Why do so many existentialists just make up unverifiable statements?
moronic shit like
>the average western male's ideal is a woman who freely submits to his domination. Who does not accept his ideas without some discussion but yields to his reasoning, who intelligently resists but yields in the end.
Why does Beauvoir think that western men in general want specifically their woman to "yield to his reasoning" as opposed hoping that every single person on the planet will "yield to his reasoning"? And not just men but women as well? Because surely, if you are reasoning for something you must implicitly want to be correct and for the other person to be wrong.
These people claim to "understand" humanity the best yet they seem incapable of empathy or critically examining their own perspectives.
They're like sophists who never actually analyse the shit they say. And whrn you ask them they just say "oh you know it's complicated" expecting you to keep giving their opinions the light of day.
Honestly speaking when it comes to the whole of philosophy I honestly believe that the people that became famous, the great philosophers of History, we're mostly just popular because they had at the time hot takes and spoke with a lot of words
>hot takes
It seems more like some common thing was on peoples brains and those people at the time either directed or redirected the common thing into something either actionable or inactionable.
I think these men are an impediment, myself. Since their form in history tends to constitute a massive erroneous conflation between the subject matter itself (and everyones thoughts on it) and their own opinion; as if, truly, some guy was the 'first person' who thought of it.
>absurdism
absurdism is fun comedy though.
Anny is a cutie
no opinions other than frick cammu
absurdism is absurd bullshit and it doesnt deserve any respect
>broken by the Albert Chad
Many such cases
consider that such statements are simply descriptive observations rather than moralistic endorsements of the thing being described - which does not even really follow logically in the first place but is observed as a common error in perception:
to point out that gary glitter is a pedophile, for instance, is not an endorsement but a statement of fact.
"gary glitter seeks young children to suck his balls," and you say, "god, why does (speaker) think that gary glitter in general seeks young children to suck his balls? as opposed to hoping that every other human on the planet should suck his (speakers) balls?"
I do not understand how this inference is reached as it is too daffy to risk regressing my own brain to attempt to relate.
>descriptive observations rather than moralistic endorsements
An average person today has a hard time distinguishing the two unless it's made abundantly and explicitly clear. An average moron can't think two steps ahead. Understanding the difference between observation and endorsement somehow counts as a step. Where someone intelligent could grasp this, it counts as a whole logical step for a moron. The remaining step they an average person could maybe tentatively take (only if pressed) can only connect something blatantly obvious.
OP here is of an average intelligence and can't comprehend a general observation being only that, and not an imperative - he likely saw the word "ideal" and made the wrong logical step. Any further reaches are thus beyond him.
I'm sure this existentialist in question was working towards a point that was actually worth discussing; but OP is a peer-reviewed homosexual: a Kanticle. As such, provisional assumptions and vague generalities need to be constructed meticulously instead of glossed over.
You'd have to be a moron if that's what you get out of this. Honestly, can't you guys read? I was questioning the very validity of this baseless statement, not seeing some morality in it, though I already know that Beauvoir was a silly commie.
>consider that such statements are simply descriptive observations
I'm well aware. I'm questioning their validity. But I understand that you people are incapable of relating to other people, hence the moronic statments where you pretend to know what really goes on in someone's mind.
Honestly, I'm surprised how you could so aggressively misinterpret what I said.
I cannot stress this enough for you guys. What single shred of evidence is there to back up Beauvoirs baseless statement that relies more on what her gut flora tells her than validity? I mean come on, she's pretending to be able to infer the *real* reason why "western men" want a wife as if she can see into their minds.
Errrr....if you're "well aware" of the difference then you've nullified your initial statement, as you already know your initial statement doesn't translate under the new perimeters I ... hahahaha lets be honest ... had to spell out for you.
>Honestly
there's nothing about this; it's a politician doubling down, you learned this behavior from the television.
> aggressive
> you people
Motivation: you just wanted to act superior to a dead guy with a brain who can't hit back.
>I was questioning the very validity
Well .. he's .. not .. saying what you think he's saying hahaha holy shit, even after saying you get it, you'prove' that you don't get it.
