I never said that that's all they ought to do, and neither did Schopenhauer as a matter of fact... — Agustino

darthbarracuda is a little too kind here. You are committing a textbook naturalistic fallacy here. You didn't say it was women ought to do. Instead you (and Schopenhauer) used a discourse of generalisation to set-up a particular set of expectations and ideas surrounding what women do. What you (and Schopenhauer) are doing here is not making scientific observation (e.g. most prominent philosophers are men), but rather misusing a scientific observation to proclaim people with specific traits (men and women) are "naturally" something irrespective of there existence, such that all we need to "know" a person of that group is this "logically necessary" nature.

He merely means to say that such would be an abnormality in Nature, not the general trend. He has justified his points, if you actually spent your time reading the two texts, by explaining how they fit in with our biological evolution. Women evolved to fulfill different roles than men: therefore they are better at some things, and inferior at others. — Agustino

This is the naturalistic fallacy in all its ugliness. It states that people (in this case intelligent women), who are the result of human biological evolution, are "abnormal," are against the nature evolved humans. Despite the fact those intelligent women are a product of human evolution and so are just as "natural" or "normal" as any other person.

It is not only anti-scientific, but also a deep-seated understanding about what men and women are "meant to be." The intelligent women is considered "abnormal," a failure of human nature, because she doesn't fit (supposedly) what human women are mean to be.

I believe females have the potential to be just as good as males at many things, and even surpass in some areas that are even dominated by males today. — darthbarracuda

What justification do you have for this when it comes specifically to rational capabilities? (I've already agreed there are quite a few things women are generally better at than men)

But they have been systematically oppressed in the past simply because they did not have the physical strength and brutish testosterone that males do — darthbarracuda

Keep in mind that testosterone is essential to developing traits of perseverence (along with aggression) as well, so biologically, women aren't as perseverent as men simply because they lack quantities of this hormone that men have. In fact, women have about 7 to 8 times as less testosterone as men. This may possibly be one of the reasons why we don't see many philosophical/scientific achievements from women.

What he was saying is that because this is the way he thought women were, he felt women could not do anything outside of that. He was criticizing females without understanding why they are that way to begin with. — darthbarracuda

No, this doesn't follow. He's not criticizing at all. You read it as criticism, he's just stating how things are, without judging that this is good or bad. You read what he says, and immediately judge that he's saying something bad about women, which he is not.

What you (and Schopenhauer) are doing here is not making scientific observation (e.g. most prominent philosophers are men), but rather misusing a scientific observation to proclaim people with specific traits (men and women) are "naturally" something irrespective of there existence, such that all we need to "know" a person of that group is this "logically necessary" nature — TheWillowOfDarkness

This is patently false. Schopenhauer is in fact stating that the Platonic idea of women is as he describes it. It doesn't follow that every women is, by logical necessity, like that. However, it does follow, that there will be a tendency for women to be like that. But this does not enable one to "know" a priori what a particular representation of the Platonic idea of women (a particular woman) is like. Why? Because representations fail to match the Platonic idea - they are merely distorted shadows of it.

It is not only anti-scientific, but also a deep-seated understanding about what men and women are "meant to be." The intelligent women is considered "abnormal," a failure of human nature, because she doesn't fit (supposedly) what human women are mean to be. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No, this isn't considered a failure from any particular individual point of view. Remember that the interests of Nature and the interests of individuals are different, that is precisely why Nature uses deceptions in the form of irrational instincts to control a large share of our behavior. As per Schopenhauer, women who are intelligent would only be "failures" in comparison to the Platonic ideas (meaning merely that they do not represent this idea in its complete form). Hence the fact that they do not represent the Platonic idea as faithfully as other women do isn't a reason for considering themselves "failures". There is no prize in representing the Platonic idea faithfully; from the individual's point of view, it doesn't matter. It's only from the species point of view that it matters: and even there, it only matters that most women aren't like this, not that all aren't.

As such, intelligent women are no more failures than I am a failure for displaying a very sensitive (and hence weak, unmanly) nature. Moreover, I may even greatly admire intelligent women: my interest is not the same as Nature's.

Which is more pessimistic: a metaphysical force that is ultimately pessimistic in its nature (a striving Will that goes nowhere), or a metaphysical nihilism that is grounded on nothing (radical contingency)?

What justification do you have for this when it comes specifically to rational capabilities? (I've already agreed there are quite a few things women are generally better at than men) — Agustino

Google "female scientists". Hypatia, Lovelace, Carson, Curie, etc. Plus I happen to personally know five successful female scientists and engineers.

