I want to get into serious philosophy.
Is Schopenhauer's 'On Women' the best place to start or is it too challenging and deep for a novice?
It'll tell you your yearning for philosophical justification and intellectual process are a result of your sexual frustration, so if you carry on after that, you're probably only suitable to become a celibate academic rather than reproduce, so you could well succeed in that futile vein of "accomplishment".
of course, to not stumble on that cul-de-sac, you're going to need to sponsor a few whores back to a non-debased state, which is where most of /r9k/ falls down.
try his on suffering next if you think you're doing okay.
>>8530769
> challenging and deep
That little piss-ant straw-man rant is basically a grumpy letter to the editor that could have been penned by any pompous /lit/ misogynist. It can be understood and disregarded by anyone, regardless of brain damage.
>>8530810
>t. male so upset schoppy called his intellectual striving out as just being thirsty he's forgotten the essay even insulted him
>>8530816
ever think the suffering is the truth? no? then you need based uncle schoppy
>>8530769
YES
E
S
>On women
Maybe you'll have better luck reading or talking to a woman, don't you think?
on women isn't his best