Do women understand philosophy?

The Kind of Tired That Sleep Won’t Fix Shirt $21.68

Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68

The Kind of Tired That Sleep Won’t Fix Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No one understands philosophy

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      but ESPECIALLY not women
      the only thing they understand is cooking manuals and make up tutorials or their boyfriend/fathers opinions on philosophy at best

    • 4 weeks ago
      γρηγορεύω

      The only way you would know that is if you understood it, in which case you wouldn't say it.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Who understands philosophy?

        • 4 weeks ago
          γρηγορεύω

          Me.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Damn, G.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That's a feature, not a bug.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Whats there to understand? It's subjective perspectives filtered by consensus. Wow, so deep.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Whats there to understand? It's subjective perspectives filtered by consensus. Wow, so deep.
        Is that a true statement?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Depends on the consensus of this perspective, obviously. It's a dps check.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      only for Plato cucks and other metaphysicshizos aka religious lunatics

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      in short: no
      to elaborate: they live as egoists from birth and never even considered that there would be anything outside of themselves that would be worthy of discovery, pondering, justifying or striving for
      for women they are default mode involuntary egoists that do not see any value in following any form of ideals, values or rules unless they're strictly and brutally monitored and punished
      just look at how they turn out in areas where feminism has given them agency, they become hedonists first and involuntary egoists second
      to them things are emotions, how do i feel about this is the deepest thought a woman has had, their thinking is centered around emotional responses, emotional thinking and emotional everything
      why does woman want to be rich? it makes them feel free, it makes them feel powerful, it makes them feel better than others
      why does a woman want to marry a hot man of status, wealth and power? it makes them feel desired, it makes them feel better than their competition, the man at the top of the hierarchy (which she does not understand apart from instincts that equate self-confidence = good) is the best man that she wants (or a con artist, both are good because they both make you feel the same)

      to recap their philosophy is that of hedonism and involuntary egoism, anything they adopt on top of that is forced on them, the only reason they would dabble onto read any other philosophy which they find pointless pissing contest is to once again feel better than others (protip this is why majority of men go to philosophy and literature as well)
      philosophy is a method of status elevation and one ups manship to them, it doesn't matter what the philosophy can teach them or any truths they might find because of it, wisdom is equally as worthless because they're already hedonistic egoists by nature, they have no need for any values or discoveries as long as they feel good

      name a philosophy / philosopher and ill dumb it down to such a state that even you can grasp it

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      fpbp

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        name a single philosophy or philosopher and i will dumb it down to the point that any moron can "get it"

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Kant. And you can't just say "schizo shit"

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            west:
            >stoicism
            can you control it? then do
            can't control it? then control emotions that it causes in you
            get those shoulders big to carry the shit of the world
            >hedonism
            i wanna feel good, i don't wanna feel bad
            >pyrrhonism
            are you sure about that? no really, are you 100% sure?
            >absurdism
            life is weird but if you embrace that it is you'll have a fun time de yah
            >stirnerian egoism
            you know those values, ideals and shit you hold? here's why they're bullshit and why you don't need them
            there's two kinds of people in this world, voluntary and involuntary egoists, figure out which you are and are going to be

            east
            >buddhism/hinduism/every vedic rooted religion / philosophy in a nutshell
            lifes a bit shit and if you think that shit will continue forever it's a nightmare, follow these religion specific guidelines to stop repeating the miserable life

            >emmanuel kant
            easy peasy, "would you like to live in a world where everyone did that? because that's what you're advocating by doing that"
            that's literally the skinny of his categorical imperative, be more specific on which part of him you want interpreted

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Ficino

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            who the frick is that?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Kristeller has a good book on him

            who the frick is that?

            moron

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I would unironically kill for a cute gf that read philosophie

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Same actually

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Same actually

      If she's cute AND reads philosophy she's 100% a psychopath larper

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Same actually

      Can you prove that you can actually kill someone?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Unless she’s extremely intelligent, it just seems annoying. I don’t talk about philosophy with people because most of them think it’s the type of shit you come up with while high. Same reason most scientists I know don’t talk about it with their family, because you quickly realize how moronic and schizo most people thoughts about it really are.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        They don’t realize that this shit is about image and social prestige for women, even for highly intelligent women. They will never take it as seriously as you and if they do, it will just be really shallow and obnoxious.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It would be nice to have a gf that is that philosophically literate and can have occasional shallow conversations on the topic but a philosopher gf or worse, an intellectual gf would unironically be hell. You basically want her to be interested but not opinionated.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I have one and its nice. Of course there are trade offs, she is a bit autistic.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Hello Dutch OP.

