women generally do not have as developed faculties of reason as men do. This isn't an insult, it's just a fact. If you want more details, just read the two texts I suggested. — Agustino
I don't agree with everything in "On women". For example I disagree about property ownership. But I do agree with Schopenhauer regarding the faculty of reason. And again, I think both Schopenhauer and I mean to speak more about genius in that phrase then the common folk. The difference is small in the common folk, it only becomes visible in people of genius. That's why you can easily have women who are scientists, engineers, philosophers, etc, but you find it really really difficult to have women who are geniuses in these fields.I know both essays, it was jamalrob here who a year or two ago encouraged me to read Schopenhauer because of Sch's great feeling for music, and I'm glad I followed his advice. It seems to me that for its time 'Metaphysics of love' is trail-blazing and interesting. I'm amazed you think you can endorse 'On women', though, which I find extremely misogynistic. it argues, for example, that married women should be entirely deprived of property, as well as its various ill-founded remarks about people's 'nature'. If you think the present-day evidence supports as a 'fact' the notion that 'women generally do not have as developed faculties of reason as men do' then you are looking at different evidence from what I see. — mcdoodle
Actually, just "putting up with it" doesn't do justice to the position that I've been arguing in favour of. We can reduce it to make life better, and reduce it to such an extent that life is worth living.
Interesting points about suicide, by the way. — Sapientia
This is patently false. Schopenhauer is in fact stating that the Platonic idea of women is as he describes it. It doesn't follow that every women is, by logical necessity, like that. However, it does follow, that there will be a tendency for women to be like that. But this does not enable one to "know" a priori what a particular representation of the Platonic idea of women (a particular woman) is like. Why? Because representations fail to match the Platonic idea - they are merely distorted shadows of it. — Agustino
By "real deal" I assume you are referring to pain caused by nociceptors. Presumably this could be solved by technology. — darthbarracuda
It could be mitigated, but new pains would arise. Those who medically cannot feel pain do not by that token have 'good' lives in any sense. — The Great Whatever
(and this is not doing nothing) — Agustino
If you disagree with this response, then I am asking you: what should your response be? What is the response that minimises suffering if not this stoic one? — Agustino
How is that not doing nothing? The response is 'not to...' — The Great Whatever
I disagree with the framing of the question. It should be, how should we prevent getting hit by tornadoes? What really minimizes suffering is of course anti-natalism. Barring that, I think a reasonable Cyrenacism is the way to go, though that doesn't entail any specific life advice (that I don't think philosophy should endeavor to give). — The Great Whatever
So not doing something is doing something? Wild... — The Great Whatever
Yes, because in many cases not doing something is harder than doing something. Hence it also counts as a doing merely because it takes active effort. — Agustino
Ok TGW, so you think we can ALWAYS prevent getting hit by tornadoes and all tragedies in our life? If not, then what are we to do when we can't prevent it? — Agustino
Nevertheless, the Stoic solution is, as I said, not to do anything. — The Great Whatever
No, but you are asking the wrong questions. I think the question of what to do with pain is misguided – there isn't a way to put band-aids on it, but it can to a limited extent be prevented. — The Great Whatever
one has to buckle down and accept one's lot (which includes its suffering) rather than take seriously the possibility it might change. — The Great Whatever
Depends how you define "not doing anything". If whatever you're doing takes effort, then it's not "not doing anything" in my books. Simple as that. — Agustino
Don't you see the blindingly obvious: that the stoic attitude doesn't tell you not to do anything in your power to prevent pain, BUT RATHER provides you with an attitude to have against the pain that you can't - or fail to - prevent? — Agustino
I'm sure all of us want to learn and make our lives better. — Agustino
"O Stoic, misfortune has befallen me. What shall I do?" "Not this, not that." "What then?" "..." — The Great Whatever
But it doesn't provide you with an attitude in the first place, it just pettily moralizes about how grieving is stupid. "Suck it up" literally means nothing -- search it round and round, and you will find there is literally nothing you can actually do that corresponds to what the Stoic tells you to do. The Stoic essentially says, just be such that whatever bothers you, doesn't, or doesn't as much. There's no advice. — The Great Whatever
I doubt it. — The Great Whatever
Well I think it's not so... rather the stoic would advise one to stop focusing on the misfortune, and instead switch one's focus to something more productive. — Agustino
Well suck it up can be an advice. What if someone sits in their room and laments the death of their sister day after day? — Agustino
I think that would be an entirely understandable reaction, and it's not necessarily my place to tell them how they should react to the death of a loved one. — The Great Whatever
Again, you are refusing to tell me what that person should do to feel better (assuming the stoic answer isn't the right one)... You are refusing to tell me how he can make his life better. — Agustino
And as The Great Whatever indicated, it's hard to gauge what people really think when they evaluate life on a philosophy forum. In the moment of living, it can be very exhausting, one thing after another, and at the end of it emptiness, but in rhetorical forums as this, or in hindsight questionnaires, people tend to Pollyannize the situation when trying to evaluate the world. I can't prove it. No doubt, people's anecdotes can be taken as the truth with no reason to give pause or one can be more suspect of it. — schopenhauer1
And again, I think both Schopenhauer and I mean to speak more about genius in that phrase then the common folk. That's why you can easily have women who are scientists, engineers, philosophers, etc, but you find it really really difficult to have women who are geniuses in these fields. — Agustino
I may be wrong, but in fact, I think no one else reading this thread follows. If anyone does, please clarify for me, or for anyone else who doesn't understand, what TGW means. — Agustino
Ok TGW, so you think we can ALWAYS prevent getting hit by tornadoes and all tragedies in our life? If not, then what are we to do when we can't prevent it? — Agustino
Pain cannot be fought. At least that is my reading. The dishonesty of the stoic is in presenting a solution to pain. Nothing helps with pain. If there is pain, there is no means by which to endure it or mitigate it. It must be cut-off entirely. It must not exist. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Since people can't do anything about pain, any suggestion of a "solution" to pain is merely platitude which is ignoring how much pain hurts. — TheWillowOfDarkness
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.