100% of the time women revere what I call the philosophers of delirium, that is, any philosopher who ultimately elevates the lawless, "Dionysian" principle in life above all else (examples: Nietzsche, Stirner, Deleuze, Emerson). The philosophers of delirium all essentially argue that one finds one's true self at the bacchanal and nowhere else, fleeing every familial, societal, and moral obligation on account of its allegedly oppressive, limiting, and demeaning nature; all in order to pursue undefinability itself, to dodge every label or categorization, the effect of which is to render themselves useless, not only to their fellow man and to every institution, but to God, and even themselves. Women revere only the villain: the man who aspires to be a law unto himself, bound by nothing, whose every action is sanctioned solely by the fact that it is he who acts. Yet for such a man there is no heaven, no kingdom, and therefore he is a wanderer with no name, whose only function is to oversee the saturnalian orgy, to lord over a frenzied and delirious mass as the King of Fools, until he is ultimately flayed and eaten alive by the crowd. Sad to say, women have done nothing but depreciate philosophy since they were afforded access to the lecture halls.
100% of the time women revere what I call the philosophers of delirium, that is...
Other urls found in this thread:
youtu.be
romantic-circles.org
twitter.com
weird post only read the first sentence or so but yeah I don't like women very mcuh myself.
someday i'll go up to that gay (bara) furry anarcho-syndicalist zion.
Great thoughts but I have nothing to add.
Based and redpilled, wonder the feminized he psychologies on here are so attracted to Deleuze
behold, the lost man. the man of the bacchanal.
Your right when it comes to Paglia but your wrong when it comes to Dworkin
Again, anyone who favors one side and projects violence onto the Other is playing they same game. That’s how they always find each other. The point is erase the Borders,
“To have her here in bed with me, breathing on me, her hair in my mouth—I count that something of a miracle.”
cuz the truth is we all inhabit the same space. That Stacy who sleeps with the villain is also in the love with the nerd, and the nerd has a few women after him, including chads girlfriend, who worried cuz she think chad is actually gay, whereas he is just having a midlife crises after reading some philosophy, his philosophy teacher also happens to be the villain, but he’s not really, neither is he a pedophile, he was just chaste for so long and couldn’t deny stacy’s Daddy issues, and so on... it’s not letter vs number, philosophy is setting the whole alphabet at play finding it curious that out of chaos comes order
what are you talkign about nothing sexual about hanging out with your furry dudes pumping iron in worker-managed enterprises etc.
>out of chaos comes order
only in myth
No matter what, life is predicated on limitation, and we are born upside down; intuition, the inability to clamber ones way back up through pure logic, is essential. There are at times actions which are absolutely informed by a possessive will, which is often not even and in extreme cases cannot be explicated externally, in any form, except the internal, through which it is known intuitively.
This is not based on a hedonism, or even a desire, so much as a necessity. It is chaotic to our reason, yet the basis of being. The Apollonian attitude, formed on a disciplined reason and art (rhetoric, any externalisation of the divine) is very useful to life and culture, yet not necessarily to the individual being.
You certainly never could convince me that consciously reasoning out a language of symbols forms the primary process for the noble spirit or the profane one.
This pure being, who is not withheld by laws external to him, and to the law of becoming, who is assured and composite at any one time, will always be the only one encompassing enough energy to light these matches we call men's minds. (this does not equate to any stultified state of being stuck in the mire; one just as easily becomes, yet only within the possibilities inhering to the discovered, predicated nature)
Deal with it. The 'artist' will dictate. Or to be more accurate "The wind that flows through me!"
Any artist who's ego, susceptible to ends and desires, not merely necessities of energies bequeathed is flawed. Yes, Hitler was flawed. He was a peasant acting the king. Still better than most. At least the energy he harnessed was legitimate, though it was decadent (as any power founded within the majority is)
So, you didn't bother to read The Birth of Tragedy, but you're still going to use Nietzsche's own terminology as a means to deprecate him?
Shut up bacchal idiot.
Look everyone, behold this imbecile!
