Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Mon Jul 16, 2012 1:54 am**

reasonvemotion wrote:A list of Philosophers who remained unmarried.

•Immanuel Kant
•Friedrich Nietzsche
•René Descartes
•David Hume
•John Locke
•Thomas Aquinas
•Gottfried Leibniz
•Baruch Spinoza
•Jean-Paul Sartre
•Arthur Schopenhauer

Correlation is not causation. I could produce a list of smart people who were married. Your list means nothing.

Granted, there were some religious men who were not allowed to be married, perhaps there is a correlation between intelligence and social ineptitude, ie lack of friends, depression. Even so, these would not be a barrier to finding someone or did they just not have time for romance?

Posted: **Mon Jul 16, 2012 5:55 am**

You could produce a list of married philosophers but it would pale in comparison, especially since he left off Wittgenstein. I think Aristotle was married, though, but then we know what he thought of his wife.

Nietzsche said it best: Show me a married philosopher and I'll show you a buffoon. Well, I paraphrase loosely.

I'm not against marriage by any means, even for philosophers, but if we're simply comparing two lists: The bachelors win.

Posted: **Mon Jul 16, 2012 6:23 am**

fiveredapples wrote:You could produce a list of married philosophers but it would pale in comparison, especially since he left off Wittgenstein. I think Aristotle was married, though, but then we know what he thought of his wife.

Nietzsche said it best: Show me a married philosopher and I'll show you a buffoon. Well, I paraphrase loosely.

I'm not against marriage by any means, even for philosophers, but if we're simply comparing two lists: The bachelors win.

Albert Einstein married; Richard Feynman married; Robert Oppenheimer married; Carl Sagan married; Enrico Fermi married; etc., etc.

Now, anyone who thinks that correlation means causation is someone who does not understand basic science.

I just gave an impressive list. Now, how can you objectively prove you can come up with a superior list of non-married people? You can't. It is a fools' game to even try.

Posted: **Mon Jul 16, 2012 2:09 pm**

Such intensity given to a foolish question is hardly warranted.

Posted: **Mon Jul 16, 2012 7:36 pm**

ForgedinHell wrote:
fiveredapples wrote:You could produce a list of married philosophers but it would pale in comparison, especially since he left off Wittgenstein. I think Aristotle was married, though, but then we know what he thought of his wife.

Nietzsche said it best: Show me a married philosopher and I'll show you a buffoon. Well, I paraphrase loosely.

I'm not against marriage by any means, even for philosophers, but if we're simply comparing two lists: The bachelors win.
Albert Einstein married; Richard Feynman married; Robert Oppenheimer married; Carl Sagan married; Enrico Fermi married; etc., etc.

Now, anyone who thinks that correlation means causation is someone who does not understand basic science.

I just gave an impressive list. Now, how can you objectively prove you can come up with a superior list of non-married people? You can't. It is a fools' game to even try.

Baruch Spinoza, David Hume. I Kant. All first class unmarried philosophers.
There is no specific correlation. Nietzsche was wrong, or the quote is wrong.

Plato and Socrates were married. This whole debate is empty.

Posted: **Wed Jul 18, 2012 4:14 am**

Has anyone read this book? http://www.greatphilosophersbook.com/

It is on my list.

Posted: **Wed Jul 18, 2012 6:57 am**

“Reason alone does not suffice.”- Carl Jung

He said we cannot only use the intellect to understand the world, as we use our feelings just as much in its apprehension. The intellect, at best, is only half the truth, and must, if it be honest, also understand its inadequacy.

Philosophers are only men and as such are "victim" to failed affairs on the same scale as Tom, Dick or Harry.

Posted: **Wed Jul 18, 2012 4:15 pm**

reasonvemotion wrote:“Reason alone does not suffice.”- Carl Jung

He said we cannot only use the intellect to understand the world, as we use our feelings just as much in its apprehension. The intellect, at best, is only half the truth, and must, if it be honest, also understand its inadequacy.

Philosophers are only men and as such are "victim" to failed affairs on the same scale as Tom, Dick or Harry.

