[Austrian]

I thought some of you guys might enjoy this treatise "On Women" (original "Über die Frauen") by Schopenhauer.

http://www.theabsolute.net/misogyny/onwomen.html

[Rocco81]

Tight, thank you.

We can learn allot from the old school stuff.

[Samseau]

Oh man, I love this essay. Schopenhauer was one of the true 19th greats. Some hightlights:

Quote:

With girls, Nature has had in view what is called in a dramatic sense a “striking effect,” for she endows them for a few years with a richness of beauty and a, fulness of charm at the expense of the rest of their lives; so that they may during these years ensnare the fantasy of a man to such a degree as to make him rush into taking the honourable care of them, in some kind of form, for a lifetime—a step which would not seem sufficiently justified if he only considered the matter.

Keep in mind, this is a man arguing against marriage back when marriage had strict divorce rules, no alimony, and strict child custody to the man in 90% of divorces.

Quote:

The nobler and more perfect a thing is, the later and slower is it in reaching maturity. Man reaches the maturity of his reasoning and mental faculties scarcely before he is eight-and-twenty; woman when she is eighteen; but hers is reason of very narrow limitations.

OMG MISOGYNY... (but who cares about the truth, right?)

Quote:

For as lions are furnished with claws and teeth, elephants with tusks, boars with fangs, bulls with horns, and the cuttlefish with its dark, inky fluid, so Nature has provided woman for her protection and defence with the faculty of dissimulation, and all the power which Nature has given to man in the form of bodily strength and reason has been conferred on woman in this form. Hence, dissimulation is innate in woman and almost as characteristic of the very stupid as of the clever.

Never has there been more eloquent prose written on woman's ability to lie.

Quote:

Because women in truth exist entirely for the propagation of the race, and their destiny ends here, they live more for the species than for the individual, and in their hearts take the affairs of the species more seriously than those of the individual. This gives to their whole being and character a certain frivolousness, and altogether a certain tendency which is fundamentally different from that of man; and this it is which develops that discord in married life which is so prevalent and almost the normal state.

A beautiful connection between the evolution of woman's psychology and why marriage's are frequently shitty relationships.

For those who don't know, Schopenhauer was a player of his time; dated different women and abhorred marriage. He died a bachelor. He saw marriage as a scam back then, and it's only gotten worse for men since then... remind me, why do guys get married still?

Quote:

In our part of the world, where monogamy is in force, to marry means to halve one’s rights and to double one’s duties. When the laws granted woman the same rights as man, they should also have given her a masculine power of reason.

His rhetorical humor was directed at how marriages were organized back in the 19th century; can you imagine how he would react to our times?

Today marriage is more like "to forfeit one's rights and accept all duties".

Quote:

It is useless to argue about polygamy, it must be taken as a fact existing everywhere, the mere regulation of which is the problem to be solved. Where are there, then, any real monogamists? We all live, at any rate for a time, and the majority of us always, in polygamy. Consequently, as each man needs many women, nothing is more just than to let him, nay, make it incumbent upon him to provide for many women. By this means woman will be brought back to her proper and natural place as a subordinate being, and the lady, that monster of European civilisation and Christian–Teutonic stupidity, with her ridiculous claim to respect and veneration, will no longer exist; there will still be women, but no unhappy women, of whom Europe is at present full. The Mormons’ standpoint is right.

You can tell that Schopenhauer is an alpha male from this post; he assumes that polygamy would improve the happiness of both the female and male; but as today's social experiment reveals, deregulation of monogamy means all the fun for alphas, and nothing but pain for betas.

[Thot Leader]

Everyone on this forum should read this. Or, if you prefer audiobooks:

[Flux]

   

His writings reflect who he was as a person; very intelligent, but rather ugly and lacking a feminine side.

What he says is true, but you can't think like that if you want to connect with a woman.

There are two sides to every man, the intellectual and ruthless side he must use to make a living, and the feminine caring side he must use with women and children he loves.

You can't mix the two; you need to compartmentalize your mind; be both a killer and a tender lover in the same body. Schopenhauer didn't have that other part, or neglected it.

