>Wittgenstein’s response to me was humiliating, and his response to female students who tried to attend his lectures was even worse. If a woman appeared in the audience, he would remain standing silent until she left the room.
Hahahahahahahahahaha!!! Witty knows what's up. Yet /lit/ pathetically tries to pretend that literature can be worthwhile when it's saturated with females.
WE'VE GONE THROUGH THIS. Women are the sexually in demand sex and will therefore NOT be incentivised to work hard in areas that require results / risk / standards of work that can be objectively judged. Women in any field is a sign of its deterioration. Go and do something worthwhile such as pure mathematics, brain surgery, garbage collection, theoretical physics, etc
Everyone knows why he did this.
Well, maybe women don't, but is there anyone in this planet who wouldn't, even secretly, agree that Schopenhauer was right that women can't have an objective interest in things?
Wow, he was autistic. It's not like it seems like everyone who deals with epistemology or philosophy of language are autistic to some degree.
I mean we have people like Kripke, arguably the most important expert in logic still alive, put up a tent and live outside one of his female students apparent. Because why the fuck not.
I know Ayer once drove a car with another philosopher. Both where in their 60's and worked at the same faculty. He didn't have anything to say, so Ayer ask this guy (whose name I've forgotten) if he was a virgin. He casually said yes. Ayer went on to ask that if he wasn't a virgin, would it be with a girl or a boy. After a few minutes he responded "a man, I suppose". And then they didn't say much.
>is there anyone in this planet who wouldn't, even secretly, agree that Schopenhauer was right that women can't have an objective interest in things?
Regardless of gender, the ability is at the least exceedingly rare and possibly non-existent.
Well, is the discussion for whether an objective interest exist in itself objective or subjective?
Clearly it would be subjective since those in its defense or attack would like to ascribe themselves who are objective in thinking, the virtue of being able to be objective. But in those who have not experienced objective interest, in order to not seem less than virtuous, they will try to degrade all interest into subjective interest. By asserting that the ability to be objective is impossible, I assume that you are of the latter type. On me, I'll assume that I'm of the former type. Both are subjective but the goals are different.
To anyone that has experienced objective interest, this can be taken as a matter-of-fact concept, as it is intimately knowable with past experiences.
>By asserting that the ability to be objective is impossible
I didn't assert that, I offered it as a possibility. I have a hard time believing you can be objective when you can't correctly perceive something so simple.
>On me, I'll assume that I'm of the former type.
Well, it's clear that you're an excellent judge of that, assuming we grant in advance that you are, in fact, an excellent judge of that.
By offering a "might be" possibility you are only trying to ensure that your argument is not refuted on the grounds that there will always be an exception that proves the rule.
Likewise, I can say that I never asserted that you said it was impossible.
Definitional retreat, so to speak.
>By offering a "might be" possibility you are only trying to ensure that your argument is not refuted on the grounds that there will always be an exception that proves the rule.
No, I'm exercising appropriate epistemic humility. I don't know if it's possible or not.
>Likewise, I can say that I never asserted that you said it was impossible.
Likewise in every respect save that I'm speaking the truth and you would not be.
When he became a schoolteacher for a while, he would freak out at the kids when they didn't understand maths problems he set them. Fond of a clip around the ear pour encourager. The natives got restless and he had to flee under cover of night. Absolute madman.
Quoted the wrong post.
It doesn't seem like epistemic humility to make a bold assumption in terms of quantity the way you did, that is, that there are so little of those who take an objective interests of things that they could be practically said to not exist (or as you said, might be non-existant).
Jesus, calm down.
>It doesn't seem like epistemic humility to make a bold assumption in terms of quantity the way you did
We are all of us only so virtuous; I can only say what I see.
>that there are so little of those who take an objective interests of things that they could be practically said to not exist (or as you said, might be non-existant).
Why is the bit before the brackets there? Why do you seem to have such difficulty sticking to what I've actually said, tacking it on like an afterthought?
>(or as you said, might be non-existant)
Well it might be. I'm sorry if you wanted some grand battle where two sides are utterly certain of diametrically opposed propositions. Can't help you there.
I wonder how much have you seen that again, you can boldy make the statement
>rare or might be non-existant
As a matter of fact, I have to wonder if you've had any male socialization at all.
Autist A is claiming women only like shit because of a bundle of associations.
Autist B is saying people only like shit because of associations, and is holding out the possibility for rare exceptions.
Autist A is buttmad about the possibility of exceptions.
What's your objective assessment of the value I place in your speculation?
Him: Isn't Schopenhauer correct to say that women are incapable of being objective?
Me: Most people are incapable of being objective, if anyone is, which is doubtful.
Him: How curious that you should say it is utterly impossible that anyone might conceivably be objective about anything, ever.
Me: I didn't say that.
Him: Ah, but then I could certainly say that I did not say that which, formerly, I had said.
Me: Yeah, but I actually didn't say that.
Him: Mmm, but the thing which you, in actuality, did say, was merely a blackguard's ruse, intended to disguise that which you lack the courage, the manly virtue, to express forthrightly.
Me: Nah, it's what I actually think.
Him: I stand amaz'd, and can but speculate upon your personal history. It is impossible for me to overstate - nay, it is impossible for language to express - the degree of my personal incredulity concerning the facts of the matter as they pertain to the most extraordinary sentiments you have issued.
tl;dr he's some species of pretentious wanker and I'm probably being trolled.
>Went to great lengths to say "Dude we exist lmao"
>400 years later people think he said "Dude we don't exist lmao"
"Overrated" is a comment about his legacy, not about his work itself, which is historically significant but which isn't as rigorous, plausible, or well-argued as the work of many people who came after him.
They're definitely up there, although I do like Heidegger.
>garbage collection, construction working (and arguably) oil welling aren't worthwhile
Yet without them, your cozy sheltered life would come to an abrupt end, and you would be faced with the dilemma of having to do something practical for your survival. Those occupations have to be done if you don't want to be forced to do it yourself.
With your smugness, and ideological positions, it can be assumed that you would not be very successful. Maybe if you protect *your* womyns' honour, they'll be able to provide for you in that scenario.
The manual labourers you hold in contempt are more in touch with societal reality than you are.
This chauvinism turns me on a tiny bit tbqhfamily