      God I had a classmate who was like this. Beautiful woman, fellow phil student, really interested and articulate, and just a sweetheart overall. She got snatched up by some guy from her work like a month in that year tho. Still not over it.

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Back in college I had this kraut professor lady who taught a class exclusively on Kant, she seemed pretty competent.

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It’s so funny how after some time of actual discussion/interest there’s always a girl posing with the *latest thing* on tik tok farming attention while trying to gatekeep. Vapid prostitutes are so transparent.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      She may also be interested in it and reading it for that reason

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        She's interested in looking like an intellectual with dark academia style
        I want to skin these hoes alive. The only way you should be allowed to touch philosophy books is if you have at least read all the Greek works twice over with annotations

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          But is any of that true though

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Nah she’s interested in attention and social media currency. Philosophy is just an accessory for these types, just a different shade of handbag. They’re not truth seekers.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          So pretty much like a solid portion of IQfy…something about stones and glass houses

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Keep telling yourself that. It’s anonymous for a reason.

            If you think philosophy is truth seeking, I would say you are mistaken fren. I believe reading more philosophy will get you out of this mindset though. Essentialization is antithetical to serious inquiry.

            It is, whether there is truth there or what value truth has itself is not the point.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          If you think philosophy is truth seeking, I would say you are mistaken fren. I believe reading more philosophy will get you out of this mindset though. Essentialization is antithetical to serious inquiry.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >philosophy isn't truth seeking
            Idiot

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            See

            Well, this is what I've come to, for whatever it is worth: true "truth," rests in ideas like Taoism, nihilism, sufiism, all types of mysticisms, those are the proper realm of proper "truth." They all admit of the Absolute you speak about, and they all draw the same conclusion: the Absolute is perfect, unadulterated, pure "nothing." I do not mean empty space, but a lack of space, infinity itself, and thus, nothing at all. The purest idea of "God" is a Void that contains everything within itself, a nonpoint at which all points intersect. So to me, whenever a philosopher speaks about truth, and goes beyond this description in any way, he or she has already entered the land of idiocy.
            But idiocy is not valueless; Nietzsche had it right when he asked what the value of truth is, because he was already wise enough to recognize that the truth is a void. What philosophers do, often like idiots, is put out new models and ideas with which to live by, to multiply the different "kinds" of life that can be expressed according to human freewill. None of that is an issue and I quite enjoy reading the perspectives of these people, I just wish after so many centuries, they'd finally recognize that perspective is all any of it is. Got nothing to do with truth, everything to do with falsifying, deluding, delaying the truth, because in truth, we prefer all kinds of illusions, and we need them to live.

            You will also notice: to whatever degree a philosophy claims truth, it also claims the right to tyrannize. In political theoretics, this is seen most starkly. Some systems try to hide it to varying degrees; communism claims universal brotherhood while being rooted in despotic centralization, democracy claims diffused power while being subject to oligarchial control; but some admit of it very honestly, like fascism, absolute dictatorships, these systems tell their audience outright that the purpose is tyrannical control.
            In more "academic" philosophy, the same apportioning of degree is found. The continentals dispense with claiming truth altogether, which unshackles them from the Game; they are free to say simply, "this is my perspective, perhaps it could be of some resonant value." I like their spirit. The more you delve into analytics, especially once you get into philosophies of science, the more all-encompassing systems of tyranny you see. For the entirety of the 20th century, materialist logic claimed a relationship with "truth" so deep, that it laid siege upon every other form of perspective with absolutely barbaric gall, and it actually won for a long time -- it even killed God. And that's to say nothing of pure Mathematics; those who play with numbers are making some of the strongest claims possible to truth. And now we live in a world that is, quite literally, being enslaved by a tyranny of numbers-- digitization.
            The more it claims to know the truth, the more you can be rest assured that it knows absolutely nothing about it; and that it's coming after (you).