Too bad Carl Jung didn't use his intellect.

Posted: **Wed Jul 18, 2012 7:03 pm**

reasonvemotion wrote:A list of Philosophers who remained unmarried.

•Immanuel Kant
•Friedrich Nietzsche
•René Descartes
•David Hume
•John Locke
•Thomas Aquinas
•Gottfried Leibniz
•Baruch Spinoza
•Jean-Paul Sartre
•Arthur Schopenhauer

Granted, there were some religious men who were not allowed to be married, perhaps there is a correlation between intelligence and social ineptitude, ie lack of friends, depression. Even so, these would not be a barrier to finding someone or did they just not have time for romance?

I would think that all of them were raised in dysfunctional homes by domineering mothers and so suffered from the disease of misogyny.
I mean, what man would NOT want to be with a female...particularly a modern one?
Were they not obviously intimidated by strong independent females?

But if you wish for the truth, instead of an answer that fits into your post-modern bullshit and your secular humanistic liberal, mythology then perhaps, PERHAPS, this could be one reason:

>>> Females are truly not fascinating or intricate creatures.
They are, in fact, predictable, simple...once you learn to not listen to the words they repeat, like a poem, playing word-games and repeating the mantra of whatever social and cultural milieu they were raised in and you just watch their behavior...their actions.

>>> A man would have to dedicate inexorable amounts of time and effort simply to meet the neediness and the constant attention women demand, all for the sake of accessing their womb, via their vaginal canal, and relieving one's self while at the same time offering one's self the possibility to reproducing his own genes.
for a man who does not give a shit, or finds this cost/benefit not in his favor, given what he truly wishes to dedicate his short life to, having a wife would seem to be superfluous.

>>> A philosopher, having philosophized life, existence, the world, would consider procreation and sexual gratification trivial and base.
The only source of meaning and power for a female, would be, for such a man, a waste of his time...given that he could purchase a female's vagina for a short time and suffer less of a cost for it.

Posted: **Wed Jul 18, 2012 8:56 pm**

Satyr wrote:
reasonvemotion wrote:A list of Philosophers who remained unmarried.

•Immanuel Kant
•Friedrich Nietzsche
•René Descartes
•David Hume
•John Locke
•Thomas Aquinas
•Gottfried Leibniz
•Baruch Spinoza
•Jean-Paul Sartre
•Arthur Schopenhauer

Granted, there were some religious men who were not allowed to be married, perhaps there is a correlation between intelligence and social ineptitude, ie lack of friends, depression. Even so, these would not be a barrier to finding someone or did they just not have time for romance?
I would think that all of them were raised in dysfunctional homes by domineering mothers and so suffered from the disease of misogyny.
I mean, what man would NOT want to be with a female...particularly a modern one?
Were they not obviously intimidated by strong independent females?

But if you wish for the truth, instead of an answer that fits into your post-modern bullshit and your secular humanistic liberal, mythology then perhaps, PERHAPS, this could be one reason:

>>> Females are truly not fascinating or intricate creatures.
They are, in fact, predictable, simple...once you learn to not listen to the words they repeat, like a poem, playing word-games and repeating the mantra of whatever social and cultural milieu they were raised in and you just watch their behavior...their actions.

>>> A man would have to dedicate inexorable amounts of time and effort simply to meet the neediness and the constant attention women demand, all for the sake of accessing their womb, via their vaginal canal, and relieving one's self while at the same time offering one's self the possibility to reproducing his own genes.
for a man who does not give a shit, or finds this cost/benefit not in his favor, given what he truly wishes to dedicate his short life to, having a wife would seem to be superfluous.

>>> A philosopher, having philosophized life, existence, the world, would consider procreation and sexual gratification trivial and base.
The only source of meaning and power for a female, would be, for such a man, a waste of his time...given that he could purchase a female's vagina for a short time and suffer less of a cost for it.

You have serious mental problems when it comes to women. Don't ever consider yourself to be a real man. Real men do not insult women the way you do. Ever.

