I never said that that's all they ought to do, and neither did Schopenhauer as a matter of fact... — Agustino
He merely means to say that such would be an abnormality in Nature, not the general trend. He has justified his points, if you actually spent your time reading the two texts, by explaining how they fit in with our biological evolution. Women evolved to fulfill different roles than men: therefore they are better at some things, and inferior at others. — Agustino
I believe females have the potential to be just as good as males at many things, and even surpass in some areas that are even dominated by males today. — darthbarracuda
But they have been systematically oppressed in the past simply because they did not have the physical strength and brutish testosterone that males do — darthbarracuda
What he was saying is that because this is the way he thought women were, he felt women could not do anything outside of that. He was criticizing females without understanding why they are that way to begin with. — darthbarracuda
What you (and Schopenhauer) are doing here is not making scientific observation (e.g. most prominent philosophers are men), but rather misusing a scientific observation to proclaim people with specific traits (men and women) are "naturally" something irrespective of there existence, such that all we need to "know" a person of that group is this "logically necessary" nature — TheWillowOfDarkness
It is not only anti-scientific, but also a deep-seated understanding about what men and women are "meant to be." The intelligent women is considered "abnormal," a failure of human nature, because she doesn't fit (supposedly) what human women are mean to be. — TheWillowOfDarkness
What justification do you have for this when it comes specifically to rational capabilities? (I've already agreed there are quite a few things women are generally better at than men) — Agustino
Keep in mind that testosterone is essential to developing traits of perseverence (along with aggression) as well, so biologically, women aren't as perseverent as men simply because they lack quantities of this hormone that men have. — Agustino
No, this doesn't follow. He's not criticizing at all. You read it as criticism, he's just stating how things are, without judging that this is good or bad. You read what he says, and immediately judge that he's saying something bad about women, which he is not. — Agustino
So what is he saying? — darthbarracuda
But the Stoic response is to do nothing, really. All problems are illusory. — The Great Whatever
I would like some examples of these harder problems. Are you referring to things like cancer and tornadoes? — darthbarracuda
because it often takes the form of the 'real deal' pain, not stupid self-help 'oh I'm unsatisfied with my life' bullshit. — The Great Whatever
As if problems only affect me because I 'allow' them to. Am I God or something? 'Stop, problem, you may not do that!' Kek! — The Great Whatever
But even solving their manifestations through technology or whatever still leaves you with the basic structural problem which is more something like...I don't know, sensitivity which is required for life plus entropy? Or if your Buddhist inclinations prefer, dukkha. — The Great Whatever
.I don't know, sensitivity which is required for life plus entropy? — The Great Whatever
Though even that's not enough, because it often takes the form of the 'real deal' pain, not stupid self-help 'oh I'm unsatisfied with my life' bullshit. — The Great Whatever
The latter is evidence that, if there's not enough pain in a person's life, that person will typically invent some. — Pneumenon
If the world were a paradise of luxury and ease, a land flowing with milk and honey, where every Jack obtained his Jill at once and without any difficulty, men would either die of boredom or hang themselves; or there would be wars, massacres, and murders; so that in the end mankind would inflict more suffering on itself than it has now to accept at the hands of Nature. — Schopenhauer
As Schopenhauer said:
If the world were a paradise of luxury and ease, a land flowing with milk and honey, where every Jack obtained his Jill at once and without any difficulty, men would either die of boredom or hang themselves; or there would be wars, massacres, and murders; so that in the end mankind would inflict more suffering on itself than it has now to accept at the hands of Nature.
