Women cannot be Philosophers.

[Outsider]

Women cannot be Philosophers.

That is my contention.

Philosophy is a value-positing Spiritual activity that emerges from a profound suffering and an active nihilism.

The female by evolutionary design cannot feel nihilism and its impact, to the intensity males do because of identity-continuity they feel through/with their child. They don't feel the fragility of selfhood as much as males do.
Females evolved to conserve to ex-Tend. Therefore, the accumulated-capital since the past, for years and years could not be sufficient to create such an inclination.

But even with the change of feminine roles - the artificial drive to compete to think rationally, which must make the quality of future progeny quite poor as spiritual-capital is spent, still cannot make women Philosophers because value-positing is a Name-giving Rite.

Name from O.E. nama, noma "name, reputation," from P.Gmc. *namon, O.S. namo, Skt. nama, Gk. onoma, onyma.
Reputation, further, from being ready, straightforward, moving in a straight line, etc.

The Female is a winding, weaving, turning, mediating, knotting, twisting Intelligence.
The Male is straight, direct, head-on Spirit.

Women are Wise. They are Seers, not Philosophers.
[O.E. wis, from pp. adj. *wittos of PIE root *weid- "to see," hence "to know", "vision". Slang meaning "aware, cunning" first attested 1896. Related to the source of O.E. witan "to know, wit."]
They Are the accumulated-wealth, the guarding-dragons to speak metaphorically, that myths all over time and in every culture have as being defeated or slayed by a Hero. , etc.

So, unless in the coming years, we see women's Body undergoing a drastic devolution, with her reproductive organs going redundant, I doubt they can be Philosophers. One can say this because with men becoming feminized and their Spirit going redundant, you see very little authentic Philosophy happening today.

What are your thoughts?

[mickthinks]

What are your thoughts?

I think you're a troll.

[Bernard]

Women are the agents of change, and if the dominance of the male approach to thinking as a constructive rational process needs to change and find equilibrium with the female direct reception of knowledge, then why no? A change is as good as a holiday.

[reasonvemotion]

They don't feel the fragility of selfhood as much as males do.

From this statement, I became aware for the first time, the struggle men have. Does it mean that "man has lost dignity in his own eyes to an incredible extent". Has women's "liberation" affected man to such an enormous degree that men struggle to maintain their selfhood? Are these men the majority or have the majority become "feminists" and is it the "minority" who fight to maintain the natural state of manhood.

Have women been hoodwinked by other women?

[Atthet]

Have women been hoodwinked by other women?

Ahh, the little girls are beginning to "think"! This is quite an event to witness.

Did you, allemotion noreason, convince yourself that men only compete among men, for sexual power? Did it escape your tiny brain, that women also compete among women, for sexual power? Now, ask yourself a very important and potentially enlightening question. Which women, which particular ethnic group are responsible for the feminist movement, and why did this come about?

Is there a specific type, race, of women who have used the ideology of feminism, to change postmodern societies to their own particular favor, at the detriment of other women?

Is one group of women equal to another group of women, or, are groups of women inferior or superior by type, by specie or race?

[Bernard]

I've never been able to get past feminism being an imitation of the male paradigm. Women have a struggle with laziness, of hating to be bothered. Men have their sheer stupidity to deal with. I believe female philosophy exists, and very powerfully in many quarters, they just don't tag it and make a big hullabaloo about it.

Female philosophy is most visible on practical levels within communities and AS community.

[reasonvemotion]

Did you, allemotion noreason, convince yourself that men only compete among men, for sexual power? Did it escape your tiny brain, that women also compete among women, for sexual power? Now, ask yourself a very important and potentially enlightening question. Which women, which particular ethnic group are responsible for the feminist movement, and why did this come about?

Is there a specific type, race, of women who have used the ideology of feminism, to change postmodern societies to their own particular favor, at the detriment of other women?

Is one group of women equal to another group of women, or, are groups of women inferior or superior by type, by specie or race?

There is no "competition" for me, it always has been "my choice".

I have never involved myself in the politics of women's liberation, as I have no need for that.


What specifically I am interested in was my initial question in response to the the Outsider's post

Outsider
They don't feel the fragility of selfhood as much as males do.

From this statement, I became aware for the first time, the struggle men have


It is this I want to know about

[Satyr]

I've never been able to get past feminism being an imitation of the male paradigm. Women have a struggle with laziness, of hating to be bothered. Men have their sheer stupidity to deal with. I believe female philosophy exists, and very powerfully in many quarters, they just don't tag it and make a big hullabaloo about it.

I think the same thing about chimpanzee philosophy....and God.
They "exist", somewhere, but they hide, they are humble, they do not make a big deal out of it...you know like those egotistical males.
See how superior females are, even when they are weak and inferior.

Female philosophy is most visible on practical levels within communities and AS community.

Oh exactly....like in feminism, woman's rights, relationships. They've revolutionized all fields having to do with sex.

Niggers are also most active in matters of race, football, track & field and eating watermelon.
They've got tomes of "philosophy" on basketball.

Jesus, fuckin', Christ!!!!

This world is fucked.

[Bernard]

FALLING IN LOVE AGAIN (Carlos Castaneda)

At seventy-five, we're still looking for "love" and "companionship." My grandfather used to wake up in the middle of the night crying, "Do you think she loves me?" His last words were, "Here I go baby, here I go!" He had a big orgasm and died. For years I thought that was the greatest thing--- magnificent. Then don Juan said, "Your grandfather died like a pig. His life and death had no meaning."

Don Juan said death can't be soothing--- only triumph can. I asked him what he meant by triumph and he said freedom: when you break through the veil and take your life force with you. "But there's still so much that I want to do! "He said, "You mean there are still so many women you want to fuck." He was right. That's how primitive we are.

The ape will consider the unknown, but before he jumps he demands to know: What's in it for me? We're businessmen, investors, used to cutting our losses-- -it's a merchant's world. If we make an "investment," we want guarantees. We fall in love but only if we're loved back. When we don't love anymore, we cut the head off and replace it with another. Our "love" is merely hysteria. We are not affectionate beings, we are heartless.

I thought I knew how to love. Don Juan said, "How could you? They never taught you about love. They taught you how to seduce, to envy, to hate. You don't even love yourself---otherwise you wouldn't have put your body through such barbarities. You don't have the guts to love like a sorcerer. Could you love forever, beyond death? Without the slightest reinforcement---nothing in return? Could you love without investment, for the piss of it? You'll never know what it's like to love like that, relentlessly. Do you really want to die without knowing?"

No---I didn't. Before I die, I have to know what it's like to love like that. He hooked me that way. When I opened my eyes, I was already rolling down the hill. I'm still rolling.

[Thundril]

They don't feel the fragility of selfhood as much as males do.

From this statement, I became aware for the first time, the struggle men have. Does it mean that "man has lost dignity in his own eyes to an incredible extent". Has women's "liberation" affected man to such an enormous degree that men struggle to maintain their selfhood? Are these men the majority or have the majority become "feminists" and is it the "minority" who fight to maintain the natural state of manhood.

Personally, I think some political thought of the past few decades, including some feminist thought, has turned a bright light on men's previously comfortable picture of ourselves.
The biological facts are these:
Mammals produce males and females in very nearly equal numbers. For successful reproduction of any given species, this ratio is incredibly wasteful. The number of individuals born in the next generation is directly proportional to the number of females that survive to reproduce, but the number of males needed is much smaller. From the strictly reproductive pov, most of us males are consuming resources even though we are not necessary to biological reproduction. We are a waste of food and space, unless we can fulfil some other role.
In most herd and group-living species, the surplus males have developed an apparently anti-evolutionary trait; we tend to move towards a threat, rather than away from it. So it is the surplus males who get killed and or eaten, rather than the reproductively important females.
In recent decades, with the decline in industries requiring a lot of upper-body strength (our only real advantage over females) men have been confronted consciously, perhaps for the first time in human history, with this undeniable biological fact. Females are 'more important' than males.
Yes of course some men have responded with aggressive denial. And some are learning to live with it, and still have extremely good relationships with women.
We're not more important than women. Big deal! The sky will not fall down if we admit this simple fact..and it's time we all got over it!

[Outsider]

Women are the agents of change, and if the dominance of the male approach to thinking as a constructive rational process needs to change and find equilibrium with the female direct reception of knowledge, then why no? A change is as good as a holiday.

Women do not Create change; they Conserve the Changes Created by Men.
One shouldn't confuse the falling domino-effect that spreads like chaos. The stone-thrower is Masculine; the ripple-effects that Conserve the change in that rapid chaotic fashion is the Feminine.
An-arche as the destruction of old Order to establish one's New Order is Masculine.
Males are agents of change. Females are Memory; they sustain.

[Outsider]

They don't feel the fragility of selfhood as much as males do.

From this statement, I became aware for the first time, the struggle men have. Does it mean that "man has lost dignity in his own eyes to an incredible extent".

1. The Feminine is Conserving; and Ex-Tends her self-hood through her child. But for the Masculine, the birth of his child alone doesn't guarantee the continuity of his Self. There are values that he must fight for, win for himself and create his own Self first, he must make a Name. He has to confront his Nihilism and re-create himself. It is only when he manages to do this, can he feel self-continuity as he confers His Name to his child. His Name must live on. This is Self-love. To the highest Male, his pre-given Name and his sense of (birth-)self alone does not guarantee his immortality. He must Create Name-Capital.
He has to carry, expose, and alchemicalize his (birth-)self, his genetic limitations and pre-determinations, his entire past to the furnace of reality facing him and come out like a sword. To what degree he can take the heat, depends on his genetic capital. The self-loving Male does not wish to live on another's capital and must stand naked and fashion himself from scratch. This is the fragility of his selfhood I mean. Confronting Nihilism entails a deep profound suffering and is a Male domain. The Female is meant to Conserve the Capital that the Male can use to Create further Capital.

2. So given the after-effects of Feminism, trying to artificially act out male roles, there's an expenditure of the capital, and you see today's men thoroughly feminized not just in appearance but in his whole self-esteem, his value-systems, lethargically 'accepting' the idenity that society, the System makes for him, and has 'Seduced' him like a Female into accepting. Instead of Creating himself, he accepts a university degree, a social pat on the back, a publication of his work into a book as a certificate of an 'Independent Thinker'. Marriage has become a sham. The 'Name' he passes on to his progeny, is not His, doesnot belong to him,, it is what was Tailored for him.

3. What this means, is the gradual disappearance of beautiful Individuality. In other words, the disappearance of the Highest Man is the disappearance of the Philo-sopher. The end of the highest Spirituality, the highest kind of love and beauty.
"Nihilism is a Male issue. Extinction is a Male Challenge." [Satyr]

4. For me, the Philosopher is a Distinct species and gradation, a new Order of Rank than man.
Man is a species and above him is the Philosopher as a superior species.
The more Reality a Man faces, the more complex a being he evolves into; the more complex he is, the rarer he is; the more rarer he is, the less accepted and adaptive he is; the less adapative, greater are his chances of perishing. The Highest Man has The Most Fragile Self, that he then sets to solder.
Satyr said something similar here in another thread:
"Females mature faster than males just as Negroes mature faster than Europeans...and animals mature faster than humans.
The less complex the organism is the faster it achieves its highest limit and then it stagnates there awaiting to be overcome."

5. Nietzsche said, 'God is dead'. This is the first wave of Nihilism.
Satyr's revolutionary thesis 'Feminization of Mankind' is a warning of the coming second wave, when no Philosopher! might exist then to say 'Man is dead'. No one would even feel it given the rate of De-sensitizing male-feminization happening.
The gradual extinction of Man provokes a Spiritual urgency that today's manginas, feminists, feminist-defenders, homos, faggots, self-hating retards of the jewish genetic/mimetic legacy and such MRA idiots are supporting their utmost best consciously or unconsciously in the "Levelling of Man".

Has women's "liberation" affected man to such an enormous degree that men struggle to maintain their selfhood? Are these men the majority or have the majority become "feminists" and is it the "minority" who fight to maintain the natural state of manhood.

Wake up! Indeed. Open your eyes and Feel the gravity of what's happening. Understand the repercussions for yourself.

I'm summarizing Satyr's thesis 'Feminization':

1. Every distinction that sets Man apart from Mankind have been made to fade, to dumb down, to level with unique genetic potentials all replaced by common cultural standards. Masculinity is an an-archic threat that the system tries to feminize to
protect itself. Ego is replaced by Humanitarianism and God is dead, but its abstracted to Love and Love lives on, encouraging
all sorts of co-operative mass feel-do-goodness ideals that common-alize everything. The lowest-common-denominator binding all - "Breathing"/"Life" becomes sacred over every Distinction that sets apart.

2. On the one hand there is Liberalism that champions "all are same in their uniqueness" brand of 'Individuality'!, and on the other hand, there is Conservatism that champions such Individuality' "Must be Conserved"!
Two sides of the same coin, setting in process a Globalized Levelling, a one-world order, a stable uni-Form-ity. Anyone behaving differently goes straight to jail or to a psychotherapist for 'healing' or to the mental asylum or becomes a stand-up clown. Basically Masculinity must be effaced. It has to be made just about Impotent to not be harmful, but potent enough to procreate new slaves to carry on its work.

3. So called Objective Science is just another Technological route to "correct" unique genetic potentials, so that all can be Made to have equal capacities. With this, Reality is made to Blur, and Past is turned to a Blank State. The only Ego is the Communal Ego. Man is 'Manufactured'.

4. The Female evolved to tolerate alien beings/sperms inside herself. With sperm-production being in abundance, the Male becomes expendable and thus evolved to 'Prove' his worth, to Stand-Apart, to Create Capital, constantly 'prove' his worth to the 'filtering' female who then 'selects' him to Conserve the new increase of capital. Because it is the Male domain to stand-Apart, Man is thus Feminized to Tolerate the Alien communal ego as his Ego. To this end, Male Spirituality is blotted down with Hedonism and Commodity Culture. Sex as a "commodity preference" - the Manufacturing of homos, gays, faggots, sluts. Identity as a "commodity preference" - place two choices before someone and then shout freedom of expression and thinking, and there you have manufactured an idiot thinking he is an "Individual Thinker" who used his "Free Will" to come to his own decisions. Education as a "commodity preference" - set the syllabus and comform the degree as guarantee of "Education". And then typically, the most "coolest man" or "socially happening man" gets the best pleasure-giving woman and vice-versa. 'Man' as a Sex-Puppet in the hands of the System.

5. This kind of levelling and de-naturing and feminization and homogenization stands on Judaeo-Xtian values of nihilistic self-ressentiment and equality of all before an Absolute One - call it God, Love, System, Humanity, Mankind, Life, whatever, that created liberalism, socialism, communism, feminism, liberal capitalism, zionism, secular humanism, technological singularity.

Have women been hoodwinked by other women?

No. Men have hoodwinked women who hoodwink other women.

Feminism is a Male-Creation. On the one hand, you have the Feminism that is the consequence of Jewish Communism that tried to masculinize all women, usurp male roles, to 'think and philosophize' like men... ,,, and on the other hand, you have the Victorian Feminism that is the consequence of Judaeo-Xtian. Enlightenment-Liberalism, that tried to over-feminize all women, the excess celebration of sexuality and orgy and porn and prostitution. So there's the prissy-prude acting like a man on the one hand, and the slut sleeping around like a rabbit on the other.

Get it?

[Outsider]

I've never been able to get past feminism being an imitation of the male paradigm. Women have a struggle with laziness, of hating to be bothered.

This is true. That is why I say they never Value-posit; they do not Create; they Conserve.
Feminism is a ripple from a stone-throwing male; a Male-instigation.
A Female's Natural mode is to conserve. My second contention, something I'm working on, is "Faithfulness" itself is a kind of "Intelligence".

Men have their sheer stupidity to deal with. I believe female philosophy exists, and very powerfully in many quarters, they just don't tag it and make a big hullabaloo about it.
Female philosophy is most visible on practical levels within communities and AS community.

No, this is rubbish. The Feminine like I said, is a twisting, connecting, mediating, weaving Intelligence. It changes dimensions that the masculine Creates.
This is why, in traditional thought and culture, the Woman in marriage is seen as a mediator or a 'sacrifice' who weaves two dimensions and conserves capital of two families.
Naming is a distinct Male rite.

Women cannot be Philosophers.

The female philosophies you refer to simply play around dimensions, they Name nothing.

[Outsider]

There is no "competition" for me, it always has been "my choice".

Free-Will is the biggest Illusion. Your past Seals certain limitations and depending on your inherited capital, they can be overcome or you improvise.
Most choices are already pre-set up in today's world anyway.

What specifically I am interested in was my initial question in response to the the Outsider's post

Outsider
They don't feel the fragility of selfhood as much as males do.

From this statement, I became aware for the first time, the struggle men have


It is this I want to know about

I have tried to explain above. If your quest and seeking is earnest, then go all the way. Read his thesis on his blog - its far more insightful than what I've cramped in a few points:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19497551/The- ... of-Mankind
It was worth my while, maybe you'll say the same.

[Bernard]

Women do not Create change; they Conserve the Changes Created by Men.
One shouldn't confuse the falling domino-effect that spreads like chaos. The stone-thrower is Masculine; the ripple-effects that Conserve the change in that rapid chaotic fashion is the Feminine.
An-arche as the destruction of old Order to establish one's New Order is Masculine.
Males are agents of change. Females are Memory; they sustain.

Sounds like women putting up with men to me. I would maintain that there has been very little change for thousands of years, and that women are putting up with these endless cycles of war, revolution and usurpance - which are not changes in themselves, but repetitions. The sort of change we are in the midst of now is the sort of change that occurs perhaps only once every five or ten thousand years. We don't know what the hell is going on as there are no precedents in the history books. We can't define change when its in motion, but bet to hell its female energy at work. Its not just that women bring about change, they EMBODY IT. They are not as capable as men are in consolidating the changes they bring.