Tuesday 19th of November 2019

when male philosphers are less than human towards their fellow female "with fake news"...

arfur2

In an article about JJ Rousseau, we already explored the idea of philosophers' sexism, but here is another story about one of the least sung mind-twisters who influenced a lot of Western philosophy from Nietzsche — to the Deconstructionists by default. 


Though his work did not get substantial attention during his life, Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 – 1860) had a posthumous impact on philosophy, literature, and science. His writing on aesthetics, morality, and psychology influenced many thinkers and artists throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. 
Philosophers and writers who cited his influence include Friedrich Nietzsche, Richard Wagner, Leo Tolstoy, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Erwin Schrödinger, Otto Rank, Gustav Mahler, Joseph Campbell, Albert Einstein, Carl Jung, Thomas Mann, Émile Zola, George Bernard Shaw, Jorge Luis Borges and Samuel Beckett.
He was a mad man… Not quite really, but we have to believe he also influenced Kafka. Arthur Schopenhauer invented the Hedgehog's dilemma, Philosophical pessimism and Principium individuationis… which defines why a teacup isn't a kettle. He is best known for his 1818 work The World as Will and Representation (expanded, 1844), wherein he characterizes the phenomenal world as the product of a blind and insatiable metaphysical will. Egregie bovem de stercore! says Gus who could be wrong about the worth of such philosophy.
On the publication of his letters in 2017, translated from German, by a major publisher in Europe, Gallimard, a young French (female) student, Marion Bet, wrote a summary of "Quand Schopenhauer malmenait une couturière” (When Schopenhauer was abusing a seamstress)… Here's the works — which in places is "slightly satirical” (as it should be):



He is known to be irascible, atrial, deeply pessimistic: Schopenhauer is a man of sad passions. Gallimard has [just] (2017) published his Correspondence. 503 letters, written from 1803 until his death in 1860, collected in two volumes. The anecdotes are crispy. We learn that he had two poodles, which were his only companions. They both had the same name, Atma - "soul of the world", in Sanskrit. The philosopher also had some bastard children, who died "very happily" at a young age. A breakup in love marked him, but the sorrow was short-lived:


I had for ten years a secret affair with a girl whom I loved very much [...] but the time little by little made its effect; she was the only being who was really attached to me: circumstances overcame her. 

Depressed as he is, Schopenhauer does not dwell on his misfortunes. A misfortune, however, is going to occupy him a lot.

Schopenhauer, a lecturer at the University of Berlin in 1820, rented an apartment in a pension at the home of widow Becker. There, he must share the vestibule with his neighbors, but the instructions are clear, he writes: "This entry is exclusively for [a] gentleman and me, and apart from us and those who visit us, no one must put their nose in it. "


Some medical comments about women
Yet, a fierce woman makes waves. Caroline-Louise Marquet, an old seamstress, seems to have taken a liking to this entry of passage, and does not move an inch. The air is good, and above all, the curious lady and her friends watch the arrival of the great man. The philosopher - angry and vaguely misanthrope - cannot stand the intense tenacity of this lookout by the ladies.

I do not have to put up with unknown people, who have nothing to do there, occupy my entrance and besiege my door. 


Wasted effort. Caroline-Louise Marquet is not moving. Then begin the misunderstandings, all more funny than the others, because the philosopher has decided to expel the undesirable:


I must here blame the complainant's malicious innuendo, saying that I came OUT WITH A STICK. It was my cane. 


Then Schopenhauer, decidedly very gallant, would have seized the brave lady, "not by squeezing her neck with my hands, which is quite unthinkable, but as it was more appropriate, by taking her in a tight body-lock." We did not have a clue this man was so delicate.


The episode gives him in any case matter to philosophize. When Caroline-Louise Marquet falls to the ground in battle, the philosopher offers his insights into practical psychology: the fall has obviously been simulated, moreover "it is in the habit of these people, when all ACTIVE resistance has failed , to slip into a PASSIVE role, in order to SUFFER as much as possible and then to press for charges."

He also develops some medical words about women. Caroline-Louise Marquet, who says she is ill following the incident, probably suffers from hysteria. This type of irritation, continues Schopenhauer, is due to "wounded female vanity" because "it is well known that women are often in unhealthy states, especially when they want it."


I did not call her a bitch, but ...


The trial promises to be stormy. New Danton [Danton was the first president of the Committee of Public Safety during the French Revolution] of the vestibule, Schopenhauer presents himself as a beautiful angel, and strives to restore the truth. It is at first false and lying that he has torn off his headdress. The old woman fell "and by falling, it is possible that she lost her headdress, although I did not notice it." Above all, there was faking with the help of the doctor: a fake medical certificate, which attests "A torn wart and some bruises". But the worst, complains Schopenhauer, still remains that one distorts his remarks: "I did not call her a bitch nor old creature but only once, as the subject predicates, I called her an old bitch."

