Has anyone considered the reason a lot of women aren't into philosophy/ classic literature like men are is because they are instantly able to conceptualize the aesthetic/kitsche value of something and see that that's really all it has.
Has anyone considered the reason a lot of women aren't into philosophy/ classic literature like men are is because they are instantly able to con...
women are nowadays wholly unaware what makes things beautiful. they only live in moments of time, that are wholly insignificant to a general appreciation of something that is timeless.
I think women today have a very keen sense of "true" beauty in the sense that they are judged on their beauty and quickly have to learn the difference between what people say and what people really mean. They then can quickly see that someone is for example not a Nietzschean, it's someone who just likes the associations of toughness and times gone by intellectualism.
Momentary, not eternal though
>learn the difference between what people say and what people really mean
Correct and then some. Women communicate mostly by subtext.
The words could be anything but it's the pitch and emphasis that conveys all the meaning and emotions. I've done funny greentexts about it.
As far as women go in general the inttelligence distribution says it all. Women are more clustered around the median. So you see less female murderers and also less celebrated female geniuses. Part of being a woman is having a decent awareness of life in general. Men can just kill bugs for a living or whatever but women have to know how babies work. Rarely a woman is bright and can build off of her grounded sense of knowledge to really surprise people. But intelligence isn't valued in this culture, in fact it's pretty much shunned to discuss someone's intelligence publicly. Everyone has to pretend all the knives in the drawer of equal sharpness, and I guess it works since most simpletons are at least vaguely intelligent about something, like killing bugs for instance.
In fact there's something of a defense of women. Most all of their interests (clothing, food, appearance, entertainment, travel) seem banal but likely stem from their general sense of what is important in life: health, safety, presenting yourself well to your community.
When you're born with the instinct to just gloss over technicalities and take away only a general sentiment, and this works phenomenally your whole life, why switch gears completely? Why study the intricate mysteries of the universe? Even most of the men you see blindly clutch at concepts out of reach simply because of insecurities.
women have terrible aesthetic sense beyond the decorative or ornate
That's the whole point, who outside of academics is engaging with this work beyond the aesthetic surface level? For the majority of people it's just something ancient and mysterious to pad out their personality resume
Normies, which is most people, are moronic and only engage stuff superficially. What else is new? Seems to me you're projecting that onto everyone because you're like that.
Spoken like a true hylic
the irony
Haven't you read something that's added meaning to your pitiful life?
yeah i read a bunch of gnostic literature and i have a new way to call people plebs now
Lost has many names today
Women literally cannot think in pure concepts. It's hard for a man to even imagine what this means but they ONLY think in particulars and sense-blobs and feeling-blobs, usually all swirled together. They have no fricking idea what "noesis" means, either phenomenological or Platonic. Teaching a woman noesis is like teaching a cat calculus, it makes no sense. Women have henids, not concepts, like Weininger said.
homie YOU can only think of blobs. Wittgenstein proved this.
Yes.
Except there are women mathematicians, physicists, philosophers etc
Even if they are not at the highest level saying that they are incapable is pure incel cope
Yea, they are capable of regurgitating the concepts of superior men and not of coming up with their own. There is literally only one great female mathematician and one great female scientist, and all this is in the last century before women became 'emancipated'. Why is this capacity not been replicated since?
We are talking about thinking in terms of pure abstract concepts, not creating. And even when talking about creating you are still wrong
Of course I am, can you name any original female thinkers at par with kant. Name five, no sociologists or feminists or novelists, pure philosophy. Prove me wrong. This is not the first time i am having this debate. We had it on sci and it ended the same way. With morons naming novelists like rand and feminists like de beauvoir.
lmao makes even more sense on IQfy
>yeah I'm into math
>oh that's cool
>yeah I'm like really smart
>what kind of math are you into?
>oh while sometimes I share statistics about race or pick which quantum mechanics interpretation is the best one
Can you name any or are you going to keep telling me i am wrong moron? Are you going to name your mother and other female muses who you jerk off to, or are you just a frustrated femoid who thinks her feelings matter more than logic?
No I can't name a female thinker as central to history as kant but I can't name a thinker today as central to history as kant, threads about philosphy today are barren on IQfy because it's a bigger phenemenon. You fail to see that that's due to the reduced respect the world has for philosophy and metaphysics, the questions are now considered almost a cute historical relic beside real science. They have been reduced to aesthetic objects which are almost entirely either studied in university or adopted as personality objects by men going through crisis'. And the point is that women due to the way they are forced to adopt aesthetic objects in society to create an outward personality will see right through that most of the time, they will see babies first attempt at self actualization.
Beyond that there are plenty of female scientists and mathematicans, I have some of their textbooks and I'm sure they are smarter than either of us. They release research and work on advanced topics everyday. There are female writers and musicians. I don't think their needs to be a female kant for most women to be able to see that people like you just pick up kant as a gate keeping object, a fashion statement.