What justification do you have for the position that women do not have as well developed rational capabilities?

Keep in mind that testosterone is essential to developing traits of perseverence (along with aggression) as well, so biologically, women aren't as perseverent as men simply because they lack quantities of this hormone that men have. — Agustino

Source?

No, this doesn't follow. He's not criticizing at all. You read it as criticism, he's just stating how things are, without judging that this is good or bad. You read what he says, and immediately judge that he's saying something bad about women, which he is not. — Agustino

So what is he saying?

So what is he saying? — darthbarracuda

Apparently "he's just stating how things are", but I don't buy it. Seems more like sexist bias to me.

But the Stoic response is to do nothing, really. All problems are illusory.

Nah, life's harder problems aren't dependent on mood. They're dependent on, for example, being an organism that decays and experiences incredible pain unless it receives chemical energy, which requires digesting food, which requires acquiring food, which requires labor, which ensures yet more pain, and so on. They're deep structural problems with the way the world is built, not little psychological whimsies as so many in this thread are trying to claim.

But the Stoic response is to do nothing, really. All problems are illusory. — The Great Whatever

If that's the "official" Stoic response, than how about a stoic-like response? A similar position, but not as extreme as the one that you've been criticising, in which one seeks to deal with life's problems by not allowing them to negatively affect you to your detriment. It can work (though not always, in every case, necessarily).

I would like some examples of these harder problems. Are you referring to things like cancer and tornadoes?

As if problems only affect me because I 'allow' them to. Am I God or something? 'Stop, problem, you may not do that!' Kek!

I would like some examples of these harder problems. Are you referring to things like cancer and tornadoes? — darthbarracuda

Yeah, or hunger, and so on. But even solving their manifestations through technology or whatever still leaves you with the basic structural problem which is more something like...I don't know, sensitivity which is required for life plus entropy? Or if your Buddhist inclinations prefer, dukkha. Though even that's not enough, because it often takes the form of the 'real deal' pain, not stupid self-help 'oh I'm unsatisfied with my life' bullshit.

because it often takes the form of the 'real deal' pain, not stupid self-help 'oh I'm unsatisfied with my life' bullshit. — The Great Whatever

The latter is evidence that, if there's not enough pain in a person's life, that person will typically invent some.

As if problems only affect me because I 'allow' them to. Am I God or something? 'Stop, problem, you may not do that!' Kek! — The Great Whatever

That wasn't my point at all. Problems affect us for various reasons, but we have at least some control over the extent and duration to which they negatively affect us.

But even solving their manifestations through technology or whatever still leaves you with the basic structural problem which is more something like...I don't know, sensitivity which is required for life plus entropy? Or if your Buddhist inclinations prefer, dukkha. — The Great Whatever

Dukkha is pretty much synonymous with dissatisfaction.

What is this metaphysical structure you are referring to? If we get rid of the manifestations of it, then the structure is no longer apparent.

.I don't know, sensitivity which is required for life plus entropy? — The Great Whatever

I don't know what you're saying here.

Though even that's not enough, because it often takes the form of the 'real deal' pain, not stupid self-help 'oh I'm unsatisfied with my life' bullshit. — The Great Whatever

By "real deal" I assume you are referring to pain caused by nociceptors. Presumably this could be solved by technology.

The latter is evidence that, if there's not enough pain in a person's life, that person will typically invent some. — Pneumenon

As Schopenhauer said:

If the world were a paradise of luxury and ease, a land flowing with milk and honey, where every Jack obtained his Jill at once and without any difficulty, men would either die of boredom or hang themselves; or there would be wars, massacres, and murders; so that in the end mankind would inflict more suffering on itself than it has now to accept at the hands of Nature. — Schopenhauer

As Schopenhauer said:

If the world were a paradise of luxury and ease, a land flowing with milk and honey, where every Jack obtained his Jill at once and without any difficulty, men would either die of boredom or hang themselves; or there would be wars, massacres, and murders; so that in the end mankind would inflict more suffering on itself than it has now to accept at the hands of Nature.
— Schopenhauer — schopenhauer1

This is rather ironic given our previous discussion on page 2, in which I said that unpleasantness is not bad if without it life would be worse off (basically the same point that Schopenhauer makes above), and you questioned this and scoffed at what you called the Nietzschesque "suffering makes us better" schtick.

At least, it'd be the better of two evils. But I still say that it's an evil worth putting up with in many cases.