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Is philosophy about speaking the truth? In all my years reading it, I've found only two kinds of philosophizing: a person saying what they want to be true, whether admittedly, or, attributing it to some kind of 'innate law;' or, someone trying to lay out what they see descriptive, but failing, as this is impossible.
          I'm not saying it has no value, but is its value "truth?" That, I am not so sure of.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Descriptively*

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Well historically it has been about seeking an Absolute Truth. I don't think so anymore, but I'd still think it is about seeking "relative" truths, or trying to find meaningful and productive ways to interpret our existence. I feel like that's the sort of Nietzschean ideal of philosophy now (someone said it before him surely but anyway): that truth was a fiction that never existed in the first place and now we should base our philosophy on what is most beneficial to humanity or individuals.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Well, this is what I've come to, for whatever it is worth: true "truth," rests in ideas like Taoism, nihilism, sufiism, all types of mysticisms, those are the proper realm of proper "truth." They all admit of the Absolute you speak about, and they all draw the same conclusion: the Absolute is perfect, unadulterated, pure "nothing." I do not mean empty space, but a lack of space, infinity itself, and thus, nothing at all. The purest idea of "God" is a Void that contains everything within itself, a nonpoint at which all points intersect. So to me, whenever a philosopher speaks about truth, and goes beyond this description in any way, he or she has already entered the land of idiocy.
            But idiocy is not valueless; Nietzsche had it right when he asked what the value of truth is, because he was already wise enough to recognize that the truth is a void. What philosophers do, often like idiots, is put out new models and ideas with which to live by, to multiply the different "kinds" of life that can be expressed according to human freewill. None of that is an issue and I quite enjoy reading the perspectives of these people, I just wish after so many centuries, they'd finally recognize that perspective is all any of it is. Got nothing to do with truth, everything to do with falsifying, deluding, delaying the truth, because in truth, we prefer all kinds of illusions, and we need them to live.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Could you elaborate on the Taoism reference? They have their own ideas of right and wrong, good and evil, how one ought to act (i.e. in accordance with the Tao). It seems kind of contradictory to relativism... I'm not sure if you could say that the Tao is "nothing" because Laozi and Zhuangzi always seemed hesitant to make truth claims about the Tao. I'm not really an expert on either book though.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Well, your observation is sort of astute. Nothing is my stand-in for what "it" is, they used the word Tao; but the very first words of the Tao Te Ching are, if it is the Tao that can be spoken, it is not the true Tao; the Tao which can be named is not the true Tao.
            So even to say "nothing" is too much. But think about the world as a content of ideas. No picture no ideas. Or rather, all ideas represented at once and thus cumulatively representing no one idea, as an atomism. Again, it's literally impossible to put it into words by definition, but these are as close as one can get. Mystics used chanting and symbols for a reason. To grab at the truth is to reach for the ineffable, unspeakable, and mostly, the unknowable.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Now picture no ideas*

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Plotinus, is that you?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah that's me. Whaddup biatch

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Is that why she has makeup and filters and posed just right?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        There is no hope for the future and also no hope for the future of intellectual discourse (to be specific) when TikTok/social media plays a part.

        What happens here is the reduction of life's greatest pleasure - literature and/or the pursuit of "knowledge" (note the quotation marks ...) - into a marketable commodity that can be "liked" and "shared" as a way of signaling intellectualism / culture sophistication (i.e. BookTok and turning the "love" of reading into a marketable identity that can be leveraged to form brand partnerships and sell books).

        What actual discourse is actually going on here?

        is correct; philosophy...literature...r0SSI@n literature. It's just another shade of handbag to these ladies. Generally speaking, I do not trust ANYBODY who posts selfies of their ass on social media). We are so fricked

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You should read the comments on her reel
          I may be an unloveable -oomer but I at least dont pretend to understand Nietzsche only to shit on his legacy by comparing them to ... Diss tracks??