So there it is. Women are superior to men. The world today is depressing, therefore none exist. But women remain superior to men in their understanding of aesthetics. The same women who are fighting for equality and can't understand the opportunity vs outcome debate. The same women who don't understand responsibility or accountability. The same women who enjoy the most amount of freedom in the history of the world through no effort of their own. They understand aesthetics better than men, but none exist who can elaborate or replicate this knowledge. The mind of a woman people.
>Women are superior to men
women get an advantage in one area and now they are superior to men in your eyes. women have a good eye for aesthetics in regards to how people try to present themselves as different personas with different accessories and behaviors, I think in general this means they can see that some subjects are largely devoid of content in the way they are used and discussed today.
take ontology for example, men will go through hardship and read about the foundation of existence because they want to give off that persona of a transcedental man above and beyond everything else. but on a whole as a society we know there are no answers about the fundamental nature of being in ontology textbooks, no one sane is actually thinking they will find fundemental notions about life in metaphysics anymore. so we are either left with the appreciation of the subject on its own terms which is rare and specialized or the much more common situation of someone adopting philosphy as a cultural object to signify to others. does this mean I think all women can do this? no but I think in general they are much more sensitive to this and act accordingly.
and then after that you write a bunch of strawman shit like women don't produce art, go through hardship, have to seek employment and deal with the malaise life the same as anyone. which just isn't really true
By your moronic argument. A dog is superior to a human because it doesn't contemplate philosophy. Do you actually read what you wrote? If women are superior to men, why are they fighting for freedom? Why do they not understand men if they see everything so clearly? Why is there any struggle. Men had to grant rights to women, otherwise their struggle to vote would have amounted to nothing. We always have to grant them something as if they have no agency to take it for themselves. I am waiting for you to give me proof of this demonstration of understanding aesthetics and all you do is giving me moronic strawmen about not being smart enough to do philosophy but worded in a way that makes women seem uninterested, yet they continue increasing their enrolment into universities. Where is the female da vinci or michelangelo whose work defined centuries of thought? Do they exist in your head? Where are these aesthetics you keep talking about?
a dog doesn't engage in philosophy because it can't, you act like women today don't write philosphy and do commentaries, they do. but I'm saying on average a young woman isn't going to just pick up kant like a young man is because she sees it's just an aesthetic object to him, a way to distinguish himsel.
and then your argument is men had to give women rights? yes, because men can kill and subjugate women , society had to develop to a point of understanding and commonality where women could even start to be allowed to participate and judged on the merits of their ideas instead of just being physically forced to do whatever men want. that's exactly why it's not right to say "where's the female da vinci" when women were not allowed to participate or compete on that level in the educational or technological development of that time.
now that they can plenty do, some on a very high level beyond what any of us here can do. you ask why they're fighting for freedom and then you say "we can just take away their rights if we want". and as time has gone on the gap has only lessened. what example of aesthetics do you want? There are accomplished women in every type of art today, and that's not even the aesthetics I'm taking about since I'm taking about a more socially connected sense of aesthetics used in social situations.
meant for
I am asking why there is any struggle if they understand so much more than men. A man does not struggle to understand his child as he does his fellow adult. And your argument about average is moronic. If women are superior, there should be more female kants lmao, than men and especially so in this era where they have so much freedom. Of course they are accomplished, who have they influenced, what is original about their accomplishments? How are they different from their male counterparts. You seem not able not able to understand what i mean by original and this debate is not going anywhere. How is jk rowling an accomplished fantasy author different from tolkien, what is original about her work, etc You can't extrapolate your female aesthetics and call them original when they are not original.
And an autistic female should be able to read kant like a young man can, so that's not really an argument. Noether was reportedly very masculine in her traits, she didn't take care of herself like women are supposed to, so this aspect of how women differ from men when studying is moronic.
you're actually so fricking gay if you wouldn't
Read about her and how she had unkempt hair and didn't care about it as much as other women should. There only seems to be a handful of these kinds of women every couple of a hundred years, but to this femoid i am arguing with, women have superior understanding of aesthetics never mind that the best fashion is made by gay men today.
>anything people do is to show off
This is your brains on womanthink and social media
Just because you aren't aware of why you're doing something doesn't mean that's not why you're doing it. That's the whole point, that women tend to see through the delusion a lot of men get about these things.
Unless you're a once-in-a-generation genius or actively working with a research team or something (and even then part of you will crave the aesthetic), there is no reason for you to be studying philosophy, realistically, other than as a cute add-on to how you want to be percieved - either directly or as a result of how learning from these books "transforms" you.
You require introspection.