Take a shower
Hit the gym
Get a clue
Nietzsche didn't elevate the Dionysian over the Apollonian. He argued that the tension between them is what produced "ancient tragedy." He directed his critical energies toward the Apollonian mentality because he thought that it dominated European culture at the time. To him it was a mixture of sham Apollonianism and "witches' brew," i.e., vulgar hedonism. Nietzsche initially (he later, according to himself, "grew past" Schopenhauer) describes the Dionysian mentality as that which grasps the ground of becoming, the Will-monad that cuts itself apart and reconstitutes itself in innumerable individual iterations.
But let's complain about women, and their baseness.
inter alia other attitudes which are mere platitudes.
Learn a language, reclaim your words, reclaim your mind, pleb.
to be fair I believe that yes indeed the boundaries between masculine and feminine have been degraded, and that as a result both have degraded; there are women who possess a male mind and spirit (Paglia is a good example)
Essentially we must reestablish the qualities and culture of both, the boundaries between them, without falling prey to thinking that the masculine can exist without the feminine. Divine Dialectics like masculine and feminine (Apollonian and Dionysian) are a part of the incorrigible (yet not inscrutable) structure of becoming (life)
Just as if you remove death, life loses its capacity for becoming, if you remove imperfection, limitation (temptation, desire, suffering, woman) then you no longer have any life at all.
Yet the role of woman is not merely to be overcome, ironically, too tight a stranglehold on a desire for control over imperfection, and the material world is contra naturam too. Here the divine feminine comes in handy. Unironically, 'have sex' has a bit of truth to it for some. Yet mere sex isn't enough to contact the divine feminine. It is actually a more or less small part of love.
HEY OP, you are a fucking retard!
Yeah there's nothing more masculine than fetishising authority and submission to God, state, and other violently enforced archaic superstitions.
I'm in philosophy grad school and I don't know any women philosophers like that. Only people I know who "revere" any of the names you listed are men. But it wouldn't surprise me if you don't have any exposure to anyone who actually reads philosophy, woman or otherwise, since your post doesn't even contain an argument.
Imagine paying for a formal philosophical education and walking away from the OP thinking "heh, I didn't even see an argument"
There's nothing more feminine than the belief authority is always coercive and detrimental to growth.
>Emerson
Dude doesn't belong on that list, moron
This.
Oh god you wrote that yourself.
Ouch.
Have sex, retard.
woman does not exist
doi
weird how you misinterpret nietzsche with his own idea... such an autist
An unfair reply. You mean to delegitimize my writing by implying that it is not even worthy of sincere criticism, but then take a cruel jab at it nonetheless. Your tone suggests that I am already disarmed and unable to harm, but you attack me nonetheless. You have unleashed what is called a cheap shot, and therefore are disqualified from the debate.
...
Buddy can you just construct a valid argument? I don't care if it's sound, just shew that you can construct a valid argument. MT, MP, MMP, I don't care, just do it
An unfair reply. You mean to delegitimize my writing by implying that it is not even worthy of sincere criticism, but then take a cruel jab at it nonetheless. Your tone suggests that I am already disarmed and unable to harm, but you attack me nonetheless. You have unleashed what is called a cheap shot, and therefore are disqualified from the debate, but then, you weren't interested in that in the first place.
not an argument
An unfair reply. You mean to delegitimize my writing by implying that it is not even worthy of sincere criticism, but then take a cruel jab at it nonetheless. Your tone suggests that I am already disarmed and unable to harm, but you attack me nonetheless. You have unleashed what is called a cheap shot, and therefore are disqualified from the debate, but then, you weren't interested in that in the first place.
no matter how many times you post it, it still won't be an argument, and neither will your OP :-)
The highest way of man is that of the Apollonian-Dionysian
be like the pugilist
Well women find that impossible to understand, so I guess it must be masculine
I am making a case for the judgment that your reply is unfair; that is my argument: your reply is illegitimate in the course of any polite and lawful debate. And what is your rebuttal?