— Schopenhauer — schopenhauer1
This is rather ironic given our previous discussion on page 2, in which I said that unpleasantness is not bad if without it life would be worse off (basically the same point that Schopenhauer makes above), and you questioned this and scoffed at what you called the Nietzschesque "suffering makes us better" schtick. — Sapientia
No, Schopenhauer is not saying we should embrace suffering, or that this is good, just that it exists. — schopenhauer1
But I didn't say that that's what he's saying. I said that he's basically saying that life would be worse off without it, and that is clearly what he is saying. He's clearly saying more than that it exists. Do you disagree? — Sapientia
I do. He is saying there is suffering in the goals/desires and there is suffering when we get our goals/desires. — schopenhauer1
If the world were a paradise of luxury and ease, a land flowing with milk and honey, where every Jack obtained his Jill at once and without any difficulty[...] — schopenhauer1
men would either die of boredom or hang themselves; or there would be wars, massacres, and murders; so that in the end mankind would inflict more suffering on itself than it has now to accept at the hands of Nature. — schopenhauer1
I didn't say scientists or engineers. I said geniuses. The likes of Albert Einstein, Newton, Da Vinci, Goethe, Schopenhauer, Spinoza, etc. From the list you have provided none count with the exception of Marie Curie, who comes closest to genius.Google "female scientists". Hypatia, Lovelace, Carson, Curie, etc. Plus I happen to personally know five successful female scientists and engineers. — darthbarracuda
What justification do you have for the position that women do not have as well developed rational capabilities? — darthbarracuda
Source? — darthbarracuda
So what is he saying? — darthbarracuda
If the world were a paradise of luxury and ease, a land flowing with milk and honey, where every Jack obtained his Jill at once and without any difficulty, men would either die of boredom or hang themselves; or there would be wars, massacres, and murders; so that in the end mankind would inflict more suffering on itself than it has now to accept at the hands of Nature. — Schopenhauer
Historical lack of evidence for as great a number of geniuses amongst women as amongst men. Take the number of great scientists who were men, great philosophers, etc. It doesn't compare. Which woman is as great a scientist as an Einstein, Darwin, or Newton etc.? Which is as great a philosopher as a Plato, Socrates, Kant, Schopenhauer, Spinoza, Wittgenstein, etc.? Probably none. — Agustino
For the role of testosterone? Because the remaining bit is a direct conclusion from knowing the role testosterone plays. — Agustino
Lol... women also had access to education, especially when they came from the upper classes. Most of philosophers and scientists were quite well off as well; the common folk didn't have access to education, both men and women. The field was leveled at the top.Kant did not just pop out of the womb and write his Critique. He had access to education, something females did not at the time. Darwin didn't just "write" the Origin. He had access to education, money, ships for exploration of the Galapagos, etc. What were the females given? Very little in comparison. Can you imagine the contributions that would have come from female intellectuals had they been given access to education and resources? — darthbarracuda
I want a scientific source that says testosterone has a role in perseverance. — darthbarracuda
Which is more pessimistic: a metaphysical force that is ultimately pessimistic in its nature (a striving Will that goes nowhere), or a metaphysical nihilism that is grounded on nothing (radical contingency)? — schopenhauer1
I like this question, but I'm not too sure about what the latter position entails. Could expand on what you mean by it? — Thorongil
I.e. we'd be worse off. — Sapientia
Wow. Are you sure you're reading the same quote? Do I have to break it down bit by bit? Ok, let's do that. — Sapientia
If the world were a paradise of luxury and ease, a land flowing with milk and honey, where every Jack obtained his Jill at once and without any difficulty[...]
— schopenhauer1
I.e. if the world didn't have suffering. — Sapientia
I.e. we'd be worse off. — Sapientia
I don't see the connection. In fact, all I'm seeing here is a generalization; i.e. how Schopenhauer himself feels he would react to such a situation being applied to everyone across the world. Schopenhauer doesn't explain why such a utopia would lead to chaos and suicide, he just asserts it. It's sophistry. — darthbarracuda
No, I'm pretty sure he finds both poles bad. Even if one may lead to worse things than the other, it all leads to suffering. — schopenhauer1
At least, it'd be the better of two evils. But I still say that it'd be an evil worth putting up with in many cases. — Sapientia
Suicide may also be regarded as an experiment — a question which man puts to Nature, trying to force her to an answer. The question is this: What change will death produce in a man’s existence and in his insight into the nature of things? It is a clumsy experiment to make; for it involves the destruction of the very consciousness which puts the question and awaits the answer. — Schopenhauer
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.