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Dying to bekijk the 4 more antwoorden

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            only for you my love

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            jesus fricking christ that stupid julien b***h

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Nietzsche is a nihilist
            so misleading. I mean technically Camus and Nietzsche are both nihilists but nihilists that say we need to create meaning... please stop posting this shit because you are raising my cortisol levels

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >mihi reeeeeing because he’s getting called out left and right
            >probably jacking it to julien and got embarrassed
            The internet really just shouldn’t have been given to that part of the world, I’ve never seen it go well.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I am not too worried about Nietzsche's legacy. After all, I am posting about nietzsche on social media as well. In fact, it's the ubermensch's job to post, and post as often as possible, to devote all energy to posting. A 100% flow of pure movement. High speed data connection.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Digitization

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            They are both wrong? Camus seemed to carry on and built upon Nietzsche's ideas... neither rivals nor unrelated...

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Camus was a homosexual who challenged no ideas. He's a glorified novelist.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            He challenged your entire conception of philosophy. It's why you fail to even realize you have been challenged.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The actual dis track is Schopenhauer on Hegel

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Thanks for sharing. I don't understand Nietzche or philosophy very well either, but I'm sure Nietzche is rolling over in his grave right now -

            I don't know the scholary name of this phenomenon (lmao) but I'm going to call it the "School of Life-arization" of Philosophy, where people try to "philosophize" aspects of pop culture that are utterly devoid of meaning (or a symptom of societal decay)

            For example, someone writing their dissertation on Cardi B/Nicki Minaj and Phenomenology or why there are books such as "Twilight and Philosophy" or "Attach on Titan and Ethics" or smthg like that without a single degree of awareness of the ephemerality of such a topic.

            I suppose it has to do with the flattening of the world/culture (not in some "The World is Flat due to globalization" kind of way), but rather (this is pure conjecture) perhaps due to some people's inability to distinguish between the profound and the insipid - not that I'm a New Yorker reading elite scumbag who wipes my ass with copies of the New York Review of Times or anything - which results in (excuse my French) fricking morons brining Kendrick and Drake into a conversation about 2 famous 19th/20th century philosophers.

            My brain is fried - I don't really believe in literature or its beauty or transcendent power. But it's a nice illusion for me to have. Without it, life would be ever the more dreary.

            https://i.imgur.com/yhGpsfZ.png

            only for you my love

            Smiths reference?

            Camus was a homosexual who challenged no ideas. He's a glorified novelist.

            He also cheated on his wife. Boo (yeah I'm a moralist)

            >I do not trust ANYBODY who posts selfies of their ass on social media
            I always feel like a pariah for having this opinion, yet it seems so obviously sensible and yet so contrary to mainstream values.

            There could be exceptions, of course, but it just makes me think they have an underdeveloped intellect/personality (not that anybody ever really seems that smart now, but I mean relatively speaking)

            To me, it signals promiscuity (sorry for stating the obvious), narcissism, etc. I think a potential reason why you feel like a pariah for having such values is due to mainstream media SHOVING in our faces constant messages of sex positivity, self-expression, hyper-individualism (not saying we should live in a hyper-comformist society tho), but IF promiscious girls really believed that endless seggs could set them free, then why is it that they feel emotionally connected to their hookup partners after the one-night stand? Why is it that once they turn 30 and the biological clock starts ticking in full motion, they start craving children, domestic chores, etc. Idk.
            Btw I apply the same logic towards guys. Its not a gender-specific thing.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's simply the democratizing, the leveling, the egalitarian principle led to its natural conclusion: there is no high and low culture, no sacred and profane, everything is equal. Metaphysics and rap music are equally valid topics of study with equal amounts of depth. Hence, the phenomenon you describe, "poptimism" in popular music, the demonization of anything requiring above a sixth grade reading level as "pretentious" or "elitist", and so on.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >I do not trust ANYBODY who posts selfies of their ass on social media
          I always feel like a pariah for having this opinion, yet it seems so obviously sensible and yet so contrary to mainstream values.