We can't analyze women like they're our enemy because they aren't, they are like children and must be loved.

[Caduceus]

(11-26-2018 08:03 PM)Flux Wrote:  

His writings reflect who he was as a person; very intelligent, but rather ugly and lacking a feminine side.

What he says is true, but you can't think like that if you want to connect with a woman.

There are two sides to every man, the intellectual and ruthless side he must use to make a living, and the feminine caring side he must use with women and children he loves.

Let me know how that works out for you.

[Thot Leader]

(11-26-2018 08:03 PM)Flux Wrote:  

We can't analyze women like they're our enemy because they aren't, they are like children and must be loved.

Schopenhauer doesn't analyze women like they are our enemies. If you read/listen to the essay, he describes women as eternal children to be loved but not entirely respected, which seems to be the consensus around here.

[Flux]

(11-26-2018 08:37 PM)Caduceus Wrote:  

(11-26-2018 08:03 PM)Flux Wrote:  

His writings reflect who he was as a person; very intelligent, but rather ugly and lacking a feminine side.

What he says is true, but you can't think like that if you want to connect with a woman.

There are two sides to every man, the intellectual and ruthless side he must use to make a living, and the feminine caring side he must use with women and children he loves.

Let me know how that works out for you.

It works just fine, I get in women's heads, and mix it up. Quite enjoy women's company and playing with them, it comes naturally.

However I understand that I'm not ready to have a permanent relationship; being young that's natural. Fine things take time to mature indeed.

[Shemp]

>>What he says is true, but you can't think like that if you want to connect with a woman.

It has elements of truth, not the whole truth. You can also find plenty of MGTOW and Incel sites which say unflattering things about women which are partly or wholely true. Guys who spend a lot of time reading MGTOW and Incel forums, or threads on this forum which regurgitate MGTOW/incel talking points, end up becoming incompetent with women. So Flux definitely has a point: better to stay away from stuff like Schopenhauer on Women, which is amusing to read but which poisons your mind and diminishes your ability to get results.

[Wutang]

A lot of the images we see now of Schopenhauer are of him as a grizzled, old man - what we think of us as the prototypical philosopher. The descriptions of what he looked like as a young man described him as a thick-necked, masculine looking guy. Apparently he was quite the womanizer as a younger guy as well. A selection of writings from his final book were gathered in a collection released by Penguin Classics that was titled "Essays and Aphorisms" (which also features parts of the "On Women" essay) talks about his experiences with women in the editor's introduction:

"...like many very intellectual men he had a strong sensual side to his nature, and his sexual interest was very strong. He had many erotic affairs, none of them lasting: indeed, 'affairs' is probably the wrong word, since it implies attachments of longer duration than most of Schopenhauer's..."

[torridon747]

When I was younger I found Schopenhauer bitter and angry, I assumed he didn't get laid much or something.

I think the truth is he came to these conclusions by sleeping with a great many women, and he's not bitter he's just not disillusioned. Aka redpilled.

As for the aspiring players above. You don't need cognitive dissonance to enjoy women's company or have LTRs and read Schopenhauer.

1. Dont be weak.
2. Truth doesn't poison you it sets you free

[Flux]

I've learned to let my nature deal with women, and leave my logic out of it. Logic is not how you manage a woman, you need to feel the emotions she's feeling to understand what's she's going through, and act accordingly. If you know who you are, your purpose in the world, and know your worth: she can't hurt you, no matter what you make yourself feel.

Dealing with women is a very animalistic process, because they are animalistic in their 'reasonings'. Logic can help you understand situations after they've happened, but it won't help you in the moment.

Of course logic does help when you tell her things to throw her off balance, confuse her etc.

I love to tell them my ideas and explain complex things to them, while they sit there completely baffled. You play them with logic tailored so they can get some of it, while when they try to play you with their emotions, you shut your logic off, and play by their rules.

You then dominate a woman completely in every sense.

