>>24293262
>>primarily interested in "fun"
Just as our lord and prophet Friedrich 'bring thy whip' Nietzsche has mandated:

"Nothing ruins us more profoundly or inwardly than 'impersonal' duty, or any sacrifice in front of the Moloch of abstraction. - <...> - When the instinct of life compels us to act, pleasure proves that the act is *right*: and this nihilist with the intestines of a Christian dogmatist saw pleasure as an *objection* . .. What could be more destructive than working, thinking, feeling, without any inner need, any deeply personal choice, any *pleasure*? as an automaton of 'duty'? It is almost the recipe for decadence, even for idiocy"

"And when I saw my devil, I found him serious, thorough, profound, solemn: he was the spirit of gravity— through him all things fall.
Not by wrath, but by laughter, do we slay. Come, let us slay the spirit of gravity!"

>>genuinely tyrannized by their emotions
Somatic marker hypothesis.

>>genuinely not capable of pride/dignity (strong external shame acculturation is required
Translation: you are a dog that has so internalized beatings from your sky daddy master, that you actively punish yourself for thought-crimes by your own hand. You lack intellectual honesty before yourself.

>>generally not interested in the external, objective world
perspectivism. The external world is inaccessible

>>generally not interested in "truth"
ever since Sextus Empiricus, it has been established that "true" and "truth" are different things, and hence the latter need not exist (it is true, that you'll find no such material physical thingie as 'Truth'). Enjoy some skepticism.

>>generally not interested in history (except for "fun stories" =
= the extraordinary, i.e. the initial greek understanding of history as a discipline, per Hannah Arendt:

"Since the things of nature are ever-present, they are not likely to be overlooked or forgotten; and since they are forever, they do not need human remembrance for their further existence. All living creatures, man not excepted, are contained in this realm of being-forever, and Aristotle explicitly assures us that man, insofar as he is a natural being and belongs to the species of mankind, possesses immortality; through the recurrent cycle of life, nature assures the same kind of being-forever to things that are born and die as to things that are and do not change.
<...>
What is difficult for us to realize is that the great deeds and works of which mortals are capable, and which become the topic of historical narrative, are not seen as parts of either an encompassing whole or a process; on the contrary, the stress is always on single instances and single gestures. These single instances, deeds or events, interrupt the circular movement of daily life in the same sense that the rectilinear *βίος* of the mortals interrupts the circular movement of biological life. The subject matter of history is these interruptions—the extraordinary, in other words."

Back | Go to board

Board:

/lit/

Thread:

Can you explain in a non-sexist way why women usually don't read philosophy?