Why can't females into Philosophy /lit/ where is the female

>>9207442
ayn rand

File: image.jpg (647KB, 2560x1536px) Image search: [Google]

647KB, 2560x1536px

>>9207442

>>9207442
>female version of Friedrich Nietzsche
That's about a couple hundred years before Nietzsche

>>9207442
Reminder that men are so pathetic that once they see another man trying to please their gf, they will try to beat up the man and will only midly reprimand their gf

>>9207513
>What is male competition and female choice?
>What is hypergamy?
>What is male nature? What is female nature?
Go learn something.

>>9207513
The female is a slave to its lusts, so it is cannot act anyway else. It is like when your dog eats chocolate someone else has given him: You punish the one who responsible, not the one who just followed their instincts

>>9207447
Ayn Rand was not Nietzsche's equivalent. She did not bring anything new to the world in terms of thought. She merely tried to describe and justify certain circumstances. To be Nietzsche's equivalent one needs to 'overcome' him. You can only be 'as strong as' by being 'stronger than' (If you get what I am saying).

>>9207513
this

>>9207578
Praise be to ye oh lord! thou hast spoketh eternal truth.

I'm a tranny and a huge lefty but I can't stop listening to jordan peterson. he's so entertaining intelligent. :o

I would say Monique Wittig.

Here is a list where u can try your guess:

Irigaray
Teresa de Lauretis
Donna Haraway
Kristeva
Butler
Preciado (well not anymore but stills not a man)
Halberstam (egal)

>>9207578
>The female is a slave to its lusts

kek, a decent female could overthrow every mans reasoning and get him to do whatever she wants. note that i'm talking about a 'decent female'. both intellectually and physical

Do you actually think that a female Nietzsche equivalent in the late 19 century could get her shit published, circulated and recognized? Women only became fully equal to men in legal rights less than a century ago

>>9207756
>a decent female
show me this mythical cryptid, Anon

hannah arendt

>>9207761
if you give me a quick rundown on your personal definition of a "decent" person

>>9207775
see >>9207756

>>9207759
this

this is also the reason modern female philosophers are so sub par compared to males. Most modern philosophy is shit tier compared to our forebears and only barely innovative.

>>9207780
is that your personal definition?

>>9207759
>if i make up history it'll be true
salome was arguably more recognised by the western intelligensia than nietzsche.
>tfw ywn keep both nietzsche and rilke as your pets

>>9207442
Rupi Kaur, the modern Übermensch

>>9207759
>salons and the bluestockings never happened
what the fuck am i reading?

>>9207784
no, my personal definition would happen to be closer to the Superior Man of Confucius

>>9207804
then why are you looplinking my posts?

revering to someone elses übermensch is not a personal definition. i want it in your own words

>>9207799
>>9207785
Deviant cases do not prove your point, fagets. Women were largely excluded from academia and treated like second-grade citizens

>>9207814
the bluestockings are responsible for shakespeare being considered good enough to preserve and not change the endings, for giving burke's idea of the sublime ground to work from which eventually builds into the sublime, and for criticism of voltaire (much like lou salome) they're a major force in literature and not knowing about them is like not being able to read chaucer: it makes you a fucking idiot unfit to judge.

>>9207827
>builds into the ROMANTIC* sublime

its 2017 and we still are arguing about the gender of the author lmao. jfc this world is pathetic.
for all we know nietzsche was just Elisabeth's puppet because she didn't feel like being bothered .

>>9207827
There is a difference between consumption and production.

Just saying.

>>9207845
>he has no idea how prolific the founding members were
>he thinks he'd get through a quarter of one of the corpuses of a founding member if he quit /lit/ and just read that for a year
wew lad, your ignorance is expanding at an extraordinary rate

>>9207844
every man ist just some womans puppet. even if that woman happens to be an idolization from afar, a manipulative lover or friend or a mere imagination. you can't escape the female grip. don't be so quick to feel superior. women weave their power into men in subtle ways

>>9207808
a decent person is:
intelligent without arrogance, goal-driven without losing empathy, brutally honest with both themselves and the rest of the world, having core values that they refuse to compromise in the face of adversity in whatever form but does their civilian duty, is aware of the necessity of social contacts but does not rely on them, seeks to aid people into aiding themselves, and uses subtlety to achieve their aims.
I don't know what you exactly mean with physical decency, but I would define it at being near your physical peak or at least working into that direction

>>9207856
i am a women

>>9207859
then you're either trolling or aren't a decent one

>>9207868
im not a decent person after one post?
unbelievable
thank you mr.psychoanalysis

>>9207852
Ey man I didn't say they did not produce, just that they were mainly consumers.
And for sure I didn't imply any of that, just pointing something to take into account.

This place have been always terrible, but it is sad to not being able to enjoy it anymore.

Hope u have better days anon.

>>9207858
now, is this your definition of decent or just your definition of the ideal human? ar those two one and the same?

anyways, there have always been a lot of decent females. maybe not perfect (they weren't morally superior since they abused their power), but definitely easily able to play a man like a harp.