Posted: **Wed Jul 18, 2012 8:59 pm**

Why is that, turd?

Do they want to be treated like the weaker sex while pretending to be equals?
What gives them a double-standard status, you ****?

If they are just like men, then as men they shall be treated. When they say stupidities and are imbeciles then they will be treated as what they are.

You suffer from the Middle-Age romanticism that places women on a pedestal and then must pretend that they are also equals; affirmative action for females.

Will I also be expected to call a n***** something other than what he is?

Posted: **Wed Jul 18, 2012 9:09 pm**

Satyr wrote:Why is that, turd?

Do they want to be treated like the weaker sex while pretending to be equals?
What gives them a double-standard status, you ****?

If they are just like men, then as men they shall be treated. When they say stupidities and are imbeciles then they will be treated as what they are.

You suffer from the Middle-Age romanticism that places women on a pedestal and then must pretend that they are also equals; affirmative action for females.

Will I also be expected to call a n***** something other than what he is?

I assure you, I would hand you your teeth right now if we were standing face to face. You are not a real man, but a worm. Treating women as equals, it means just that, it does not mean that you are free to demean them and claim it is all being done in the name of "equality." It's not. If you truly thought of them as equals, you would not behave the way you do.

I stand by my moral position. Real men, never, ever, allow another man to abuse women. You can piss off. You want to look me up? My address is 514 South Siesta Way, Pueblo West, CO 81007. My phone number is 719-553-8858. My name is Larry Saunders. If you live anywhere close and want to prove I am a mere "****," feel free to prove it.

Posted: **Wed Jul 18, 2012 9:16 pm**

ForgedinHell wrote: I assure you, I would hand you your teeth right now if we were standing face to face.

You, sir, are a charlatan and a boorish lout.
I spit in your general direction, fart indiscriminately, and throw down my glove(s).
Will someone pick them up for me?

By the way...I weight 220lbs.
Just thought you should know.

ForgedinHell wrote:You are not a real man, but a worm.

Indeed, "sir"..and if you are any indication of what a "real man" is like or expected to be like, then I am worse still....i am intelligent.
Something that goes above and beyond your romanticism and how you were trained to behave...like a monkey.

ForgedinHell wrote: Treating women as equals, it means just that, it does not mean that you are free to demean them and claim it is all being done in the name of "equality." It's not. If you truly thought of them as equals, you would not behave the way you do.

You mean you can threaten me, from afar, but you cannot bring yourself to do so with them...with her?
Fascinating...you ****.

What an ingenious strategy, my boy.
She's just like you - in your case this is not too far from the truth - but only in so far as she gains from it. When she is presented with a loss, a challenge, she must be treated preferentially.
She is equal only under some circumstances...then she reverts to the simple female that she is in every other occasion.

I get it.
Thanks.
Sounds like affirmative action to me.

ForgedinHell wrote: I stand by my moral position. Real men, never, ever, allow another man to abuse women. You can piss off. You want to look me up? My address is 514 South Siesta Way, Pueblo West, CO 81007. My phone number is 719-553-8858. My name is Larry Saunders. If you live anywhere close and want to prove I am a mere "****," feel free to prove it.

See, you are merely getting the girls wet now, my dear sir.
Such bravado...such courage...such machismo.
What a MAN!!!!

Care to post your bank account number and your credit cart pin?
Just thought I would ask.

Is this not an intellectual arena, ****?
Then what does her sex matter?
It certainly matters not in your case.

Would you like me to charter a flight or will you wait for me at the bus terminal...****?

Do something even more masculine....debunk my views.
Fight me here in the only place that matter...with what you call your brain... tiny, though it may be.

Posted: **Thu Jul 19, 2012 6:55 pm**

Satyr wrote:
ForgedinHell wrote: I assure you, I would hand you your teeth right now if we were standing face to face.
You, sir, are a charlatan and a boorish lout.
I spit in your general direction, fart indiscriminately, and throw down my glove(s).
Will someone pick them up for me?

By the way...I weight 220lbs.
Just thought you should know.

