Lol. I knew it. Philosophers always try to cause trouble! That's why I have never liked these guys. :D
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Lol. I knew it. Philosophers always try to cause trouble! That's why I have never liked these guys. :D
😢
Oh, no, the sad face. OK. I don't like some philosophers. Like Schopenhauer :)
What's wrong with him? He's stylistically superb with a wit that's sharper than ... well he'd know what analogy to use here, cos he's witty. Just because he likes to sprinkle his philosophy with some melancholy here and there is not a sufficient cause for derision :(
I am fooling around :D
To be honest, I am not very familiar with him. I don't know much about his work except for ONE thing - his view of women. Perhaps this is the main reason why I have put him in my blacklist :D On the first page to be exact :P
Ah, yeah, he was a famous misogynist. And, in his case, unlike many others, he can perhaps own the term. Cos unlike Hamlet, Nick Cave, or Nietzsche, etc., who said (or sang) negative things about women because of hurt and a very strong romantic streak that got frustrated by how real women compare to the ideal, Schopenhauer instead was very rational about it, saw the matter very practically, and in a sense wisely, since at least he found a way to live with it and get the better of the situation, instead of getting lost in booze and nihilism like Bukowski or somebody like that!
Oh, I see that you have distinguished some of the adaptive and the maladaptive coping strategies here :D
Well, yeah, at least he made his point and stood by it. However, I can't help it but wonder how is it possible to be such a high intellectual on one side and such a primitive (meaning immature) human being on the other?
Actually, I have an answer. Intelligence and emotional intelligence are two very different things. If one cannot manage their emotions they blur their vision. Thus, they become quite irrational in their thoughts and behavior.
So, I just called Sheupenhaur, Nietzsche, and Bukowski immature and primitive. That's a huuuge buzz :P
😑 touché
How did the US founding fathers own slaves? How did the world's greatest intellectuals of 100 years ago believe in God? How did all of Ancient Greece agree that the term 'human' (andras meant human and man/male at the same time) should not be applied to women?
A closer engagement is needed with the texts of these philosophers and writers to understand why they said those things. In Zarathustra, Nietzsche ends a passage where he talks about women by saying 'perhaps anything said about women can seem plausible' ('with women nothing is impossible') He perfectly well understands that any psychoanalysis will sound plausible if enough rhetoric is put behind it. But even in that terrible and misleading translation I linked to (the passage is quite short and easy to read, give it a go!) still some wisdom shines through.
The most famous line is the last one, about the whip. I can't recount how many times older women have given me the same advice, and younger women, who will refute it with their words, verify it with their actions. I think women should get together and solve their issues (they're very often very anti-feminist themselves) and only then they should get around to consciousness-raising the men!
🐝 [= very confusing bee emoji] 😊