          There could be exceptions, of course, but it just makes me think they have an underdeveloped intellect/personality (not that anybody ever really seems that smart now, but I mean relatively speaking)

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >muh commoditization
          wait til this guy finds out what the Books Received pages at the back of every academic journal is all about

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Only thing she is interested in is making caramel babies

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Women take hardcore anabolic hormones and compete in gay weighlifting no one watches just to get closer to men who they respect or desire in some way.
      At any given time every unmarried and chidless woman is explicitly, or implicitly (but obviously) trying her hard to all but get physically in the way of a group of men who are busy doing something else and not thinking about her at all.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    God I want to stuur a cadeau to her so bad bros

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The only women who understand philosophy are autists with overly masculine minds, which is why they do so much of that gender war shit.
    The only exception I've come across is Elizabeth of Bohemia.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Elizabeth of Bohemia is an interesting choice. Do you study philosophy academically anon?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yes. She came up in my classes on Descartes.
        Imo she's right in her criticisms, but I find all of early modern philosophy unbearably shit.

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    90% of the dudes here have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to philosophy and especially Nietzsche

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Nah. They do. Unless it’s people trying to refute him. They’re too lost in the cope to actually say anything decent of which there is plenty to say.

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    stupid fricking prostitute

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I immediately disregard the opinion of anyone who uses the word "pretentious"

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        that seems a little pretentious

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The homosexuals who keep calling her a prostitute are definitely sexless incels who are whipping out their wieners and stroking them to this woman

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I've had sex and she looks boring. She's a prostitute.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Women really like to post about how much they read instead of just reading

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Which is totally different from what you (we) are doing here on IQfy right anon? Right?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Well if you're not actually reading then yeah, it's pretty much the same as her.

          The girls that don't read post about it on their socials to get attention. The boys that don't read post here which is the equivalent of jerking off in front of a mirror.

          It's pretty easy to discern who actually reads here on lit and when it shows those threads are usually gold

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Makes me want to do things

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >prostitute
    >horse girl
    >"best selling author"
    >le dark academia xDDD
    dumb bawd

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    this girl has never faced a single hardship in her life

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yes, let's begin harrassing this woman who dared to (gasp!) read a book, fellow IQfycels

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Why is it such a huge accomplishment when a woman reads a book?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Thats a good thing when it comes to woman. You guys are so insecure

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Ideally you want a woman who has struggled in good ways. One who has survived economic hardship, knows of frugality, humility, work and virtue. (Yes I am aware some women come out of poverty and become super materialistic and egotistical but that's not who I'm talking about here). Obviously the ones who have been raped and beaten and heartbroken are going to be bad.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        prostitutes love to claim they suffer when in fact they live a comfy life thanks to all their orbiters

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      No one who “realizes” they had a bad childhood had a bad childhood. Unless you needed a way to post about it on the internet for sympathy points without just posting “I had a bad childhood. Gimme sympathy.”

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I can help her with that

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Just jacked off to that specific video. Had the best cum of my life. Thank God!

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        This website gets the bad representation it does because of homosexuals like you! Kys immediately!

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This is a weird question. Anyone who reads philosophy and takes the time to educate themselves about it is capable of understanding it (to the extent that anyone can truly claim to understand philosophy). Estrogen does not inhibit this process.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Estrogen is the moronation prostitutemoan
      Prenatal estrogen leads to autism/systemic thinking. estrogen leads to empathic thinking. That means sucking the dick of people that read Nietzsche and then copying their sentiments.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Citation needed

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Your prostitute mother's used up butthole is my citation

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I think the reason I am autistic is actually because I was hypervirile in the womb. Autism actually the most extreme form of masculinity; this is scientifically backed.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >autism/systemic thinking.
        Don't the most influential philosophers fit this bill? Trans identity isn't valid at all but this is just a bad argument

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        completely true
        modern estrogen levels are creating hyper-femininity, aka BPD, NPD, histrionic bullshit women
        BUT these personality disorders have bad connotations so the powers that be have decided to rebrand prenatal hyper-estrogenization as “autism” and as a part of the “autistic spectrum”.
        narcissism is the inability to not take things personally. BPD is just another side of the Narcissistic coin, conflating other’s perception of you with your self concept.

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    women are evil mutants

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    https://www.amazon.com/I-Fell-Love-Hope-Novel/dp/1668034530
    here's her book, have fun

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Oh God oh Frick

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    it's already over for u homies

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That's incel thought process. Any b***h showing off like this is gonna pivot to another wiener sooner than later.
      Look at her frickin face is that the expression of a woman who's satisfied and wants to stay in one place? Cause to me it looks unsure and waiting for feedback to decide what to do next.