This is rather ironic given our previous discussion on page 2, in which I said that unpleasantness is not bad if without it life would be worse off (basically the same point that Schopenhauer makes above), and you questioned this and scoffed at what you called the Nietzschesque "suffering makes us better" schtick. — Sapientia

No, Schopenhauer is not saying we should embrace suffering, or that this is good, just that it exists. That we have two bad choices, suffer here, or suffer there doesn't paint a good picture of the situation. If anything, it implies there is no real escape from a form of suffering.

No, Schopenhauer is not saying we should embrace suffering, or that this is good, just that it exists. — schopenhauer1

But I didn't say that that's what he's saying. I said that he's basically saying that life would be worse off without it (thus making us better off in comparison), and that is clearly what he is saying. He's clearly saying more than that it exists. Do you disagree?

But I didn't say that that's what he's saying. I said that he's basically saying that life would be worse off without it, and that is clearly what he is saying. He's clearly saying more than that it exists. Do you disagree? — Sapientia

I do. He is saying there is suffering in the goals/desires and there is suffering when we get our goals/desires.

I do. He is saying there is suffering in the goals/desires and there is suffering when we get our goals/desires. — schopenhauer1

Wow. Are you sure you're reading the same quote? Do I have to break it down bit by bit? Ok, let's do that.

If the world were a paradise of luxury and ease, a land flowing with milk and honey, where every Jack obtained his Jill at once and without any difficulty[...] — schopenhauer1

I.e. if the world didn't have suffering.

men would either die of boredom or hang themselves; or there would be wars, massacres, and murders; so that in the end mankind would inflict more suffering on itself than it has now to accept at the hands of Nature. — schopenhauer1

I.e. we'd be worse off.

Google "female scientists". Hypatia, Lovelace, Carson, Curie, etc. Plus I happen to personally know five successful female scientists and engineers. — darthbarracuda

I didn't say scientists or engineers. I said geniuses. The likes of Albert Einstein, Newton, Da Vinci, Goethe, Schopenhauer, Spinoza, etc. From the list you have provided none count with the exception of Marie Curie, who comes closest to genius.

What justification do you have for the position that women do not have as well developed rational capabilities? — darthbarracuda

Historical lack of evidence for as great a number of geniuses amongst women as amongst men. Take the number of great scientists who were men, great philosophers, etc. It doesn't compare. Which woman is as great a scientist as an Einstein, Darwin, or Newton etc.? Which is as great a philosopher as a Plato, Socrates, Kant, Schopenhauer, Spinoza, Wittgenstein, etc.? Probably none.

Source? — darthbarracuda

For the role of testosterone? Because the remaining bit is a direct conclusion from knowing the role testosterone plays.

So what is he saying? — darthbarracuda

In relation to this discussion, that women generally do not have as developed faculties of reason as men do. This isn't an insult, it's just a fact. If you want more details, just read the two texts I suggested.

If the world were a paradise of luxury and ease, a land flowing with milk and honey, where every Jack obtained his Jill at once and without any difficulty, men would either die of boredom or hang themselves; or there would be wars, massacres, and murders; so that in the end mankind would inflict more suffering on itself than it has now to accept at the hands of Nature. — Schopenhauer

I don't see the connection. In fact, all I'm seeing here is a generalization; i.e. how Schopenhauer himself feels he would react to such a situation being applied to everyone across the world. Schopenhauer doesn't explain why such a utopia would lead to chaos and suicide, he just asserts it. It's sophistry.

Historical lack of evidence for as great a number of geniuses amongst women as amongst men. Take the number of great scientists who were men, great philosophers, etc. It doesn't compare. Which woman is as great a scientist as an Einstein, Darwin, or Newton etc.? Which is as great a philosopher as a Plato, Socrates, Kant, Schopenhauer, Spinoza, Wittgenstein, etc.? Probably none. — Agustino

But why? This is the question.

Kant did not just pop out of the womb and write his Critique. He had access to education, something females did not at the time. Darwin didn't just "write" the Origin. He had access to education, money, ships for exploration of the Galapagos, etc. What were the females given? Very little in comparison. Can you imagine the contributions that would have come from female intellectuals had they been given access to education and resources?

For the role of testosterone? Because the remaining bit is a direct conclusion from knowing the role testosterone plays. — Agustino

I want a scientific source that says testosterone has a role in perseverance.

Kant did not just pop out of the womb and write his Critique. He had access to education, something females did not at the time. Darwin didn't just "write" the Origin. He had access to education, money, ships for exploration of the Galapagos, etc. What were the females given? Very little in comparison. Can you imagine the contributions that would have come from female intellectuals had they been given access to education and resources? — darthbarracuda

Lol... women also had access to education, especially when they came from the upper classes. Most of philosophers and scientists were quite well off as well; the common folk didn't have access to education, both men and women. The field was leveled at the top.