How can you blame him?

Poor Schopenhauer will still lose his case. He will have to pay 300 thalers of medical expenses, and provide an annual annuity of 60 thalers to the plaintiff until the death of this one. The old, robust woman, will die twenty years later. Clement Rosset sees it as a psychologically important affair, for Schopenhauer could never forgive the court, which had thus sentenced him to "an annual bout of nervous breakdown".


The conclusion of the German philosopher, in any case, is without appeal, and surpasses all the aphorisms of the world:

It is obvious that one is exposed to small wounds when one is loitering where one has nothing to do there and that one is besieging the doors of unknown men with such obstinacy. 


Marion Bet
Letters, volumes 1 and 2, by Arthur Schopenhauer,
Trad. [translation] of German by Christian Sommer
and revised by Natasha Boulet, Folio essais.

Translation of the French by Jules Letambour.

on the human condition...

One’s reaction to a cold and despairing analysis of the human condition depends, of course, on whether we generally tend to see the glass half full or half empty. In an essay published in 1983 on Kafka’s three novels — Amerika, The Trial, and The Castle — the Scottish author, James KelmanKelman puts it simply: “there is nothing in Kafka’s work to suggest any source of power beyond humankind itself, but whether or not this represents grounds for pessimism depends on the individual reader’s own beliefs.

 

Gus would say that despite all this, we should keep filling the glass till it's full...

quoting the experts: punch them in the face...

sexism

Time and again, sexism has been explicitly used to discourage and degrade women all over the world. There are people who often find it difficult to accept that women too can have an identity separate from a predominantly accepted male figure in society. But the blame isn't entirely on men, women too are known to have made snide remarks that can easily pass off as being sexist and misogynist. And honestly, that is more disheartening than anything else.

 

From item songs to movie dialogues, hatred for women can be seen and experienced in every walk of life today. What's more disturbing is the prevailing hypocrisy where people say things like 'we are living in modern times', 'women and men are equal'... Alas! These are words only said, never applied!

Here are some sexist quotes by great men from different times that will make you want to punch them in the face.

 

 

Read more:

https://www.scoopwhoop.com/Sexist-Quotes-By-Great-Men/#.voexd928j

 

 

“To terrify children with the image of hell, to consider women an inferior creation—is that good for the world?” 


― Christopher Hitchens


Don't hit him... Hit the Pope.

 

 

Read more:

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/sexism

 

Read from top.

the philosopheress: "I know a ho when I see one"...

WASHINGTON — In a new off-the-rails interview, Roseanne Barr calls originators of the #MeToo movement “hos” and attacks Sen. Kamala Harris, Christine Blasey Ford and many other women.

“They’re pretending that they didn’t go to trade sexual favors for money,” Barr says, rhetorically asking why some women find themselves in men’s hotel rooms at 3 a.m.

Interviewer Candace Owens replies by pointing to the women who accused comedian Louis C.K. of sexual misconduct, prompting Barr to say, “That’s who I’m talking about, too.”

“I know a ho when I see one,” proclaims Barr.

She was kicked off the rebooted “Roseanne” show after posting a racist tweet about former President Barack Obama’s adviser Valerie Jarrett last May.

Speaking in an episode of the “Candace Owens Show” that goes online Sunday, Barr holds nothing back talking about race, religion, politics and Hollywood.

She goes on a nasty tirade against Harris, the California Dem who’s running for president.

“Look at Kamala Harris, who I call Kama Sutra Harris,” Barr snipes, pointing to the pol’s prior relationship with former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown.

“We all know what she did… she slept her way to the bottom,” the comedian says, drawing agreement from Owens, who directs comms for the young conservative group Turning Point USA.

Barr also suggests that Christine Blasey Ford, who accused Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh of a sexual assault when they were teens, “should be in prison.”

“White women privilege” is the only thing that kept the accuser out of jail, Barr opines.

 

Read more:

https://nypost.com/2019/03/02/roseanne-calls-metoo-founders-hos-in-bomba...

 

Read from top.

 

May I say that should the "Candace Owens Show" wish for nice comments about stuff and feminism, why invite Roseanne Barr to discuss anything? What did they expect? A bunch of flowers? A set up if I see one for RATINGS...

 

See also:

http://yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/35936

and 

http://yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/32297

and

http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/32971

fighting with words in handbags...

 

 

[Jordan] Peterson talks. A lot. The experts (historians, sociologists, biologists etc.) studying what he talks about review his waffling as 'stupid nonsense' to 'dangerous nonsense'.