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    based schope still mogging prostitutes 250 years later

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      DR
      You're trying too hard

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        im not a doctor

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I have only read Beyond Good and Evil and Gay Science, but doesn't Thus Spoke Zarathustra not actually mention any other philosophers? It's a fictional allegory right? Doesn't almost every post-Plato philosophy comment on other philosophers? And she chose the one book that probably doesn't even mention other philosophers?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah, that's true and sort of a giveaway. Zarathustra doesn't mention any other philosophers, IIRC. It also sucks btw. Nietzsche was a poor fiction writer. It's a clumsy book.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        TSZ is structured musically in the original German and it's intended to imitate the Bible. It's also very easy to read and is ton of beautiful prose.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It's pretty bad. Idk about the original German, I can't read German. It's got a few nice spots but it was pretty corny imo. I prefer his aphoristic books. I don't think he succeeded in imitating the Bible and I think "a ton of beautiful prose" is an overstatement, but that's merely my opinion. It doesn't mean anything.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I agree. I like most of his work but Zarathustra was kind of boring and way to "I know I am the best artist ever" for me

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I agree. I like most of his work but Zarathustra was kind of boring and way to "I know I am the best artist ever" for me

            Filtered, in a fundamental way

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >filtered from zarathustra
            what's there to be filtered about? the fricking hack plagiarized max stirner and slapped a "and creates new values to impose on others" on top of it and called it his own, he hid this by using some poetic waxing and waning bullshit writing style that confused the hell out of a lot of people but when you finally peel the sticker off you find out "made by max stirner" logo at the bottom and all the pieces click
            nietzsche was a fricking moron who was only good at hiding that fact in social circles by shaming people who tried to ask him to clarify what the frick he was smoking and why the hell would anyone write like that, he was even accused of plagiarizing stirner and he just refused to comment
            read max stirner - the ego and its properties/ its own and tell me you don't see it

            there is no "filtering" from nietzsche, there is just the intentional confusion on what the frick the dude was on about because of the way he wrote it, the theme isn't that hard to grasp if your intention is to teach that to people (just look at how eloquently stirner did it), if you know what to look for your mind will be blown at what a shameless hack nietzsche was

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Is Stirner the only philosopher who got btfo'd by both Nietzsche and Marx? Rare israelitexaryan win

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >a hack who copied his work and a communist who had a sissyfit because stirner pulled the veil on his attempt to make a new oligarchy with even more power than the tzar
            >btfo
            i bet you admire edison as well

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      She's "reading" the first few pages of Zarathustra in that reel, literally the fricking overview and foreword. Women need to shut the frick up

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Doesn't almost every post-Plato philosophy comment on other philosophers?

      Why do you say "post-Plato" as if Plato wasn't commenting on the pre-Socratics?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Mostly because I've read like 6 or so dialogues and I don't think they explicitly reference other philosophers. I'm sure he is building off of the knowledge of the pre-Socratics and the questions they asked, but in the context of the woman in OP's pic's caption it would just be wrong because he never references others (or at least not often)

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >I don't think they explicitly reference other philosophers

          One of Plato's dialogues is titled "Parmenides".

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Pre-socratics are mentioned constantly in Plato's dialogues, with quite a few of them named after the philosopher Socrates or anybody else is dialoging with. Plato is absolutely comparing his ideas with those of the pre-Socratics in his work

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Women in general don't. But there are specific women that can understand it.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You are very silly.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Troon

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Even sillier.

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You will also notice: to whatever degree a philosophy claims truth, it also claims the right to tyrannize. In political theoretics, this is seen most starkly. Some systems try to hide it to varying degrees; communism claims universal brotherhood while being rooted in despotic centralization, democracy claims diffused power while being subject to oligarchial control; but some admit of it very honestly, like fascism, absolute dictatorships, these systems tell their audience outright that the purpose is tyrannical control.
    In more "academic" philosophy, the same apportioning of degree is found. The continentals dispense with claiming truth altogether, which unshackles them from the Game; they are free to say simply, "this is my perspective, perhaps it could be of some resonant value." I like their spirit. The more you delve into analytics, especially once you get into philosophies of science, the more all-encompassing systems of tyranny you see. For the entirety of the 20th century, materialist logic claimed a relationship with "truth" so deep, that it laid siege upon every other form of perspective with absolutely barbaric gall, and it actually won for a long time -- it even killed God. And that's to say nothing of pure Mathematics; those who play with numbers are making some of the strongest claims possible to truth. And now we live in a world that is, quite literally, being enslaved by a tyranny of numbers-- digitization.
    The more it claims to know the truth, the more you can be rest assured that it knows absolutely nothing about it; and that it's coming after (you).