I want a scientific source that says testosterone has a role in perseverance. — darthbarracuda

http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/faculty/josephs/pdf_documents/EdwardsComment_MehtaJosephs.pdf

Just as a quick example.

I feel the following quote from the end of Schopenhauer's life is relevant, made while he was in the company of sculptor Elisabet Ney:

"I have not yet spoken my last word about women. I believe that if a woman succeeds in withdrawing from the mass, or rather raising herself from above the mass, she grows ceaselessly and more than a man."

Whatever qualms one has about the notorious essay On Women, one ought to realize that if one compiled an essay containing all the disparaging things said about men found across his writings, then it would dwarf the size of the former essay by quite a large degree. Schopenhauer primarily takes issue with the masses, the great herd of humanity, which includes the majority of men and women, for they represent a vast cauldron of ignorance, superstition, violence, gullibility, and incivility.

Which is more pessimistic: a metaphysical force that is ultimately pessimistic in its nature (a striving Will that goes nowhere), or a metaphysical nihilism that is grounded on nothing (radical contingency)? — schopenhauer1

I like this question, but I'm not too sure about what the latter position entails. Could expand on what you mean by it?

I like this question, but I'm not too sure about what the latter position entails. Could expand on what you mean by it? — Thorongil

Hi Thorongil, I actually started a new thread on this particular subject as I thought it was a bit different than the general Pessimism vs. Stoicism in this thread. I would say check out the conversation me and TGW are having there, and then see if it makes more sense.

I.e. we'd be worse off. — Sapientia

Wow. Are you sure you're reading the same quote? Do I have to break it down bit by bit? Ok, let's do that. — Sapientia

Please, don't be condescending or anything...

If the world were a paradise of luxury and ease, a land flowing with milk and honey, where every Jack obtained his Jill at once and without any difficulty[...]
— schopenhauer1

I.e. if the world didn't have suffering. — Sapientia

You probably have to read his whole text, but he doesn't like the suffering involved in NOT being in a paradise of luxury and ease either. In fact, much of his pessimistic criticism is on tasks, burdens, survival, discomforts, etc. Ya know, the NON-paradise stuff.. So now in this particular quote, he is saying "That is not all folks..despite ALL that suffering of goals/desires/survival that we have to deal with, EVEN if we DIDN'T have this to contend with we'd STILL be unhappy with the emptiness of dwelling in existential boredom."

I.e. we'd be worse off. — Sapientia

No, I'm pretty sure he finds both poles bad. Even if one may lead to worse things than the other, it all leads to suffering. He doesn't like the goals/desires/survival or the boredom. He is just stating how existence swings like a pendulum from one to the other and neither is satisfactory.

I don't see the connection. In fact, all I'm seeing here is a generalization; i.e. how Schopenhauer himself feels he would react to such a situation being applied to everyone across the world. Schopenhauer doesn't explain why such a utopia would lead to chaos and suicide, he just asserts it. It's sophistry. — darthbarracuda

Boredom is unpleasant. I don't see that as sophistry. Humans perceive existential emptiness and need tasks to occupy their time so as not to dwell on the unsatisfactory of simply being.

No, I'm pretty sure he finds both poles bad. Even if one may lead to worse things than the other, it all leads to suffering. — schopenhauer1

Yeh, we'd be worse off, like I said. I edited my previous comment when I realised that he probably thought that both scenarios were bad, but I think I left it too late, since you replied to the earlier version. I added the following:

At least, it'd be the better of two evils. But I still say that it'd be an evil worth putting up with in many cases. — Sapientia

Fair enough. There is no other option except suicide, and Schop doesn't like suicide as he thinks it is still someone's will, willing, the end of their phenomenal reality, which according to Schop is not ending the metaphysical root of the will.

He also said:

Suicide may also be regarded as an experiment — a question which man puts to Nature, trying to force her to an answer. The question is this: What change will death produce in a man’s existence and in his insight into the nature of things? It is a clumsy experiment to make; for it involves the destruction of the very consciousness which puts the question and awaits the answer. — Schopenhauer

@Thorongil probably has better insight into his ideas about suicide and how he feels this wouldn't be a good alternative. It has something to do with distinguishing the will-to-live through ascetic renunciation vs. forcefully killing yourself in a "willful" fashion that actually embraces the will, even if it is to will one's own demise.