Popularity isn't relevant in absence of scholarship, otherwise fellowships would be Kardashian territory.

 

--------------

 

This comment (slightly below the belt) comes from a reader of an article in Sputnik:

 

Earlier this week, the faculty of divinity at Britain's prestigious University of Cambridge mysteriously withdrew its fellowship offer to the Canadian academic pop icon, who was scheduled to join the school for a series of lectures on the Bible later this year.

Peterson, a clinical psychologist and self-described "professor against political correctness" who came to global prominence for his opposition to the use of preferred gender pronouns on free speech grounds, and who is known for his harsh criticism of social justice warriors and radical feminism, harshly slammed Cambridge over its decision to rescind his fellowship offer in a lengthy appeal.

 

Read more:

https://sputniknews.com/world/201903221073470420-johnson-peterson-cambri...

 

In an article in defence of the Ramsay Centre for the Quadrant, also a defender of Peterson, Christopher Heathcote concludes:

 

Far from wanting to eject esteemed works by dead white men from university syllabuses, the deconstruction group offered fresh insights into texts so maligned by radicals. Indeed, the Yale “deconstructors” were forceful advocates for studying historic works, continuing to teach such material in their own courses. At a conference in the 1990s I heard Derrida press this point, referring to what he called the “intrinsic value” of major poems; while in 1994 Harold Bloom published a polemic, The Western Canon, in which he argued for the centrality to intellectual endeavour of twenty-four great writers. His book scathingly dismissed detractors of the classics as small-minded “forces of resentment”.

This all occurred nearly a generation ago. The dust ought to have settled, but the rise of identity politics—and the eagerness of public bureaux to embrace political correctness—is seeing old battles re-fought. The bossy new ubergangsters exhibit a cloying ignorance of scholarly debates thirty years back. They advocate a Soviet-style textual censorship, pushing hackneyed arguments that were then soundly discredited, some claiming to be adherents of deconstruction. Clearly they have not read the texts that launched the movement. Worse still, this time timid vice-chancellors in Canberra and Sydney have caved in.

Surveying the present muddle, one is put in mind of the opening remark made by another dead white male in his mocking political commentary The Eighteenth Brumaire of Luis Napoleon: “All the great events of history occur, so to speak, twice,” Karl Marx sneered. “The first time as tragedy, the second as farce.

--------------------------------

See also: http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/35249

Read from top.

 

Quoting myself:

We should know that “the other side”, the right, is boloney, rabid, duplicitous, savagely capitalistic, etc, but the reality is that the right-wing people don’t have any qualms about being who they are. They are proud of being racist, rich, sexist, ruthless capitalists, though they will claim they are not racist, nor sexist while admitting to their love of money. And if they are a bit too obnoxious, they become extraordinarily charitable through tax escapism called the philanthropy of their choice.

...

The present left profits from the sins of the right, through capitalism. And the right knows and exploit this. Long gone is the ideal of socialism. Even the left in the Western world has severed its original ties to the culture of officially-sharing regime. Workers are now bankers... So there are people who shake the apple tree, such as spray-can "artists" (frustrated thugs) or like Jordan Peterson, a Canadian philosopher. He expressed feelings to people who have been frustrated by the left and its too-goody two-shoes approach which tends to destroy self-motivation without proposing a truer social value other than plod through — dragging resented capitalism like a chain and ball...


Welcome to philosophy: fighting with words in handbags...

I have mentioned Tractatus by Ludwig Wittgenstein in:

http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/31054#comment-34022

 

Quoting myself again:

In Red Dwarf, Lister, the last human in the entire universe, teaches Kryten, the droid with a head shaped like a badly-peeled potato, to lie — as if lying was at the core of being human. 

 


As I have expressed before on this site, deceit, disguise, adaptation, as much as brutal strength, are all parts of nature — including human nature — in varied proportions.
There is a certain elegance in the droid's reluctant learning and eventually Kryten can say "smeg-head" to Rimmer, the hologram. Kryten can also say "orange" even if the fruit is an apple or a banana. But Kryten has to fight very hard against his truth chip. Lying in such small doses does not affect the droid's ability to iron the gussets of Lister's underpants, for a while. 
Kryten can even double-lie about Silicon Heaven — where all the vacuum cleaners, toasters and droid go after death or after official decommissioning — to another droid, this one a nasty shitty left-over garbage can from an old crashed spacecraft, accidentally encountered on a planet during some adventure, three million years from now. 
As the series develops, Kryten becomes more and more devious.

This has profound philosophical ramifications. 

The Truth Function and Logic In Western Philosophy:
Many of the relationships at play in semantics arise within formal logic. However, the treatment received in formal logic differs significantly from the treatment relationships receive in semantics. As well, by looking at the approach to analyzing these relationships within a small formal context, it is easier to see just how far strict formalism can go, and just how far assumptions are made about what we already understand or are prepared to accept as understood.