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Doesn't the "tyranny of numbers" entirely depend on whether someone agrees that numbers and mathematics are inherent to reality or merely a means of interpreting reality?

      In all fairness, I would guess the average person would say they are inherent and move on with their lives. I don't know what the "intellectual" consensus is on that.

      I would agree though that materialist logic has been quite "tyrannic" in terms of ruining spirituality and notions of free will, though I'm curious if you have a refutation for it? I feel like most people would be unsatisfied with just hearing "Well materialist logic is just another interpretation of reality" when considering how seemingly objective it is in terms of predicting and modeling physical reality, though I guess that's your whole point of why it's so tyrannic

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I do not necessarily have a refutation. Quantum physics seems to be a sort of "refutation," although, it still relies heavily in numbers, in that it relies upon the validity of science. It's implications, though, reveal something strictly non-material and non-numerical in the way reality expresses itself and evolves. Consciousness is no longer a happy (or tragic) accident, and is once again included as legitimate in the toolkit of reality-making and reality-intepreting. It may even be primary. But it's not for me to say, humanity will push it along as it always does, and some will fight it as they always do, but I do see digitization as the peak of the materialist paradigm, and when paradigms end, they usually go out with quite a bang.
        Don't read me as hating the numerical paradigm or something. I am trying to see things as dispassionately as I can; some idea always tyrannizes in every era. But if I have to admit of a bias, it appears to me that humanity can no longer bear this tyrant, we have outgrown it and need a new one. That seems to be readily apparent, judging by the state of things and the current trajectory if things don't shift.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Also;
        >how seemingly objective it is in terms of predicting and modeling physical reality
        Does it predict and model it, or through the act of modeling it and predicting it, does it make it more "model-able" and predictable?
        If a man is tortured every day of his life and becomes weak, and less resistant toward his daily torture, is that man weak, is torture creating something more torturable? Systems of knowledge correlate to the systems of power they're bound up in, and when knowledge is used,nit creates its necessary exponents in terms of relations of power. Every axiom is a loaded gun that executes whatever it sees, it seeks to kill those it cannot compute, and to make more computable everything else, according to its linguistic programming. Like a Dell, but more lethal and unforgiving.

  19. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    In college I matched on Tinder with a cute girl studying philosophy, and the idea of discussing philosophy with her was very hot.

    Fast forward several years, I still remember her name and look her up. She got her PhD in philosophy with a concentration in veganism and feminist philosophy. Crisis averted

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You should knock her up and promise to be there for her and then when she legally can't abort anymore, disappear from her life completely.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I wish that was my girlfriend

  20. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >make a thread on a book
    >7 replies and the thread dies

    >make a thread with a twitter pic of a woman where she mentions reading
    >thread hits bump limit

    Some of you deserve this place

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      yeah but there was some good epistemology convo in here beyond woman bashing but anyway you're still right and I'm guilty

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >inflammatory topic receives lots of replies
      First day here?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You never get used to it.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Lowest common denominator conversation gets the most amount of participation
      Water is wet. Even assuming that the majority of IQfy actually reads, many people become incapable of having a meaningful conversation about a book even months after reading it. I would like it if mods moderated some of the lower quality threads but I'm not surprised that these threads based on more general ideas are more popular.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Those more general ideas are often not literary based. Posting e-girlta to talk about pedophilia doesn’t make it lit. Despite the snobbishness and intellectual holier than thou attitudes that fester here, self awareness is little, most of this board is mouth breathing tards who can’t recognize it

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah, I agree. But the mods are too stupid and too slow to delete something as simple and blatantly off-topic as the age old "(blogpost) any books for this feel?" in a timely manner. It's laughable how adding a single four letter word ("book") to the end of your post will turn your thread from off-topic to "on-topic" in the eyes of most jannies.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      new here?