ForgedinHell wrote:You are not a real man, but a worm.
Indeed, "sir"..and if you are any indication of what a "real man" is like or expected to be like, then I am worse still....i am intelligent.
Something that goes above and beyond your romanticism and how you were trained to behave...like a monkey.

ForgedinHell wrote: Treating women as equals, it means just that, it does not mean that you are free to demean them and claim it is all being done in the name of "equality." It's not. If you truly thought of them as equals, you would not behave the way you do.
You mean you can threaten me, from afar, but you cannot bring yourself to do so with them...with her?
Fascinating...you ****.

What an ingenious strategy, my boy.
She's just like you - in your case this is not too far from the truth - but only in so far as she gains from it. When she is presented with a loss, a challenge, she must be treated preferentially.
She is equal only under some circumstances...then she reverts to the simple female that she is in every other occasion.

I get it.
Thanks.
Sounds like affirmative action to me.

ForgedinHell wrote: I stand by my moral position. Real men, never, ever, allow another man to abuse women. You can piss off. You want to look me up? My address is 514 South Siesta Way, Pueblo West, CO 81007. My phone number is 719-553-8858. My name is Larry Saunders. If you live anywhere close and want to prove I am a mere "****," feel free to prove it.
See, you are merely getting the girls wet now, my dear sir.
Such bravado...such courage...such machismo.
What a MAN!!!!

Care to post your bank account number and your credit cart pin?
Just thought I would ask.

Is this not an intellectual arena, ****?
Then what does her sex matter?
It certainly matters not in your case.

Would you like me to charter a flight or will you wait for me at the bus terminal...****?

Do something even more masculine....debunk my views.
Fight me here in the only place that matter...with what you call your brain... tiny, though it may be.

I already have debunked your views. You don't have any. You resort to vulgarities to hide the fact you have nothing relevant to write about. I'm merely pointing out that while you post nasty garbage here, hiding behind an avatar, you can never legitimately claim to be brave or a tough guy. Therefore, as a matter of logic, you should refrain from doing so. It just makes you look stupid.

Posted: **Thu Jul 19, 2012 10:53 pm**

ForgedinHell wrote:
I already have debunked your views.

Of course you have, turd.
In your world you might even be intelligent.

ForgedinHell wrote: You don't have any.

Let me get this straight, you've "debunked views" I do not have?
Oh Turd, I bet you are one of those socialized supporters of feminism, aren't you boy?

ForgedinHell wrote: You resort to vulgarities to hide the fact you have nothing relevant to write about.

Was that an example of how you "debunk views"?

Here's one of my views:
You are a moron.

Let see if you can debunk that one.

ForgedinHell wrote:I'm merely pointing out that while you post nasty garbage here, hiding behind an avatar, you can never legitimately claim to be brave or a tough guy.

Never claimed to be a tough guy but I did claim to be your intellectual superior and most probably someone who can also kick your arse.
I do not tend to engage in fisticuffs, particularly when nothing of value is at risk...nor do I dirty my hands and risk jail terms for animals and imbeciles.

ForgedinHell wrote:Therefore, as a matter of logic, you should refrain from doing so. It just makes you look stupid.

I think the "looking stupid" part is one of your monopolies around here, turd.
I think some already know how stupid you are.
I just make you show it over and over and over again.

The thread topic is "Unmarried Philosophers" not your sexual frustrations and how lonely you are.

Methinks you have a little crush on the ****.

Philosophy Now Forum

Unmarried Philosophers

Re: Unmarried Philosophers

Re: Unmarried Philosophers

Re: Unmarried Philosophers

Re: Unmarried Philosophers

Re: Unmarried Philosophers

Re: Unmarried Philosophers

Re: Unmarried Philosophers

Re: Unmarried Philosophers

Re: Unmarried Philosophers

Re: Unmarried Philosophers

Re: Unmarried Philosophers

Re: Unmarried Philosophers

Re: Unmarried Philosophers

Re: Unmarried Philosophers

Re: Unmarried Philosophers