>I cannot stress this enough for you guys. What single shred of evidence is there to back up Beauvoirs baseless statement
s m h, my dude
Namegay having a meltie after exposing himself as illiterate. This one's going in the 'chives
lol
>(doubles down on obvious error)
>(accuses person laughing at him of having a "meltdown")
well shit little buddy, you're fresh off the assembly line of dumbfrick high USA lol you're too funny for me to beat up.
rofl
>the 'chives
aaaaaaa hahahahah
I think you don't know what you are talking about. You also haven't answered my question.
>he
Are you assuming I'm quoting Sartre because he's in the OP pic even though I explicitly mentioned Beauvoir or do you actually think Beauvoir was a man?
I mean that's not an enlightened take but it sure is understandable.
>the average western male's ideal is a woman who freely submits to his domination
Spend any time with a normal man that has a significant other.
>oh man she doesn't want me to help but then asks why i didn't help
>she wants me to be there but wants to be somewhere else
all shit like this
>Who does not accept his ideas without some discussion but yields to his reasoning, who intelligently resists but yields in the end
he probably questioned his male friends who said something like
>yeah maybe but i'm right you know
>it's unverifiable!
it's obvious
Those people really are just precursors to modern day social media influencers. The entire point is to say something aesthetically pleasing, if you ever have trouble understanding something someone like Beauvoir, Sartre, etc. have said just keep in mind that the target audience for their takes are easily impressionable philosophy students that they want to have sex with.
actually now that I think about it
>the 'chives
this sounds more like a very old malding man trying to speak like a teenager.
alright, you're getting your teeth smashed out
>the average western male's ideal is a woman who freely submits to his domination. Who does not accept his ideas without some discussion but yields to his reasoning, who intelligently resists but yields in the end.
How is any of the above "moronic" brainlet, she is describing traditional gender norms from her time. Do you think she is talking about 2023?
Not entirely related, but what an ugly frick. Ugly or weak people should largely be ignored. Books are cool and all, but they also create a place for ugly fricks to have a place in the world.
Moralgays should go back
I didn't say anything about morals. Not yet at least. He doesn't deserve that. I said he's ugly. There's no way a man that grew up looking like a cross eyed ghoul would ever have a healthy or informed take on life.
And beautiful people are apparently all saints and goody two shoes huh? Frick off you piece of shit normalhomosexual
because they're all fr*nch.
a while ago they tried to make it legal to frick children, and defend Sade, so nothing is too far-fetched.
French “intellectuals” come up with all sorts of pseudo-deep platitudes—that’s their job. People say anglos are the worst simply out of seething. I don’t think anyone can surpass the french in midwitted moronation.
based
It baffles me that there are people to take that shit seriously. Sartre, Derrida, Deleuze, it's all garbage. maybe you have to sort of picture the sort of people they were as well as their milieu for it to be obvious (also see
).
there is very little actual french philosophy (Blondel springs to mind)
>t. french
Because that’s how continental philosophy works. If you want verifiable statements, stick to analytic philosophy.
>analytic philosophy
>verifiable statement
lmao like what?
>lets assume A is real but you cant see it, so God is real because just because you cant see him doesnt mean he is not real
Here is your philosophy bro
There must be more to it than plain existentialism. Continentals are not all wannabe gurus.
>Who does not accept his ideas without some discussion but yields to his reasoning, who intelligently resists but yields in the end.
frick that's true. But I dont being disproven if I'm truly in the wrong.
I don’t all people on earth to yield to my reasoning because they aren’t yapping in my ear every day or withholding sex because I looked the waitress at Denny’s in the eye too much.
>you must want to be correct
It's rational that I will die but I will gladly argue until someone convinces me otherwise
literally apply this to labour instead of romance and see what you get: the average person's ideal job is one where their obligations freely submit to them
You're just saying
>people want to live life preferably without problems.
Not exactly helping Beauvoirs overall case or statement, which is a lot more detailed and presumptive, like wanting one's wife to resist but still yield in the end. It's feminist drivel
You posted the picture of a hack so I guess that's your answer.