What we notice about this is that when the premises are true, the proper conclusion tend to follow, though not essentially. And there are cases where the premises are false and the conclusion isn't always true, there is still something about the final argument that can strike us as good. At times, the premises are not connected and yet the final statement is correct. Thus there is elasticity in the system of logic, related not so much as to what exists but to what we are prepared to accept.

 

Truth-functional logic tries to capture what it is about these arguments (and a host of others) which gives them a persuasive, productive character. Here, the value lies in the word productive. This should lead to understanding the value of atheism, in which we can rely on logical reality while accepting the relativity of arguments, true or false. On the other side, we have to understand that beliefs, especially religious beliefs, do not provide any verifiable truths and believed premises in this context only lead to palatable false conclusions. The philosophical acceptance of beliefs is thus impossible should we not be brainwashed — which we all are from a young age, to various degrees. It takes an enormous amount of courage, analysis of logic in truth and ability in greater understanding, to debrief oneself from all the religious lies in the world.


the trickle

read more about William Blum.

 

 

Read from top.

 

See also:

the science of observation and enlightened response...

 

and:

 

a lot of tears followed...

the poet's non-muses...

In May, 1709, Alexander Pope's Pastorals was published and gave him instant fame.

His An Essay on Criticism in May 1711, was equally well received (by whom? critics? the populace? The king? Women?). Pope's most famous poem is The Rape of the Lock, first published in 1712. It is a satirical piece about a high-society quarrel between Arabella Fermor ("Belinda" in the poem) and Lord Petre, who had snipped a lock of hair from her head without her permission. The poem is mostly about the onset of acquisitive individualism (obsessive want of money, "owning" people and stinginess) and conspicuous consumption, where purchasing goods is more important than morality.

Pope made many enemies throughout his career, with his fierce satire and criticisms of prominent figures, and somehow deemed it necessary to carry pistols while walking his dog. This also could be due to protect himself — being of a frail sickly constitution he had to wear three pairs of stockings on top of each other to give bulk to the appearance of his legs.

So who were his enemies? Most of these were people he pissed off by writing (deserved or not) crap about them. Some come to mind:
Pope replaced Lewis Theobald, with the poet laureate Colley Cibber, as "king of dunces". But his real target was the writer and Whig politician Horace Walpole. 

He also targeted the hacks of Grub Street.

Until the early 19th century, Grub Street was a street near Moorfields in London. Famous for its concentration of "hack writers", aspiring poets, and low-end publishers and booksellers. Its bohemian society was set amidst low-rent dosshouses, brothels and coffeehouses.


According to Samuel Johnson's Dictionary, the term was "the name of a street … inhabited by writers of small histories, dictionaries, and temporary poems, whence any mean production is called grubstreet". Johnson himself had lived and worked in Grub Street in his early career. The image of Grub Street was popularised by Alexander Pope in Dunciad.


But, apart from the Grub Street writers and other well-known characters, Pope had it with a vengeance against a Lady Mary Wortley Montagu. He hated her beyond insanity after an unknown altercation that stopped their friendship. One has speculated that Pope was a sexist chauvinist pig like Rousseau and she had laughed at him when he confessed of his "deep passion" for her… Pope’s father was a linen merchant, she was the well self-educated, intelligent daughter of the Earl of Kingston. Later in life she became more eccentric and unfashionably dressed… Horace Walpole was not impressed. He wrote in 1740:


Her dress, her avarice, and her impudence must amaze any one that never heard her name. She wears a foul mob that does not cover her greasy black locks, that hang loose, never combed or curled; an old mazarine blue wrapper, that gapes open and discovers a canvas petticoat. Her face swelled violently on one side with the remains of a ….., partly covered with a plaister, and partly with white paint, which for cheapness she has bought so coarse that you would not use it to wash a chimney. 

Pope did not hold fire either. He wrote many devastating poems about her, including this one about her and her husband Edward (here called Avidien):


Avidien or his wife (no matter which,
For him you’ll call a dog, and her a bitch)
Sell their presented partridges and fruit,
And humbly live on rabbits and on roots.
One half-pint bottle serves them both to dine.
And is at once their vinegar and wine.
But on some lucky day (as when they found
A lost bank-bill, or heard their son was drown’d)
At such a feat, old vinegar to spare,
Is what two souls so generous cannot bear.

With health failing as told by his physician, on the morning of his death, that he was better, Pope replied: "Here am I, dying of a hundred good symptoms”.

And just before Lady Mary expired, she said: “it has all been most interesting”… Her son had not drown but died from swallowing a fishbone…


Gus...

Read from top.