-
Reminder: Do not call, text, or mention harrassing someone in real life. Do not encourage it. Do not talk about killing or using violence against anyone, or engaging in any criminal behavior. If it is not an obvious joke even when taken out of context, don't post it. Please report violators.
DMCA, complaints, and other inquiries:
[email protected]
WWAWT Philosophers?
- Thread starter CuckQueen
- Start date
G
guest
Guest
He was a virulent misogynist and pessimist. Wouldn't be surprising if he won the vote for favourite onaforums.net philosopher. Nietzsche a close second. Spinoza, Rousseau and Russell have no shot.
- Forum Clout
- 12,343
Epictetus or bust, child
- Forum Clout
- 24,484
Being a philosopher must be depressing as hell. Nice constant rumination, stupids.
They say insightful things though I guess.
They say insightful things though I guess.
G
guest
Guest
Kierkegaard or go fuck your mother.
Existentialism but with god mannnnnnnnnn.
I’m actually reading “works of love” by the k-man now.
Kierkegaard had 50 coffee cups and would ask his secretary for a philosophical reason every time he picked one out.
- Forum Clout
- 3,392
No pest philosophy panel would be complete without the diogenes.
I'd say the virulent misogynist stuff was overblown in the 60s and 70s. He seems pretty even handed to me and basically concludes men and women are different, better at different things, and neither is worth more than the other.
"One need only look at a woman’s shape to discover that she is not intended for either too much mental or too much physical work. She pays the debt of life not by what she does but by what she suffers—by the pains of child-bearing, care for the child, and by subjection to man, to whom she should be a patient and cheerful companion. The greatest sorrows and joys or great exhibition of strength are not assigned to her; her life should flow more quietly, more gently, and less obtrusively than man’s, without her being essentially happier or unhappier.
Women are directly adapted to act as the nurses and educators of our early childhood, for the simple reason that they themselves are childish, foolish, and short-sighted—in a word, are big children all their lives, something intermediate between the child and the man, who is a man in the strict sense of the word. Consider how a young girl will toy day after day with a child, dance with it and sing to it; and then consider what a man, with the very best intentions in the world, could do in her place.
With girls, Nature has had in view what is called in a dramatic sense a “striking effect,” for she endows them for a few years with a richness of beauty and a fullness of charm at the expense of the rest of their lives; so that they may during these years ensnare the fantasy of a man to such a degree as to make him rush into taking the honourable care of them, in some kind of form, for a lifetime—a step which would not seem sufficiently justified if he only considered the matter. Accordingly, Nature has furnished woman, as she has the rest of her creatures, with the weapons and implements necessary for the protection of her existence and for just the length of time that they will be of service to her; so that Nature has proceeded here with her usual economy. Just as the female ant after coition loses her wings, which then become superfluous, nay, dangerous for breeding purposes, so for the most part does a woman lose her beauty after giving birth to one or two children; and probably for the same reasons....
It is because women’s reasoning powers are weaker that they show more sympathy for the unfortunate than men, and consequently take a kindlier interest in them. On the other hand, women are inferior to men in matters of justice, honesty, and conscientiousness."-On Women
That better be Diogenes the Cynic!
- Forum Clout
- 14,693
I oink, therefore I am.
Hogito ergo sum.
- Forum Clout
- 20,494