Let me help you: you will say, I believe my reply was not, as you say, illegitimate because (here going on to state the impersonal rules without which a debate cannot be what it is) and so forth, and therefore, I challenge your argument.
But you have not done this, and continue to deal with me as though I am not, in fact, engaging in a discourse with you but having a mere rhapsodic back and forth with no formal underlay.
not an argument
If it is a fetish it is something of an indulgence, not based in truth but in mere taste, which is to say that you are accusing me of masochism, even with sexual undertones. I grant this possibility; but you seem to imply the possibility of a submission to God which is not fetishized, as it were, but perfectly legitimate? If this is so, how would it appear different from fetishized submission and how can I tell the different so as to judge where mine is or is not a fetish? Please help.
extremely based of women if true
That is because that you have already decided that it is not an argument whether or not it is objectively so. You do not even need to read my reply for this reason, because, of course, since it is not, nor will be, nor has it ever been an argument, as far as you are concerned. And, in your little world, you shall tell you otherwise? Yes, in your world, you may decide that I have no arguments and never will, so long as either of us live, because the only voice that you can hear is your own, and it says whatever you want it to say, and want to say whatever you want to believe and you wish to believe whatever you wish, and so out of your mouth comes mush, and whatever this mush is you call truth, and believe, simply because it is pleasing mush, has no sharp edges, an unassuming frame, and a unoffensive smell.
>whether or not it is objectively so
It objectively isn't, though--there's no way around it.
Letting daddy whip you because you honestly think you deserve it is far more pathetic than doing it for any sexual reason
> What is the entirety of human history
Name one (1) philosopher that fits this description.
Name two (2) female philosophers, or even serious regurgitators.
You're kidding right?
Hegel and his mites, according to Schelling. His retreat into the defineability abstraction was a retreat from the defineability of the body.
Weil, xenofeminists.
That doesn't even begin to make sense, bro
romantic-circles.org
>As Schelling argues in lectures that he delivered > in Stuttgart to explain his essay on freedom, philosophical idealism is at > root a 'war against all Being' (Stuttgart 232), a lightning raid which > reduces the body of the world to ashes. Such fury against what resists and exceeds conceptualization is for Schelling the paradigm of "evil" as a "positive" or angrily active presence in the world.
>wherever the ideal principle actually works its effects to a high degree [. . .] it generates a turbid, wild enthusiasm that irrupts in self-mutilation or—as with the priests of the Phrygian goddess [i.e. Cybele]—self-emasculation
Here's a brief recap:
> Agriculture invented, monopolized by warlords
> During times of peace, trade flourishes.
> The democracy of Athens emerges as a center for culture and knowledge.
> Rome copies Athens and defeats the more authoritarian barbarian tribes, but as it becomes less democratic and more militaristic and authoritarian, it falls apart
> A thousand years of warring feudal kings, technology is stagnant and restricted to monks
> The Renaissance begins in Italy due to... you guessed it... free trade.
> Humanists begin challenging the monarchy and church, leading to advancements in living conditions and science.
> Every nation since then with authoritarian ambitions, /no matter their ideology/, becomes a shithole.
Would you like to add your own examples of beneficial coercive structures? I hope they aren't puny in comparison to all of history.
>> The democracy of Athens emerges as a center for culture and knowledge.
Preposterous, they killed Socrates, the most cultured and wise man of antiquity
Nice strawman, I never said macro-level authority and you know it, just like you know you and your ilk are opposed to hierarchy and discipline on principle. If you can't separate a principle from its (contingent, temporal) abuses ya dun goofed, forever and ever
Yes and that is another example of authority being harmful. Athens was only relatively free, but that freedom allowed them to get rich off trade, and it allowed people like Socrates to exist in the first place. Socrates would be killed as an infant if he was born in Sparta.
Well, you managed to nitpick one of my long list of points. gg.
I already named four.
As for females: Martha Nussbaum, Emma Goldman; both Nietzschians and Stirnirites
When the abuses are literally the most predicable pattern throughout all of history, and you have yet to explain why you think coercion helps people, maybe a dogmatic stance against them makes more sense than meekly accepting and hoping it doesn't go bad THIS time.