>>9207874
that one post told me you don't think females are the ones that hold the power, althought you claim to BE female. that leads to my assumption that you must be an inferior female, yes

>>9207874
That post was incredibly female.

>>9207879
>just that they were mainly consumers.
maybe when they were kids, or if you're talking about consuming diamonds. you're trying to fake your way through history, so all anyone needs to do it compare their output to the output of one of their main library sources (the bibliophile earl of oxford and mortimer) if you compare a countess in the harley line to his output, any female will beat the male.

what you're pointing out is you'll keep lying and hoping that women didn't write at all in a period where they were highly prolific because you'd prefer to keep this place shit than read or admit a very large gap in your literary knowledge. i hope you die to be honest, anon.

>>9207892
i have to disagree

that post was an inidcator of an indecent female. it can't be used as a measurement of how females act and interact

>>9207890
who needs psychologist when we have anon here. figuring out who's inferior over a post on 4chan

>>9207906
habe i hurt your tender female feels? you truly are subhuman if you can get triggered so easily

>>9207910
is this post satire?

>>9207442
Women have average iq, non of them can think without high iq men providing suggestions

>>9207868
>decent females exist
Bahahaha.

>>9207888
they are indeed the same
I do not deny that there are multiple powerful and influential women in history in one way or the other, but I challenge the notion that they were decent (but then again, most men that were powerful or influential were not decent, either)

>>9207914
are you?

>>9207447
Wrong
>>9207460
Wrong
>>9207753
All wrong
>>9207773
Wrong
>>9207790
Lol

It's obviously Simone Weil. You guys know being edgy and selfish weren't the only things Nietzsche was about, right?

>>9207888
>able to play a man
That's the definition of "female".
"Strong, independent woman" is a liberal meme, those attributes are inherently masculine. You lack the testosterone, babe.

>>9207756
>i'm talking about a 'decent female'. both intellectually and physical
>Female
>Intellectual
Kek

>fat retards argue with other fat retards pretending to be women

>>9207926
when i say decent, i don't mena perfect. perfect humans don't exist. regardles of gender. what i mean is decently intelligent, decently beautiful, etc to be powerfull enough to have a grasp at males.

most people who crave power are far from perfection anyways. most can't handle it once they have it. it's the same with females. they have a power over men they are mostly unaware of. so they don't handle it consciously. which can be destructive and dangerous. but the nes that are aware can either use it to for personal gains. that would be the ones that are decent looking and decently intelligent to manipulate. but also the ones with selfish values. and then there are some that have the same merits paired with less selfish or rather destructive values. they might use that power to guide the man and do good for humanity that way. you will never know how many women were responsible for coaxing the "big thinkers" to actually publish their works or how many have helped a distraught philosopher trough a fit of suicidal depression. how many have brought an bloodthirsty monarch to reason by caressing his fuming head and whispering calming words.

>>9207934
i don't disagree with a single word of that.

but you said it yourself. females are easily able to play a man. so, who's really the gender in charge now?

>>9207935
nice argument. almost convinced me there

>>9207959
ths meme is stale

>>9207971
Today? Females of course.
We are weak as fuck (speaking in general).

>>9207964
I see. Then it was just our personal definitions of decency that conflicted (which may also be a language thing, since english is not my first language, as I must admit). Good that this is out of the way, since the rest of your post is well-thought. Keep it up and have a good day, Anon.

>>9207976
>>9207971
Males* I meant.

>>9207974
Give me names of 10 female intellectuals who were somewhat important then

>>9207976
i think they have been in charge way sooner. just not in the violent "we is powerfull wymyn" way. i actually think they were more in charge as the subtle advocates of great men, than nowadays. they aren't great innovators, that's true. but that's because their part wasn't to invent but keep the inventioning machinery (read males) going. to motivate them and keep their backs. that might soon crumble, though, since now women think they should be the ones taking that position. that will fail terribly because they aren't fit for the job and they neglect their real power for it, which will also destroy the innovative peocess they held up trough manipulation. if you want to call it that way

>>9207918
Shush anon your letting everyone here know how small your dick is

>>9207976
females are in charge. but seems like society doesn't wanna admit it

>>9207981
that's why i first wanted a definition. it's furile to argue without first etablishing common ground. english isn't my first language either so we're dealing with doubled hurdles here.

>>9207993
Not bad.
>subtle advocates for great men
But I don't know about this. The "always been in charge, in subtle ways" I agree with.
Are you a fat neckbeard pretending to be a woman or some kind of traditionalist female?

>>9207992
why should i? the female intellect was never extensively used to achieve sceintifical or literal or whatever achievements. it was used to coax men into doing exactly that. not that it was a "we could do this ourselves, but are too lazy, so we let men do it"-way. it's actually not inherently manipulativey. it's just that this is what females are better cut out to use their intellect for. finally, it fits together like a puzzle. everybody does their part to push humanity further.
men by being the inventors and females by keeping the inventors backs and helping them trough difficult times. ofc, you can now start argueing that guys like nietzsche, kafka or schoppenhauer never had SUCH a woman. but we don't know that. because as i stated earlier, this particular female power also works from a diatance or from mere imagination. for example, having a clear picture of your female perfection can be a big motivator to keep going, in the hope of one day being "worthy for her". or in nietzsches case, the hatred he had for females because he wasn't worthy transformed into a big pile of innovative thought...