[Caduceus]

(11-27-2018 04:41 AM)Wutang Wrote:  

A lot of the images we see now of Schopenhauer are of him as a grizzled, old man - what we think of us as the prototypical philosopher. The descriptions of what he looked like as a young man described him as a thick-necked, masculine looking guy.

The young Schopenhauer in his PUA years :

[torridon747]

@flux

Logic is your nature, you're a man. If you let your emotions guide you completely thats more feminine than masculine, it's also dangerous. For you and the people around you, especially if you gain status and are looked to for leadership.

I disagree with your methods of domination. There is something to be said about beating women at their own game but; in my opinion you should be setting up structure for them to exist in that is both fulfilling and challening, rewarding them when they succeed and punishing them when they fail (if it's a result or insubordination, negligence, or stubbornness/non-compliance). Their motivation to follow this structure at least initially should be the amount of value you bring in whatever form it may be - I use bomb dick, emotional competence, and some provider traits like seeing a need and filling it ( I bought my slave contacts the other day, she lit up like a christmas tree ooing and awwing about all the things she could now see, it made me happy and was relatively inexpensive but it did improve her quality of life) but admittedly I dont have much money so I try to find other ways to be valuable. The power in the correct structure is it eventually becomes valuable in itself, our whole brains are essentially wired up to accept a reward system after all, women are even more susceptible. Also something to be said about breaking monotony because complacency is a frame/relationship killer.

After you internalize a lot of this logic it becomes "nature".

[MrLemon]

I could read his quotes all day. Print them and tape on my monitor.

[Jefferson]

The problem with Schopenhauer is that he was a nihilist, who denied life. It took Nietzsche to take his philosophy a step further and to affirm life.

If Schopenhauer was the man who said that the suffering of the mouse being eaten by the snake is greater than the pleasure of the snake it took Nietzsche to stand up and say it is right that it be so.

Schopenhauer focuses on the suffering, he was a Pessimist. He could not move beyond Buddhism. Nietzsche did. He is also far more interesting on women.

[Flux]

@Jefferson Nietzsche got it right on the creative will to power, not as smart as Schopenhauer, but more creative and ambitious.

@Eugenics

Quote:

The true man wants two things: danger and play. For that reason he wants woman, as the most dangerous plaything.

It's no fun if you don't take her on a ride; don't be afraid to lose her, make her feel, and she'll do anything for you.

[torridon747]

That's game 101, not exactly what I was talking about. Its a pre-requisite to retaining any girl for any stretch of time. You spoke of domination I thought you were maybe into master/slave dynamica or into cashing in your social capital for currency or favors from women.

[Flux]

Well, yes. My point is to be more natural about it and try to enjoy yourself, rather than following rules and being strict as you describe it. Your nature is smarter than you think, you don't need to overthink everything.

Let yourself go a little more, be a little more loose with your power. I don't know what your margins are, but I like to take risks to get to full psychological domination, calculated to a degree of course. Normally the girls that are into being slaves are not intelligent and have no social power themselves. I like to play cat and mouse with intelligent women that have status. Of course a woman's status is in her beauty, but being good looking myself, I'm not intimidated by the looks of any woman.

I'm certainly not perfect, I'm trying to beat a sex addiction right now to get full control of my urges. It's crazy that when you stop having sex, you have so much creativity--I've been figuring a lot of things about the world lately.

[Jefferson]

I love to read Schopenhauer, he is very good. However, he is nowhere near as creative or original as Nietzsche.

Nietzsche was appointed one of the youngest professors in history, in the German language world, for a reason. He was a bona fide genius.

Nietzsche goes deeper and more fearlessly than Schopenhauer.

Both are great of course.

[nomadbrah]

People should read the whole thing.

Schopenhauer doesn't hate on women, he hates on white knight men, who goes against what nature intended for women by pedestalizing them and trying to lock them into an unnatural institution (marriage).

Quote:

Nature has made it the calling of the young, strong, and handsome men to look after the propagation of the human race; so that the species may not degenerate. This is the firm will of Nature, and it finds its expression in the passions of women

Quote:

So that their conscience does not trouble them so much as we imagine, for in the darkest depths of their hearts they are conscious that in violating their duty towards the individual they have all the better fulfilled it towards the species

Provider game, btfo out, Schopenhauer calls it as he sees it. It is simply the duty of women to discard the beta for the alpha.

