Women are directly adapted to act as the nurses and educators of our early childhood, for the simple reason that they themselves are childish, foolish, and short-sighted—in a word, are big children all their lives, something intermediate between the child and the man, who is a man in the strict sense of the word. Consider how a young girl will toy day after day with a child, dance with it and sing to it; and then consider what a man, with the very best intentions in the world, could do in her place.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. Accordingly, Nature has furnished woman, as she has the rest of her creatures, with the weapons and implements necessary for the protection of her existence and for just the length of time that they will be of service to her; so that Nature has proceeded here with her usual economy. Just as the female ant after coition loses her wings, which then become superfluous, nay, dangerous for breeding purposes, so for the most part does a woman lose her beauty after giving birth to one or two children; and probably for the same reasons.Then again we find that young girls in their hearts regard their domestic or other affairs as secondary things, if not as a mere jest. Love, conquests, and all that these include, such as dressing, dancing, and so on, they give their serious attention.
>>24819920Find a flaw (you can't)
>>24819920A reminder that no matter how far seeing a man may be, in some respects, he shall always also be a slave to his time. In the passage you posted, OP, Schopp said in so many words, what the average illiterate peasant of his time thought about his mother, his wife, and his daughter, with about as much insight as well. Thanks for this little memento mori!
>>24819920Woman on Schopenhauer
>>24820744>Schopp said in so many words, what the average illiterate peasant of his time thought about his mother, his wife, and his daughterIlliterate peasants who disrespected their mothers got whipped bloody by their fathers until they learned to respect their mothers.
>>24820755You are probably correct. I forgot that the to think up a truly moronic thought, a good formal education is needed. The average illiterate peasant’s worst impulses are mediated by the practicalities of life. No such impediments for intellectuals. Not trying to be a philistine here, I admit that a formal education is also needed for the coming up with the greatest ideas too.
>>24820755well, women back then had qualities worth respecting. now, not so much.
>>24820796>women back then had qualities worth respectingNot according to Schopenhauer they didn't.
>>24820749>Johanna was an abusive wife to his father and an abusive mother to him. She even threw Schopenhauer down a flight of stairs once when he talked back to her. Also, Schopenhauer’s father (whom he was very close with) was believed to have committed suicide when Schopenhauer was seventeen and it has always been a rumor that Johanna Schopenhauer was a contributing factor to his suicide.>After her husband died, Johana left for Weimar to join the free love movement and follow her dreams of becoming a writer, leaving Schopenhauer behind. And when Schopenhauer later wanted to move to Weimar to pursue philosophy, she desperately tried to convince him not to move to Weimar, saying she couldn’t stand to be around him.
>Where the tension between them comes in, is that Johanna at the time was a semi successful author of cheap romances and thought very highly of herself. Arthur, as we know, also thought very highly of himself from an early age. What made Johanna seethe was Arthur's unwarranted confidence (bordering on arrogance) without having anything tangible to show for it. This is best seen in this interaction:>>Unfortunately, the published dissertation earned, at best, lukewarm reviews. Indeed, the most stinging might have come from the young man’s mother, who asked sarcastically whether his book [The Fourfold Roots of the Principle of Sufficient Reason] was for pharmacists. Schopenhauer retorted that his work would still find readers when not even a single copy of her writings could be found in a junk yard. Undaunted, Johanna Schopenhauer spat back, ‘Of yours the entire printing will still be available’.>One time Goethe was impressed by young Arthur's intellect, saying that by proper grooming he could become a literary genius, and she said something like "only one person in each family could be a genius" (referring to herself). She even went as far as badmouthing Arthur to Goethe, and was one of the reasons the relationship between Schopenhauer and Goethe worsened.
>>24820815>>24820816this sounds like the relationship I have with my own sister except slightly less violent.
>>24820798well that I guess that's something. huh.
>>24820815>>24820816Holy based
>>24820841Is she older or younger? How do you let your sibling bully you? Parents i can 'get' but siblings? Far more equal ground.
>>24820816>Indeed, the most stinging might have come from the young man’s mother, who asked sarcastically whether his book [The Fourfold Roots of the Principle of Sufficient Reason] was for pharmacistsLmaoooooo kek
