer and then say this defending your view of... you then state you cannot understand what they had in mind.

As of yet, I have not attempted to argumentatively defend my view of women, so your assumptions on how I have done so are ridiculous. As to why I haven't done so, I consider it a useless endeavor because an opinion on gender equality is so firmly rooted in relativity of intellect, circumstance and inclination that to pretend to argue it out can be little more than a man's attempt at trying to rationally justify his interaction with women, whether that man be you or me.

I can assume that what Schopenhauer and Nietsche wrote was in their mind (for the validity of such an assumption does not impact anything), but what I cannot assume are the motives that drove them to produce such opinions. This is just a clarification, and a less negligent reading of my previous posts would undoubtedly bring you to the same conclusion. How these motives are relevant (or irrelevant) is an issue that you have chosen not to address, and which I will choose to rest for the same reason.

This is just bizarre.

You're flattering me now.

And then you go on to state what impacts you think an individual can have on society. You support imposing his influence and reducing commercialism, but you also state an individual will choose whichever he decides and you are unconcerned. Which one is it?

I said and I reiterate: he may acquire a balance to reduce commericialism, or he may employ influence to impose. I believe it is evident that such a sentence reflects my perfect indifference to the way individuals like you take out, and thus I am 'highly unconcerned'. There may be a million other ways, and these ways may not function - that is not an issue which bothers me as it bothers you.

Schopenhauer and Nietzsche were prisoners of their time with regard to their views on women. This is, in fact, my most significant complaint with Nietzsche--he writes of "free spirits" yet is himself entirely fettered by the views of his contemporaries.

Agreeing with one's contemporaries, with the special case where one's contemporaries form a selective group referred to as philosophers, is not in itself worthy of reprimand. When I criticise your populist influences, I criticise the recent saturation of the world with individual opinion and the consequent formulation of value systems, ethics and ideals that make me roar with laughter, namely the liberal revolutions. As stated earlier, let this not move into political philosophy, and if it seems necessary, employ another thread.

Nightendday, stop mincing words and further clarify why the question of whether or not you've known an intelligent woman is "irrelevant." Unless you are prepared to tell me that contact with individual women has in no way impacted your view of the gender--in which case, what are you basing your opinions on?--don't think you can evade the question simply by declaring it beneath you.

I've already explained why my opinion is irrelevant. The second issue you raise - yes, most of my notions about women are a consequence of contact and observation, and since these are non-objective, I believe they have no place in an objective argument. Unless this is a tea party for morons, I choose not to opine pointlessly to hasten an impossible resolution of the issue.

I'm also (seriously) interested in knowing how you manage in life, if you genuinely hate 50% of the people with whom you come in contact based on gender alone. How can you bring yourself to deal with such inferior beings on a daily basis?

Again, unless this is your mentioned tea-party, I do not see how this should concern you. If you're going to rephrase it and tell me women should not be despised for it is difficult to manage with so much hatred, I'll let you know that seasoning can have the most interesting effects, and then again, not being able to manage is a pragmatic concern that is, as far as I'm concerned, secondary to my opinion of them.

Speed, I echo your sentiments entirely. The central flaw with their ideological high-horses is that, truth be told, nobody cares.

Does that concern me? I maintain not, as you should have known in previous posts.

You know, an old political sciences professor of mine once said that there are two components that merit an ideology's existence; a) that it be a system of beliefs that is logical and coherent on its own terms (i.e. stable infrastructure), and b) that it entail some adaptative quality that renders it applicable in the modern sense of practicality. I think he was on to something.

Your University professors . While this is a crude over-simplification of an ideology, I will not touch upon that and simply point out that the fulfillment of the second component results in compromising a standpoint, and such a compromise may be rational for those infatuated with popular support, and not for me.

In essence (meaning, when stripped of the twaddling and ineffectual verbiage that any half-competent writer would be ashamed to produce), Nightendday is saying that he is perfectly content just...talking to himself. Stewing in thoughtful introversion has its charms, I suppose, to the likes of those who pleasure themselves on clopping out literature of little or no consequence.

The real question is whether it has any place on an internet discussion forum.

While your deduction is partial and influenced, I will - again - choose not to contend it for it affords me a position I can defend. Yes, I acquire great pleasure out of talking to myself. 'Consequence' is something you'd like to reconsider using, for reasons mentioned more times than is perhaps tolerable. Machiavelli, I believe, will aid you in your consideration. Also, assuming that we do agree upon the term, churning out literature of consequence is by no means a merit.

There's no 'storm' to be found here. Kindly delete your account and search elsewhere.

But there is recreation. You grossly misunderstand the quote anyway, and I did not expect otherwise.

To conclude, I'll post something speed said with which, despite all my efforts to do so, I cannot disagree with:

My god man, you..

 

[speed]

You know that is a coherent reply. I agree with you on your opinions of the pointlessness of ones opinion and individual notions of philosophy or values systems. Still, I wonder why you didnt make these comments your first 2 posts, and not your last 2 posts? Then we would have had a much more fruitful discussion as I and others wouldnt have been arguing your beliefs, and would have been discussing the invalidity of our own opinions.

 

[Spinoza]

1. i think not many woman dare to say their opinions openly , they arent may as strong as men and even i think it makes them almost like crying in their pillows at night if you tell them something negative or wont agree . i know that im a woman myself , still i can take anything people tell me , even if they sometimes when you whats on your mind out loud curse you , its a must to just offend them 2. when we look at the "metal-scene" (let me now just call it like that) you cant find too many woman , also true . this type of music and styling is mostly a mans world . i think ugly woman use this "scene" to hide it behind make up and black clothes . none can deny that . it would include then that i think of me not as an ugly woman , im arrogant and saying well im not . forgive me . but then i dont care about it at the same time . 3. hey girl if you worry about if somebody wants to hear your opinion then let me tell you , youre in the wrong forum then i guess , we are here to discuss . but write smth and hopefully youll get an answer that makes sense .

 

[Spinoza]

the word "say" in the sentence "say whats on your mind" was definitly missing . sorry .(please note , i didnt read all answer but the first thread , thats why my answer isnt so specific may )