4 ms·

Schopenhauer believed that we can't control who we are attracted to, nature does, and further that the mates nature predisposes us to aren't the one most likely

Schopenhauer believed that we can't control who we are attracted to, nature does, and further that the mates nature predisposes us to aren't the one most likely to make us happy, it's the ones most likely to produce genetically compatible offspring. "Love... casts itself on persons who, apart from the sexual relation, would be hateful, contemptible and even abhorrent to the lover. But the will of the species is so much more powerful than that of the individual, that the lover shuts his eyes to all the qualities repugnant to him... Only from this is it possible to explain why we often see very rational, and even eminent, men tied to termagants and matrimonial fiends..."

RHSeeger 6y ago
There are a LOT of people out there who are repeatedly attracted to people who are completely toxic to them.
danans 6y ago
> Only from this is it possible to explain why we often see very rational, and even eminent, men tied to termagants and matrimonial fiends... That's Schopenhauer demonstrating his well attested misogyny.
- asguy 6y ago
  So what? Plenty of women write from their perspective, which could be taken as misandry. There's something to learn by putting yourself in someone's shoes, and seeing from their perspective (e.g. the current protests, and Black Lives Matter).
  - danans 6y ago
    > Plenty of women write from their perspective, which could be taken as misandry. Women writing from their perspective != misandry any more than men writing from their perspective is misogyny. Those words have specific definitions that you are abusing to make a false equivalency. And what's wrong with calling out historical misogyny when it is presented as wisdom? That's not to say Schopenhauer has nothing useful to offer, but his misogyny isn't one of those things. It's no different from calling out racism in a similar historical context - like acknowledging that Winston Churchill was a great statesman and also simultaneously a very racist person. Schopenhauer's misogynistic perspective has long been the default of much of society, so it doesn't need to be treated with kid gloves. > seeing from their perspective (e.g. the current protests, and Black Lives Matter). 18th century misogyny doesn't deserve the same hearing out as BLM protests against contemporary police brutality. That logic would also excuse the presentation of 18th century racism as a valid perspective today.

RHSeeger 6y ago

There are a LOT of people out there who are repeatedly attracted to people who are completely toxic to them.

danans 6y ago

> Only from this is it possible to explain why we often see very rational, and even eminent, men tied to termagants and matrimonial fiends... That's Schopenhauer demonstrating his well attested misogyny.

asguy 6y ago
So what? Plenty of women write from their perspective, which could be taken as misandry. There's something to learn by putting yourself in someone's shoes, and seeing from their perspective (e.g. the current protests, and Black Lives Matter).
- danans 6y ago
  > Plenty of women write from their perspective, which could be taken as misandry. Women writing from their perspective != misandry any more than men writing from their perspective is misogyny. Those words have specific definitions that you are abusing to make a false equivalency. And what's wrong with calling out historical misogyny when it is presented as wisdom? That's not to say Schopenhauer has nothing useful to offer, but his misogyny isn't one of those things. It's no different from calling out racism in a similar historical context - like acknowledging that Winston Churchill was a great statesman and also simultaneously a very racist person. Schopenhauer's misogynistic perspective has long been the default of much of society, so it doesn't need to be treated with kid gloves. > seeing from their perspective (e.g. the current protests, and Black Lives Matter). 18th century misogyny doesn't deserve the same hearing out as BLM protests against contemporary police brutality. That logic would also excuse the presentation of 18th century racism as a valid perspective today.