Why would you spend any more time on social media if people are harassing you on it? Are people so obsessed with what others think of them? In the end the only thing that matters is what you think about yourself. Just another example that "social media" is actually making people more dumb and shallow and LESS social.

 

They're all addicted to "likes." It's like online heroin.

 

I thought it was obvious I was simply paraphrasing the author T.H.White.

Simplistic catch-alls on human nature make for great soundbites but are essentially meaningless. I am often struck by how 'normal' people exhibit both 'wisedom' and 'stupididy' near simultaneously, generally based on notional perceptions of risk or reward... indeed, if there is a general fault in human nature it's perhaps a myopic complicity, which in any event has much more practical usefulness for the mainenance of an destructive, exploitatative status-quo than anything else.

Now, where i am willing to to resort to reductive generalisation is for politicians (and other well-heeled, self-aggrandising 'wise' folk)... 99% of whom are toady cheerleaders/apologists for a perspective that automatically leads to a misanthropic and anti-social society. Imho, anyone who naively believes anything that comes from the mouths of these hypocritical sophists are deserving in being described as a 'sucker'. Regrettably, it's far higher than 9%...

 

Last edited: Feb 19, 2020

A response to @mp5's spurious philosophy comments...
"Please refrain from wearing philosophy quotes and misquotes as pretentious pseudo-intellectual fashion accessories."
Otherwise people that do actually read philosophy extensively will inevitably call out your comments
- both for their misleading inaccuracies, and for their weak masquerading motives.

I recommend that you do some actual reading of these philosopher's works instead of just tossing around misquotes and loose inaccurate assertions about their ideas, and making vague implied connections between their work.

And next time you want to criticise Schopenhauer for misogynous writing, try picking on the right target!
You should have picked on Schopenhauer's 10 page essay called 'On Women'.
not his 16 page essay 'Metaphysics of Love' (not really a book! as you erroneously claimed)
Quoting 'Metaphysics of Love' as evidence of misogyny is comically and ignorantly the wrong target and one that would appear to exonerate Schopenhauer rather than convict him. Maybe you should have actually read it rather than blindly referring to it!
See spoiler if you want the details but the bottom line is - "try knowing what you're talking about before posting!"

The only 'accidental' value in your post was this remarkable 'back on topic' coincidence...
Weininger committed suicide in his early 20's and made a big celebrity show about it by killing himself in Beethoven's house.
Now, that's how to become a posthumous 'celebrity philosopher' when your actual philosophical work ain't up to the job by itself!
As for claiming he is regarded as a great western philosopher - that claim is just absurd.

That's got to be enough unless anyone wants more details in a spoiler...

Spoiler: Further Detail (that no-one will bother reading)

Why not actually read Schopenhauer's 'Metaphysics of Love' instead of just looking up a random title.
It's not actually a book! It's just a 16 page article. It won't take you long to 'actually read it'.
What you'll find is plenty of insight into how men and women are beguiled by what they call love, and plenty of insight into how the human-animal's biological need to reproduce leads us all (men and women) by the nose (or more accurately by the genitals). What you won't find is anything that is denigrating to women that is not equally denigrating to men.

Then compare that to reading Weininger's 'Sex and Character' which I regard as deranged (to put it politely)
Take a first hand look at Weininger's 'Sex and Character' (230 pages if you can stomach it) and you'll (hopefully) pretty quickly realise that you are reading a very intelligent but very disturbed author, who pretty obviously felt very uncomfortable around women, and very uncomfortable about his Jewish heritage living in an Austro-Hungarian culture in the early 1900's. He seemed to translate his inner turmoil into a deranged view of (roughly) [Masculine = Aryan = worth something] versus [Feminine = Jewish = worth something less] How psychologically sick is that!
Being smart is obviously no guarantee of being psychologically robust or intellectually independent, and no defence against being screwed up by your cultural context.
Coincidentally back on topic for this thread, Weininger committed suicide in his early 20's and made a big celebrity show about it by killing himself in Beethoven's house. Now, that's how to become a posthumous 'celebrity philosopher' when your philosophical work ain't up to the job by itself!
As for claiming that Weininger is regarded as a great western philosopher - that claim is just absurd.
For example... Wittgenstein commenting on Weininger's 'Sex and Character' said something like "if one were to add a negation sign before the whole of Sex and Character, one would have expressed an important truth."
It's hard to call that a respectful endorsement.

==========

Now to more constructively support the criticisms of Schopenhauer... and his alleged misogyny.
What @mp5 should have picked on was Schopenhauer's 10 page essay called "On Women".
Picking on 'Metaphysics of Love' was just comically and ignorantly the wrong target!