  21. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Philosophy is the study of truth and is basically the opposite of a woman.

  22. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'm really happy I quit my unhealthy hobby of reading philosophy. It's like astrology or pseudoscience.

  23. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    How do I use my literary knowledge to talk to women?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      By having the following:
      physical looks, fashion sense, charisma, money, social status, interests (insert reading here), independence, assertiveness
      If you have these to a reasonable degree being a reader will make you look very attractive, but with that alone you will probably not get anywhere.

  24. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They have the capacity to understand it yes. It might be rare but its rare for men to understand it as well

  25. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Do women
    Let me stop you there. Women lack ontic status, and thus cannot have phenomenological appearances. Women *aren't*. Therefore women, not being, are a category error in relation to philosophy.

    There are no girls.

  26. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Down with all forms of social media including this wretched website!

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      place*

  27. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This thread has convinced me to kill myself. Thank you OP.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The thread should convince you of the opposite. I see that my life is worth more because of this thread.

  28. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    i want her to rim my brown butthole

  29. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Nope

  30. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    "Philosophy" for people like her and this board is just an excuse for you guys to act like stupid fricking douchebags that think reading some homeless guys rambling from thousands of years ago makes you better than anyone else. All it does is make you an obnoxious homosexual because all philosophy does is explain shit everybody already knows and can see for them-fricking-selves in an overly prose and moronic way.

  31. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Incel thread
    go back

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >dork as dweebs
      what an embarassing attempt at an insult, Black person

  32. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I've met some smart girls who actually read with purpose but this chick gives me the impression of a larper who wants to be acknowledged more than anything

  33. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    A woman reading philosophy is like a dog standing on its hind legs: if you see it, you should kick them down the stairs for violating the natural order

  34. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    So you judge a young woman based on a single picture and you call yourselves philosophers?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >he doesn't know that the picture itself isn't the data, but rather contains many useful points of data, making a valid inductive inference perfectly possible

  35. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Actual philosopher here.
    Yes, women can understand philosophy and those women are called “good mothers and housewives”

  36. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Nietzsche
    >philosophy
    Choose only one, lmao.

  37. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They make better (christian) mystics than philosophers.

  38. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    here's the basic built in philosophy of women dumbed down as their goals
    >feel good all the time
    achieve the state of feeling good, ataraxia kind of searched for the same end goal so we will give them a pass
    >find a mate
    be it a dyke or a hunk they want to find a mate, to a woman this is a vital part of life, to not have a mate is a disaster, they cannot and i cannot stress this enough CANNOT function without distress if they're single for too long, this will erode all of their self confidence, give them mental illness and may even lead to suicide, they MUST have a mate or their self worth and entire world view collapses
    >get things
    they must have things, stupid things, knick knacks, collectibles, house hold items, cars, shoes, clothes, make up, scented shampoos, more knick knacks, gifts, dolls, ugly art, anything and everything, woman needs small pillows, colorful crap and all in between, they must have bunch of crap to make their home "unique" while ironically becoming the same kind of clusterfrick of trinkets that would put a crow to shame, women are mega consumers of all crap and they must have it
    >delicious food
    no matter what their personal preference for delicious food, snacks etc is they must have it, the only reason they would ever hold back is to be in good enough shape to upgrade their mate to a 2.0 version who is more self confident, good looking, wealthier, buff or whatever she's looking to upgrade, if she does not absolutely have to she will bloat into a abomination on the couch and grunt orders to have her gullet filled with whatever shit she craves
    apart from that all she needs is a bunch of other fat hens to show her things to and to gorge herself with, to compare their mates with and to be obnoxious loud chickens with, friendship between straight women does not exist they only gather together to give each other underhanded compliments and to compare what they have going on in their lives

    if a woman would deviate from this mindset she would have had to live in some near death experience inducing environment, been high on mind altering drugs enough or be a dyke, even autism doesn't save them from this default mindset

  39. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >some christian theologian platonist homosexual
    no wonder i never read him

  40. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >thread about women on IQfy
    >guaranteed 200+ replies
    every time

  41. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Women lack pneuma.

  42. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No because none of them have the psychological capacity for the amount of internal anguish and torment that men do.

  43. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >IQfy - Literature

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *