Monday, 30 September 2013

A Defence of Schopenhauer (from an attack by Donald DeMarco)

I cannot countenance mindless attacks by supposedly 'moral' religious people against men who speak the truth.  What I find particularly galling is the fact that religious men claim to have an 'exclusive' authority over all moral matters, a holier-than-thou attitude, just because they subscribe to a belief system that some people call 'the one true faith'.

I could probably ramble on all day about such religious people, but that wouldn't achieve much, and would just waste time, so I'll get to the point of this post which is very simple:
To defend Arthur Schopenhauer from a seemingly mindless attack by Catholic Donald Demarco, who labels Schopenhauer as an 'Architect of Death'.

That's an impressive title I think you'll agree: 'The Architect of Death'!  The horrific crimes that Arthur Schopenhauer committed to get this acrimonious title include:
- Writing books.
- Learning to play the flute.

Writing books!  Sacre bleu!  That's enough to warrant 'Architect of Death' if ever I saw it!  These are truelly death-like activities...  Oh no, I'm not being sarcastic!  No, really I'm not!  In the wrong hands a flute can be deadly!

Anyway... Donald DeMarco's attacks on Schopenhauer are 'seemingly mindless' because the amount of un-truth he writes implies that he must have been absent minded whilst writing his diatribe against Schopenhauer.  Either that or he is just another 'partisan hack' whose only interest is to distance modern men from the works of a genius.  A genius who would help men to see what the world and women are really like. 

Schopenhauer's thoughts of women are quite unlike Mr Demarcos.  Mr DeMarco probably percieves women as 'Virgin Maries' (the kind of 'Virgin Mary' that Catholics have constructed, not the Mary that is written about in the New Testament.  Just download a copy of the bible and search for 'Mary' and you won't find much said about her.  It makes you see how much 'creative extrapolation' Christians indulge in...)  Mind you, Mr Demarco is in good company when it comes to venerating women, Catholics seemingly pray to Mary more than they do to Jesus, the man they consider to be God!  Not forgetting that 'Virgin Mary' is actually a mistranslation and in reality should read 'young maid' as is shown HERE.

Now onto the article itself.  Donald Demarco's original comments are in quotes and italicized, with my own comments are just beneath.  Each comment is separated by a few asterixes for ease of reading.  There are lots of comments because pretty much everything that Mr Demarco writes is erroneous (it makes one wonder how valuable 'theological doctorates' really are.)  There is a link to the original article HERE.

* * * * *
René Descartes separated mind from matter and tried to re-connect them. Schopenhauer outlined a differed kind of dualism, one between mind and life, in which the latter dominated the former. He portrayed mind and life as antagonistic to each other, while despising life as the hapless instrument of an engulfing Will.
Schopenhauer didn't depsise life. He encourage people to enjoy life and pursue the higher arts, and higher cultures.

 * * * * *
Here is the re-introduction of a Manichaean spirit – a fear of the flesh – that Christianity, based as it is on the Incarnation of Christ, has always endeavored to eradicate.
Christ encouraged people not to marry and not to have children as is shown HERE. This is more of a fear of the flesh than Schopenhauers writings and life.

   * * * * *
Schopenhauer's extreme, antagonistic dualism leads directly to his degradation of women.
This is untrue. Schopenhauer recommends that men should speak to women when they have monetary problems.

  * * * * *
He separates the sexes in the same way that he separates life from mind.
No. He separates them in the same way that one separates water and flour: so that they can be identified and their attributes understood. If we didn't separate water and flour and consider them as different things then we wouldn't be able to identify them and make the best of them. Water as a thing to drink and flour as a thing to bake and eat.

 * * * * *
Only men are capable of genius.  Women are the passive servants of Will. In his "Essay on Women," he scorns their beauty and contends that women "are incapable of taking a purely objective interest in anything . . .The most distinguished intellects among the whole sex have never managed to produce a single achievement in the fine arts that is really genuine and original; or given to the world any work of permanent value in any sphere." 
Other writers have remarked on womens tendency to only take interest in things that allow them to 'find a husband', including Otto Weininger. A modern day example of this is the woman who goes to university, or goes to Games Workshop 'to find a boyfriend'. She has no interest in the topics themselves, she is only using them as a means of finding a 'husband/cash-cow' to leesh and take down the alter.

As for the remark that only men are creators: Check out the gender ratio of the patents office. Nearly all inventions are made by men. Men even invented things specific to women like tampons (Dr Earle Hass) and vibrators (by various men). Women are deficient in the creative faculties relative to men, though of course some women are creative, but they are commonly married to creative men like Mr Curie and Mrs Curie.

Finally men have higher IQs, make more inovations/inventions, and have more nerves in their brain (where thinking goes on).  It should also be noted that Schopenhauer thought that children inherited their intellect from their mother and their will from their father, which is contrary to the writings of DeMarco, which leads one to believe that Schopenhauer considered women to be intellectual vacuums: Schopenhauer believed that a person inherits his level of intellect through his mother, and personal character through one's father. (Source:

  * * * * *

He regards women as either shrews or sinners; he could envision no other type.
Since the 1960's when women had the pill, free-love has been the norm, followed by bouts of 'anti-male sex' hysteria (cf. the attack on Lads Mags but not on Vibrators and Dildos sold on the high street by Anne Summers.

  * * * * *
He believes that deceit is inherent to women and doubts whether they should ever be put under oath.
Women lie, quite often. Always about how many sexual partners they've had, as shown HERE and HERE, and often about rape as is shown HERE and HERE, or just google the relevant terms.

  * * * * *

He accuses women of thinking that it is a man's business to make money and theirs to spend it.
CSA (Child Support Agency) all extort money from men to give to men as argued by Fathers for Justice HERE. Also see these comments on Schopenhauers own spend-thrift mother: Her income as a writer could not keep up with her spendthrift habits, however and she lived with her daughter in Bonn as an economy. The pair's finances continued to decline and she petitioned Karl Friedrich, Duke of Weimar who granted her a small pension in 1837 inviting her and her daughter to live in Jena. (Source:

 * * * * *
He indicts them for their extravagance, complaining that "their chief out-door sport is shopping."
The feminised Western World is now a shoppers paradise and imports more than it exports.

 * * * * *

Rather caustically, he remarks that, "When the laws gave women equal rights, they ought also to have endowed them with masculine intellects."
See the previous note on female IQ.

  * * * * *

Schopenhauer's literary executors saw fit to suppress some of his remarks about the female sex. Those that were published, however, were more than enough to establish his reputation as a man who did not think very highly of women.
As did the very Christian and very Catholic 'Saint' Augstine.

  * * * * *

Schopenhauer's extreme, antagonistic dualism leads directly to his degradation of women. He separates the sexes in the same way that he separates life from mind.
Unlike Christian monasteries and Nunneries you mean... Which have been keeping the genders apart since the time of the 'desert fathers', roughly 1,500 years ago. No dualistic separation there at all!

 * * * * *

Schopenhauer's philosophy may be conveniently summarized by a concatenation of three words: Will – Strife – Misery.
No, actually, he said that a man should dedicate himself to the higher arts. Demarco is mixing up his own Christian view on existence which is of course: "Pick up your cross daily". Roughly translates into "suffer for your beliefs" - note the word 'suffer', which implies strife and misery.

 * * * * *

Will exerts itself everywhere as a primordial urge to beget life. But since it proceeds without any principle of organization – what Medieval philosophers and theologians referred to as Providence – the stage is set for untold struggle and strife.
Will/Being is a tool of God. The angel Gabriel is just a name which means 'power'.  Christians have 'Angels' and pagans have 'Gods', they are both the same thing. Like 'water' and 'aqua', or 'red' and 'rouge'.

 * * * * *
As each individual living thing strives to continue in existence, the world becomes a vast field of conflict.
In the Christian world this suffering is called 'righteous suffering': Picking up your Cross daily. Like Meister Eckhart said: All that a man bears for God's sake, God makes light and sweet for him... If all was right with you, your sufferings would no longer be suffering, but love and comfort.

 * * * * *
This cruel, rapacious, and heartless conflict invariably breeds much misery. And it is the human being that experiences misery in its most acute form. It is a case of homo homini lupus est (man is a wolf to his fellow man). "The miseries in life can so increase," he tells us, "that the death which hitherto has been feared above all things is eagerly seized upon." Hence, it may very well be that "the brevity of life, which is so constantly lamented, may be the best quality it possesses." The elderly, often wretched, desire death. Those who die young are blessed by life's most singular virtue.
Christ encouraged men to not marry and to not have children, as is shown HERE.  If you're in doubt of this, and believe that Christ encouraged marriage and children, then download a html copy of the bible and search for the terms marriage, children, etc, and then you can find out for yourself.  What this shows is that Christs views on the world are similar to Schopenhauers, inasmuch as they do not encourage having children.

 * * * * *

It is supremely ironic that radical feminism in the contemporary world, especially the variety that is repulsed by a woman's biological nature, has philosophical and historical roots in the one thinker whose misogyny is without peer.
This is utterly wrong to call Schopenhauer a misogynist. It is a knee-jerk reaction. Typical from someone who is without a calm disposition.  It is nothing more than an unconsidered quip. Here are Schopenhauers thoughts on why men benefit from hearing womens advice once in a blue moon: To consult women in matters of difficulty, as the Germans used to do in old times, is by no means a matter to be overlooked; for their way of grasping a thing is quite different from ours, chiefly because they like the shortest way to the point, and usually keep their attention fixed upon what lies nearest; while we, as a rule, see beyond it, for the simple reason that it lies under our nose; it then becomes necessary for us to be brought back to the thing in order to obtain a near and simple view. This is why women are more sober in their judgment than we, and why they see nothing more in things than is really there; while we, if our passions are roused, slightly exaggerate or add to our imagination. 

 * * * * *

It is equally ironic that the philosopher who identifies the metaphysical core of reality with Nature and Life, envisions life as a curse and death as a release from its misery.
No.  Schopenhauer identifies it with 'Will' and 'The Thing in Itself'. It is not bound to corporeal matter, but also to abstract things.


No comments:

Post a Comment