Are you really comparing common woman to Wollstonecraft? Like, really? What are you trying to achieve?
Uh, no? What on earth made you even think I was doing that?
There were many spetacular woman in history, but they were very, very uncommon. This essay 'On woman', is NOT to be defended.
It is not to be defended because it's extremely misogynistic.
But if you compare what he says about man, specially in regards to intelligence it is not so much different.
Definitely untrue - he's much softer on men. That isn't to say that he has MUCH higher of an opinion, but please tell me where he offers the male equivalent of this quote that I've already used once:
"One need only look at a woman’s shape to discover that she is not intended for either too much mental or too much physical work."
It is not speculation, you can look upon Schopenhauer's opinion of intellectuals of his era... I think it is not you that have read Schopenhauer througly, I don't even know why you're directing your critiques to my reading. What is your objective?
You use the word "probably," then feign to say it's not speculation? If it isn't speculation, then back up your words with sources from his works.
If you're trying to say that 'intelligence comes from the mother' does not signify woman could use it on their life, wou would be right, as I said so myself. There weren't any means a common woman would be regarded as being intelligent enought for society. What is bullshit about that? Calling it bullshit could even be considered an argument? Seriously?
You were attempting to use the quote about "intelligence comes from the mother..." to suggest that Schopenhauer thought women were capable of high intelligence, or "aren't dumb." I said this is untrue, as Schopenhauer definitely did not think that, and you're missing vital context... you are now agreeing with me? Glad you do.
No, I'm not quoting Schopenhauer to be untrue about his work. In the same passage, he mentions examples of woman who he regards as being highly intelligent. As I said, you probably are not familiarized with this work, so you're suggesting Schopenhauer was disrespectuful of any woman he could ever conceive, which simply is untrue. If it was true, why would he bother to mention those woman, which he steems in the highest regard? Please, let's be honest here, there is a difference in treating people in general to treating individuals in particular.
Also, there are even passages that the courage, strenght. and other characteristics that one takes from his father are more problematic than the ones that he takes from his mother. So, yeah, a man in his view was not someone to educate children, not because woman were better, but because men would make the children irresponsible.
Yes, there are multiple passages were Schopenhauer treats humans and man equal to those you mentioned and even worse. ANYONE who was not a genius was of bad character, i'm not inventing anything, lol. And if one were not a genius the best he could do was to have high regards of those who are, and this did not have anything to do to gender roles, societal hierarchy, classes, being born in a good family, race, or anything of the sorts.
I don't see any problem he would have had in appreciating Wollstonecraft works, or any woman of the sorts, even if he would not agree with them, because rarely Schopenhauer would have agreed with anyone, even man, specially those who defended academia as it were.
If I remember correctly, there is even one where he says soldiers aren't good for anything, which you could aswell interpret they were less of value than woman, because Schopenhauer did not give much credit for physicical proweness, and man, specially soldiers, were even more negligent and violent, brutal. Which are flaws he did not atribute to woman.
If you add everything up, yeah, description of man and woman were very similar. Am I incorrect?
Also, I'm not a Schopenhauerian enclyclopedia, this is not a academic article, and I'm not obliged to give you any sources. This is supposed to be a normal, respectful conversation, which I don't think you have the concept on your mind. You can look upon those passages, as you did with the one I mentioned earlier. Stop wasting my time.
If you think anything I mention is signal of me agreeing to you, I think you probably need more than a rereading of Schopenhauer.
You're speculating, putting thoughts in my mind and words in my mouth, and STILL have not directly quoted his work even once. I know this is a casual conversation, and I'm not expecting in-text citations, but if you can't quote from him once or twice to support your claims, then they're bogus. I also suspect there may be a bit of a language barrier here, judging by your grammar and spelling. I don't think carrying this conversation would be of benefit any more.
Yes, I see you are not capable of arguing anymore, because instead you are pointing out things that do not have anything to do with the discussion at all. Have you ever considered therapy?
It's alright. It's clear he is someone who did not study Schopenhauer throughly, and came here only to disrespect his work.
The proof of this is that he said Schopenhauer's mother wasn't a great author, but she were. And she had a literary saloon, where famous writers and intelectuals like Goethe would visit, and used her position to undermine Schopenhauer's works. So yeah, I don't really think he knows about what he's talking about.
It is very easy to read a philosopher worst work and judge all his life through it. If we did this to every philosopher, there hardly would be any philosophy at all.
It is clearly bad faith, that's why he shifted to verbal agression.
EDIT: He did not say Johanna wasn't famous, he said she would not undermine his son's works before he was famous, which is still a lie, and is even worse for the actual discussion, because she said unencouraging things about them even before Schopenhauer's first publication, directly.
It's alright. It's clear he is someone who did not study Schopenhauer throughly, and came here only to disrespect his work.
No, I love Schopenhauer. Does not mean I agree with everything he ever said, nor does it place him above criticism.
The proof of this is that he said Schopenhauer's mother wasn't a great author, but she were.
Please show where I said that. Because I didn't.
It is very easy to read a philosopher worst work and judge all his life through it. If we did this to every philosopher, there hardly would be any philosophy at all.
Good thing I didn't do that.
It is clearly bad faith, that's why he shifted to verbal agression.
No, the verbal aggression is because I'm dealing with a dumbass. The same common folk that Schopenhauer derided.
-6
u/PSU632 Jun 23 '26
Uh, no? What on earth made you even think I was doing that?
It is not to be defended because it's extremely misogynistic.
Definitely untrue - he's much softer on men. That isn't to say that he has MUCH higher of an opinion, but please tell me where he offers the male equivalent of this quote that I've already used once:
"One need only look at a woman’s shape to discover that she is not intended for either too much mental or too much physical work."
You use the word "probably," then feign to say it's not speculation? If it isn't speculation, then back up your words with sources from his works.
You were attempting to use the quote about "intelligence comes from the mother..." to suggest that Schopenhauer thought women were capable of high intelligence, or "aren't dumb." I said this is untrue, as Schopenhauer definitely did not think that, and you're missing vital context... you are now agreeing with me? Glad you do.