He writes the whole thing against the anglo victorian concept of "the lady".

Quote:

In the West, the woman, that is to say the “lady,” finds herself in a fausse position; for woman, rightly named by the ancients sexus sequior, is by no means fit to be the object of our honour and veneration, or to hold her head higher than man and to have the same rights as he.

Quote:

The European lady, strictly speaking, is a creature who should not exist at all; but there ought to be housekeepers, and young girls who hope to become such; and they should be brought up not to be arrogant, but to be domesticated and submissive.

Quote:

It is exactly because there are ladies in Europe that women of a lower standing, that is to say, the greater majority of the sex, are much more unhappy than they are in the East.

He suggests polygamy, harems, because he sees monogamy as bringing out the worst in women and relegating those surplus women, widows etc, to being angry cat ladies without a purpose.

Quote:

Therefore, whilst among polygamous nations every woman finds maintenance, where monogamy exists the number of married women is limited, and a countless number of women who are without support remain over; those in the upper classes vegetate as useless old maids, those in the lower are reduced to very hard work of a distasteful nature, or become prostitutes, and lead a life which is as joyless as it is void of honour.

Quote:

It is useless to argue about polygamy, it must be taken as a fact existing everywhere, the mere regulation of which is the problem to be solved.

The man was brutally redpilled, there's absolutely no excuse for the beta/omega who wants society to bind a woman to him alone. That's why Schopenhauer is a famous philosopher, the truthpills from Scopenhauer eviscerates any illusion, any solace and white lies, and honestly best forgotten for most men.

[Flux]

(11-27-2018 06:44 PM)Jefferson Wrote:  

I love to read Schopenhauer, he is very good. However, he is nowhere near as creative or original as Nietzsche.

Nietzsche was appointed one of the youngest professors in history, in the German language world, for a reason. He was a bona fide genius.

Nietzsche goes deeper and more fearlessly than Schopenhauer.

Both are great of course.

Nietzsche described the superman as something to come out of evolution, but it's not, he was describing himself, or what he was almost, choosing Goethe as his superior. Evolution is over, we are a complete species.

Supermen are found throughout history and it can never be common, they have to be extremely rare.

Philosophers project themselves into their writings, always keep this in mind. Find those that are like you, because only they can help you.

[torridon747]

@flux

Not my experience at all. Hope you work out your sex addiction

[Flux]

Well I'm assuming you're intelligent, and intelligent men oftentimes have issues with embracing their natures, being confident.

You need to match your ego to your ability. Maybe you don't have that problem and are as confident as you are skilled, but in my case, in my early youth, I used to be a lot more skilled than confident, and as result got nothing, or at least, not what I was capable of.

I've had to grow my ego to match my abilities, and certainly you describing your abilities, it seems you have some, so maybe the solution for you is likewise.

[estraudi]

(11-27-2018 06:37 PM)Flux Wrote:  

Your nature is smarter than you think, you don't need to overthink everything.

Let yourself go a little more, be a little more loose with your power. I don't know what your margins are, but I like to take risks to get to full psychological domination, calculated to a degree of course. Normally the girls that are into being slaves are not intelligent and have no social power themselves. I like to play cat and mouse with intelligent women that have status. It's crazy that when you stop having sex, you have so much creativity--I've been figuring a lot of things about the world lately.

Good points Flux. Being looser with power to me means saving the overthinking and overanalyzing for AFTER I've gone through and been present in the moment in any action I choose to be apart of whether it be with women, for business, friendships or life in general.
Figuring out those things about the world with newfound energy AFTER sex and the "hunt" has been what my 30's are about now. And I'm only two years into that at 32. Seems like the natural progression and a blessing for men as we mature in looks, wisdom & capability during this decade and for at least another 3 decades. I wonder what age Schopenhauer wrote his most redpill redpills. To me it seems he wrote it for men that are hitting their stride after a certain age.