>>9208009
what do you mean, you don't know about this? what makes you hesitant?

would one or the other change the way you take my arguments in any way?
i think so

>>9208024
>or in nietzsches case, the hatred he had for females because he wasn't worthy transformed into a big pile of innovative thought...
nitezsche likes women and dedicates a whole chapter to how great a marriage to a good woman is for a good man. read moar

>>9208038
i'm reading his works right now. but i'm not trough with them yet, so you might be right. i'm terribly sorry i haven't read every book on earth yet.

that's good to hear. it means he hasn't lost his hope for the existence of a "good female", which ia crucial. which further nurtures my thought that he atleast had a clear image of what a "good female" is, which might have been a big motivator. i understand his frustration with female mediocrity, since he was interested in human superiority in general. but like male übermenschen, female übermenschen are just as rare.

>>9208048
in fact, i still don't think anyone could really hold up to his ideals in everyday life. that's probably why he carried some bitterness and kinda lost it towards the end. he must have been frustrated with his own mediocrity.

>>9208048
>his frustration with female mediocrity
none of that either. basically, anyone who told you nietzsche or schopenhauer hates women hasn't read them or has the intelligence of a potato. both are upset men might make whores of women, or feminists might tell women lies about engaging in power. Zarathustra has two chapters on women and both are very loving, and the people who read them as hate are either SJWs or potato headed males who think being male at all made them a very valuable male (i.e. men whose brains are as broken as a bluehaired tumblrite).

>>9208086
interesting. that's exactly why i'm going to read his works myself so i don't fall into the trap of parroting idiotic believes (which seems i am guilty of right now...). now i am really motivated to read him to form my own opinion on his relationship with women. thanks anon!
going to read a book now

>>9207995
woman detected

>>9207964

This.

When a woman is intelligent, she has implicit understand of her mastery of the world. She doesn't face any sort of adversity - because she doesn't need to.

An intelligent woman, in the level of the major philosophers, simply has life on easy-mode. Do you honestly think such circumstances will cultivate her mind enough to produce great ideas, much less string many of them together and write them down for publishing? I think not.

>>9207814

>Women were largely excluded from academia and treated like second-grade citizens

What's the problem?

>>9208214
i think the reason there are no philosophical works published by female authors that have innovative thoughts in it is that, just like you said, females who would have the capacitiy don't have a reason. they live lifes others only dream of. and they can spend their days with whatever they find meaningfull. i don't know why they don't think philosophy is meaningfull enough, probably because it isn't. it's just theories and people argueing over which theory is "more right". i think women capable of novelty in philosophy use their potential for other things.

Because women are much more likely to enjoy life and have sex.

>>9208329
>Because women are much more likely to enjoy life
11/10 would read again.

>>9208329
agreeing. they have other things to put effort in. and they don't nevessarily have to be inferior or superior. just different

>>9208339
>just different
Ha.
You're diplomatic but inaccurate (a typical requisite for diplomacy). Inferior" would be the harsh truth.

ITT: no answers women confirmed for shit tier

>>9207924
>decent men exist
Bahahaha.

All humans are scum, scum. Who cares which scum is the most scum.

>>9210121
>Who cares which scum is the most scum.
Probably the robot overlords running this simulation

>>9210129
If something/someone did create humans than they are as messed up as we are and it doesn't matter.

please guys ("guys"), don't make this thread about yourself

Susan Haack
Elizabeth Anscombe
Marguerite Porete
Mary Wollstonecraft

File: MaryWollstonecraft.jpg (112KB, 918x1110px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 918x1110px

>>9210456
>Mary Wollstonecraft
This.

She also beat Nietzsche by a good hundred years

>>9210542
She's cute. I wish I lived in her time just to see her once.

>he's at the bottom of the dominance hierarchy

>>9207513
no i would probably hate and resent the female for the rest of my life because they betrayed my trust and showed they never actually loved me. the guy is probably some scuzzy creep but hopefully isn't close to me so i would just scare him enough to get him to fuck off. i would really hate the woman thou

>>9207442
Most great female philosophers are analytics because they're intelligent enough to realize that continental philosophy is for hacks. Get off the neetchee cock carousal and try some Anscombe, Cartwright, Ruth Millikan, Marcus, and so on

>>9207759
>legal rights
what do legal rights have to do with writing philosophy?

>>9207756
not true

>>9212449
stay delusional

>>9212449
almost nothing more true than that, you'll learn sooner or later

>>9207442
can't wait for the braindead fucktards to move onto the new peterson as they did to the new harris.

>>9207934
>inherently
spooky