Also "discipline"? Do you really need higher-ups wielding power over you to get you to discipline yourself? I'm not sure why you think your belief in God or love for your father requires universal strict adherence to a set of rules but you probably don't have a healthy relationship with either.
>p
My function is to satisfy myself, and myself only. I will not be "flayed and eaten alive by the crowd" and am not a "King of fools" for the King of fools is only those who superpose the morals that were not given to them as a priori but as a result of societal interacting of being collective, and to subject yourself to the collectives thought makes YOU a wanderer with no name a man whose only function is to be subjected by the authoritarian orgy that claims themselves as masters over us every-day. I can understand where you can come from but me, I, was placed here not for anybody else but my OWN will my OWN pleasures my OWN goals for what goals, whats pleasures what do you seek if its not your own? Your just as much an egoist as everybody else and to hide and serve behind a facade that has developed into a strict and even lawful rule is nothing but the unseeking of truth. This is this way because IT IS THIS WAY and to question it? You are a immoral, unpious and a burden to a society. Lets discuss op
I agree that people shouldn't need bosses or superiors to discipline them, but I think you're too quick to disqualify mentorship that is genuinely beneficial.
I can't speak at the tail end of 2000+ years of recorded history populated by subjectivities as rich and infinitely richer than mine, and say this or that. You never hear about the people who benefit from authority, or at least we hear about it only tangentially. We have Ammonius to thank for Plotinus, for example.
Im sure the feminine desire for something "more" contributed just as much to decadence of these systems as the system itself. You can't quantify these things. Hierarchy is hardcoded into the universe.
Is it fair to say that Nietzsche was "lawless"? That kinda feels like a simplification of his philosophy.
He was unorthodox to say the least.
op simplified all the philosophers hes listed, pretty much berating them all to his subjective simplified view
Why do you correlate mentorship with hierarchy? Do you think obligating people to respect a person, tradition, or deity is the same as them voluntarily doing it because they truly care?
> Hierarchy is hardcoded into the universe
Then why is it that it fluctuates wildly, and more hierarchical nations (USSR, Sparta, China, feudal kingdoms, etc.) tend to have drastically worse quality of life?
And maybe you don't hear about people benefitting from authority (besides your one example that doesn't even require servitude) because it doesn't happen. I'm not sure what you're insinuating, that there's a propaganda effort from anarchists in power to suppress knowledge of beneficial authorities?
You're reading too much into what I mean by authority. Critiquing power always has to be ontological imo. Or at least psychoanalytical if you're a pussy. Are hierarchies only valid locally? Sure. No doubt about that. Why do you think this is more an argument against hierarchies than it is governments?
You're doing that weird Orwellian thing Peterson does where he takes a well-established concept like hierarchy, which can be measured simply by /access to coercive force/, and gives it a new meaning that equates it with some fundamental part of the human condition. So now you can't be moral without believing in God, you can't be masculine without subjecting yourself to rigid obligations, and you can't exist in the universe without falling into some grand pattern of hierarchy and Dionysus vs Apollo. Very scientific and not at all making sweeping unprovable assumptions based on Bible verses.
Nice style and imagery, trite misogyny. I would recommend 200mcgs of LSD.
>So now you can't be moral without believing in God, you can't be masculine without subjecting yourself to rigid obligations, and you can't exist in the universe without falling into some grand pattern of hierarchy and Dionysus vs Apollo.
You really can't friendo, in some way or another. hope this helps
>that weird Orwellian thing Peterson does where he takes a well-established concept
HOW DOES IT FEEL YOU PROG FUCK
Most of this board loves those philosophers too. I guess they're all women then? Also, Emerson's alright.
>"Say also this, thou curious stranger: what must this people have suffered, that they might become thus beautiful! But now follow me to a tragic play, and sacrifice with me in the temple of both the deities!"
Women would be an improvement over the trannies we have here.
people ignore nietzsche's appolinian part of the process.
Leftism truly is a mind virus
this
>Nussbaum
>Nietzschean Stirnerite