>enlightened seeker of truth goes for a goes for a moronic quip that might make him superficially seem like he knows what he's talking about, instead of actually responding,
wow you sure are proving that you're into this stuff for more than aesthetics!
ironic
Yup all it represents for him is the possibility of telling some normie they are misguided without ever having to explain or elaborate on anything
>Just because you aren't aware of why you're doing something doesn't mean that's not why you're doing it.
Stop randomly assuming things about each and every single one of the 8 billion people on earth and presenting it's fact.
>there is no reason for you to be studying philosophy
I do agree with you and think you're right on this in the sense that women absolutely do not give the slightest shit about things that don't bring them some material wealth or another, and I will further go on to say that this is the main reason for their overwhelming lack of contribution in philosophy, mathematics, architecture, religion etc etc.
However, I want to say that the claim that only one in a million men can read something for the sake of knowing it, and that all the rest are just doing it to show off, is completely and utterly moronic. Can't see it as anything else than a half-assed attempt, intentional or otherwise, to smear dirt on them and the activity of studying. Certainly there are a lot of men in our times who read solely to show off to women, but there's no way in hell that somebody like that would go on and read Plato, Aristotle, Caesar etc and dive ballsdeep into the western canon like the autists here do, at most they'd read one book and or memorize two lines of ancient poetry or something, if even that. And then you have the autists who go out of their way to learn German, French, Italian, Ancient Greek, Latin, etc all just to read them in their original languages. They do that fully aware that there's not a woman in existence who'll ever think them cool or smart for knowing those things, but they do it anyway. Several dozen people like that in /clg/ alone.
I also think that even if someone were to read the classics for the sole purpose of showing off, if he were to read a decent amount then at some point he would start liking them and begin to read, not to show off but because he truly enjoys it.
>Of course I am, can you name any original female thinkers at par with kant.
If you look back I specifically said not at the highest level. Otherwise 99.99999999999999% of men on this earth cannot think with pure concepts and thus the gender distinction is useless. Both genders can think in terms of abstract pure concepts if they have high enough iq
you used a probability to describe something that you don't have even the slightest data for. you lose the argument by default. also dont bother (You)ing me because I'm NTA and i'm closing the thread. kys
That’s a good thing, moron
If you are trying out pickup lines here I do not think you are going to get the results you want.
If they were able to instantly recognize aesthetic as you say, then wouldn't they be able to replicate or explain it? What they do instead is blame men and give excuses for their failures in a never-ending self victimization cycle. Most of them can't even understand or empathise with how men suffer. Men, to them are tools to make their lives easier. How is that aesthetic? You are contradicting yourself here by putting them on a pedestal, you need some serious dose of reality on how intellectually shallow women are .
>because they are instantly able to conceptualize the aesthetic/kitsche value of something and see that that's really all it has.
Close but not quite. Women are only interested in activities that require effort (such as reading classic lit) if others will think highly of them for doing so. "Aesthetic" is simply one manifestation of "how can I show I did this thing so that other people think highly of me for it"
Women similarly chose partners, friends and everyday plans accordingly. They don't consider something to be a worthwhile endeavour unless it has the potential to increase their social prestige and standing because their gender expresses worth completely through superficiality (and this isn't because of the patriarchy; women are the worst judges of other women's superficiality).
This board is proof that men are socialized completely differently. Men are capable of self-actualization through internal growth and cultivation which women lack. No woman is going to "read the Greeks" to improve their own personal understanding of philosophy and metaphysics; they will only read the Greeks if other women think they're cool and special for doing so and if men think they're cute for doing it as well.
>This board is proof that men are socialized completely differently. Men are capable of self-actualization through internal growth and cultivation which women lack. No woman is going to "read the Greeks" to improve their own personal understanding of philosophy and metaphysics;
This is insane cope, the people on this board if they read at all read the Greeks because it's a cool old thing to distinguish themselves from the normies by aka the aesthetic connotation. A woman can cut past all that bullshit, see that the content is arbitrary and all you're trying to do is look cool or cultured, because they are forced to utilize that skill in their daily appearances and outfits, they can see that this whole body of knowledge is nothing more than an accessory.
> everything is worthless
> women know the secrets of everything subconciously because they dress well
Ought to be a bait
>The litard is immunized against all dangers: one may call him an incel, unemployed, friendless, fat, it all runs off him like water off a raincoat. But call him a dilettante and you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: “I’ve been found o
lol
lmao even
I suspect this post is rooted in a sexual fetish.
I have had this experience before where someone says something absurd and then people get baited into attacking them, and the more they respond the more they make it clear that they are actually doing a form of ERP with the people they baited.
Just a warning to anyone who tries to debate with this guy, you will literally be giving him masturbation fodder and he doesn't actually care about your points beyond that.
this thread is moronic and hate everyone that gave a serious reply to it.
lol women are the only ones reading anything at all these days including classics. have you ever gone outside, genuine question?
Women are into those almost as much as men. It’s just women Aden not into IQfy