You can find these things if you research far enough...
[1] A huge pile of popular social junk that just ignorantly labels Schopenhauer as a misogynist,
because "hey, we need someone to call a misogynist" - this is just typical ignorant sheep jumping on an 'identity politics' bandwagon.
[2] a decent pile of serious debate within the philosophy community about how to interpret these two short pieces from Schopenhauer

• 'On Women' - a 10 page essay which on first read seems incredibly, nauseatingly, disparaging towards women - apparently indefensible garbage.
• 'Metaphysics of Love' a 16 page essay which seems to be just the opposite.

Any simplistic conclusions about how to reconcile the two articles will be just that - 'simplistic' - and not worth entertaining.

As for my personal-only opinions... I think Schopenhauer 'probably' really was the unpleasant chauvinist pig that many biographies allege.
I think his philosophical work was brilliant, and well worth reading.... BUT, I think his overall contributions to philosophy are over-rated by many, and are interesting only by virtue of re-iterating and trying (in vein) to extend impressive work from Kant. His opinions about human stupidity and his gender biases while expressing those opinions are totally irrelevant to his philosophical insights. His current 'poster boy role as a misogynist philosopher' says far more about our current stupidity than it does about Schopenhauer's views on humanity.

 

Last edited: Feb 19, 2020

pretty much.
even though you twisted my words i will still stand by them

 

life is incomplete until they get their little hit of dopamine

 

I was checking this thread for exactly this, well done. Goddamn people are so thin skinned these days.

 

Signed by Donald Trump

 

there is often things lost in translation too...

 

thx

also common 19 century sarcasm lost in translation if he had read the essay in english
i say schopenhauer would have been great fan of 'On Men' written by a sarcastic women

 

Well, I did not intend to start a discussion on philosophy here. I was interested mostly in question why women are totally absent from the field of audio recording, processing, production and reproduction (hardware as well as software). I've spent decades in Hi-Fi equipment business, and never had a female customer.
It's easy to understand Schopenhauer's view on women, without reading his Complete Works. One might just consider some basic facts of his life: he didn't speak to his mother from his youth until her death, never married, threw a woman down the staircase and made her invalid for life. Also he said explicitly that "European lady should be destroyed", that "respecting women is distasteful", and that "woman is incapable of honour". I do not see any praise of women in his work (call it whatever you like) "On Women", where in one paragraph he compares them to monkeys.
Your depreciation of Weininger is not based of reading of his works, it seems rather obvious to me. And you seem to dismiss him on religious, psychological, and even racist/nationalistic grounds. He meant that women do not exist as moral beings, because they do not possess the transcendental Self, hence they are nothing, because for humans morality is the only real existence (he exaggerated Kant in that respect). What does it matter what Wittgenstein thought about Weininger. All philosophers have bad opinion about almost any other philosopher.
P.S. Your tone, phrasing and choice of words rather do not seem to show respect for other people's opinion.

 

Well, there's a science called anthropology, and also "Philosophical anthropology".
Psychologists generally believe that politicians have 'three basic dark traits': psychopathy, machiavellism and narcissism.
And let's hear what artists have to say:
Politicians are /directly said/ neurotic, psychotic, pigheaded, and /indirectly said/ tight-lipped, condescending mama's little chauvinists, schizophrenic, egocentric, paranoiac, prima-donnas (John Lennon "Gimme Some Truth").

 

because most of them are not interested in the field. its as simple as that.

men in audio are always asking where all the women are

 

I thought that we people here believe that audio is life. And they are not in it.

 

To borrow a @mp5 phrase "it seems rather obvious to me"

It seems rather obvious to me that @mp5 applies this catchy little phrase in a flaky attempt to mask his erroneous assertions.

e.g.,
@mp5 said.. "Your depreciation of Weininger is not based of reading of his works, it seems rather obvious to me" - wrong!
@mp5 said.. "And you seem to dismiss him on religious, psychological, and even racist/nationalistic grounds" - wrong again!
and this time even pathetically slanderous, but WTF - I can just laugh at your inability to carefully read what I wrote.

I think the next time 'something seems rather obvious' to you - you should worry about it.

Now, let's see if I can master this style of delusion myself. I'll do my best - here goes...
"Did you know that the misogynist Schopenhauer wrote scripts that were later used by the BBC? "
It seems rather obvious to me that he must have done that. The obvious evidence is here for everyone to see...

p.s.
@mp5 said... "Your tone, phrasing and choice of words rather do not seem to show respect for other people's opinion."
My respect for any and all opinions is entirely in proportion to how much respect those opinions actually deserve.
If you write pretentious nonsense - I will call it out for what it is.

 

Errr... Surely they 're not. They are just avoiding you

 

slowly we get a scent of which direction your not so existing research of schopenhauer comes from...heh heh

 

Ignorance often gets over-excited upon itself. Gets well along with over-confidence. But tongue control is an obligatory part of wisdom, even before Pythagora's school.

 

Als ein Deutscher hättest du es viel besser wissen sollen. Ich schäme mich fast ein bisschen für dich.

 

And the whole of this site, because of me. But I happened to appear here just @Oct 3, 2019 for the first time, what happened with women since Jan 27, 2016 till then...?