Catching the Great Fish

.

.

Catching the Great Fish

.

by Carl Baydala

.

I am able at this point in my life to draw some parallels between catching a woman and snagging a fish. In this short expose I should like to relate to you my experiences regarding the snaring of a woman and how that task relates to the bagging of a fish.

Women and fish have things in common when it comes to pursuing them. I am able to make these sorts of observations regarding women and fish since I have experience in both matters. One has to know the habits of women and the things that are of interest to them, etc. Chasing a woman is after all a science just like that of catching that Great Fish that is in the back of one's mind.

.As a child I spent many hours fishing alone down at the docks in my home town. I enjoyed the solitude of the craft and learned that patience is indeed a virtue when it comes to fishing. I was patient as a child and as an adult I still value this attribute. I can spend all day fishing, and even if I catch nothing of any consequence I am satisfied that I am enjoying nature and thinking of the object of my desire. I think you will find that the psychology and philosophy that a man employs while fishing is exactly the same thing as in the pursuit of his woman.

Once you catch sight of that Great Woman one must employ all one's acquired skills in the objective of landing her. Where does she hang out? What does she like to do or talk about? What things annoy her or make her happy and interested in your presence? And, like in the pursuit of the fish, what lure shall I use to grab her attention? These are the considerations for the serious fisherman of women.


Some men are very aggressive or even cavalier fishermen and that is how they treat their female objects of desire. A man in a pursuit of a woman might treat her like a sucker fish and use common bait to lure her in. Things like buying her dinners and drinks or saying pretty things to her might do the trick. If you think your woman is of a common variety then these tricks would most likely work. You will catch your fish and enjoy your pleasures - with a typical sucker fish.


But, a man interested in that really big catch, that special fish of fishes might do something a little bit different. His woman is not going to be fooled by cheap lures and flashy pieces of equipment like an automobile or the waving of money in front of her face. No, a really fine specimen of a woman or that really large fish requires something different. That is why the fish has become so large or the woman has remained independent for so long, because it is crafty and self-supporting. It has learned how to survive in the waters and to be wary of its attackers and of the things that it devours. And, so it is with that special woman, the trophy fish that one engages in catching when no other can.



As I mention above, my personal strategy involves patience and an understanding of my fish, and my woman. She is special and requires that special lure, and it is a matter of being in the right place at the right time as well. So, as you can see luck enters the picture as well. But, luck is only the catalyst I think you would agree. If I am pursuing that big fish and being in the right place at the right time then time is working in my favor. Having identified the type of woman that I am after I must determine what strategy to use to win her favor. And, it is the precisely the same thing as utilizing that special lure in the right place and at the right time when bagging that Great Fish.

Since this special woman is privy to all of the common tricks that men have used she is wise to their efforts and will reject them. She might play with them and nibble a bit on their hooks, maybe even take a taste of them. But, she will not be caught entirely for that is not her want. She will not necessarily end up on their dinner plate if she has anything to say about the matter. If she is going to sacrifice herself and fall for the bait it will be as her choosing. This is where the element of luck comes in.

The man who wants to catch the big one will only do so when that big one wants to be caught....

She will be swimming freely in the cool waters enjoying herself to the full. She will be tasting and feasting upon the treasures of the sea as she sees fit. All of the lures in her world are understandable to her; she will be interested because it is in her favor to do so. But, one day she will be introduced to that special lure, the one that makes her nibble and bite, and to finally swallow in its entirety.

Depending on the kind of fish or woman she really is will determine the rationale for her behavior. If she is the supreme example of the super sucker fish she will finally succumb to that ultimate lure and be dazzled by it, since it is the one that fooled her and sucked her in. On the other hand, if she is the ultimate lady fish or Great Fish, or the Great Woman she will accept the ' special lure ' and bite into it with all of her might because that is her destiny.

.

A Great Fish or a Great Woman will be attracted to great things, since the two are destined to come together; it is only a matter of time and luck. Perhaps this is where the term 'getting lucky' has its origins.

.

Dear Diary

.

My Home Page and Blog Organization

.

.

* * * * * * * * * *

.

.

On the Matter of politics and religion....

.

Recently, I have discovered the speaker, Jordan Maxwell. His views are very similar to mine as regards politics and religion. As an atheist, I am naturally attracted to this kind of personality. Mr. Maxwell has something which I do not possess, and that something is the knowledge of astrology and religion and the symbolism contained within religion. The Christian religion, for example, is merely a copy of 15 former ones. This means, of course that the current believers in Christianity do not understand their religion, nor their government, which is intimately bound up in the deception or false beliefs of this religion. The link below is about politics and religion. It is truly educational in its presentation.

.

Conspiracy Central

.

More Jordan Maxwell Videos Here

.

Jordan Maxwell Exposes the Illuminati

.

The above video is three hours long

and is very entertaining and informative.

.

Every Breath You Take

.

Take note of the religious symbolism in this video, particularly the meaning of the CBS all seeing eye and the hats that the girls are wearing.

The Philosophy of the Broken

.

.

The Philosophy of the

.

Broken

.

.

by Carl Baydala

.

Lately, I have been studying philosophy, concentrating on the important men in the field and their ideas. You will notice that I said men because I have not yet encountered any famous women in the field. This is a fact, and it is quite instructive a feature of the study of philosophy I think you will agree, but it does not lay at the center of my proposed Philosophy of the Broken.
.
I looked at the Greek philosophers, the so-called modern ones, and finishing up by considering the thoughts of the existentialists. I can relate a great deal to the personalities of Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and Heidegger et al. The first two philosophers are a personal interest because of their problems with women. Undoubtedly, their world views were influenced by their relationships with women, as have mine.
.

Schopenhauer was a misogynist and Nietzsche was dumped. I have had my own personal experiences with women that are not entirely positive. But, I do not hate women. Quite the contrary, I find them to be fascinating creatures and, for myself, they could easily form the basis of a personal life philosophy and view of the world. One, in order to survive has to think of positive things and not negative ones. I think that is where the existentialists fall down in their philosophies. In their quest for meaning and understanding of being, for example, they are far too negative in their outlook for man and of his ability to create a workable philosophy.

.

This does not mean that I am an idealist or that I would side with the Christians or any other person thinking that an all-knowing entity exists somewhere in the sky or in the far reaches of the universe. I am troubled by this belief in a Divine One, a Creator of all things. I don't think things happened that way at all.

.

The Greek philosophers were interested in understanding why they came to be and created ideas about philosophy that we still relate to today. Any serious modern or existentialist philosopher still considers the views of the ancients; that is how important these people were in the development of philosophical thought. Plato was an idealist and he proposed ideas about things that have existed forever, something called the Forms; these are abstract ideas and idealized perfect things that man only has to discover by thinking about them. The idea of a god would form such a view.

.
But, on the other side of the idealists are the materialists. These people think all life and ideas are formed from matter. Some of the early Greek were ' atomists ' which is the belief that all life is part of indivisible matter. Early materialists were the Greeks Leucippus, Democritus, and Epicurus. This is my conception of things as well. Ludwig Feuerbach and Karl Marx were later materialists who challenged the Christian view of things in the nineteenth century. There is also something called Dualism which considers the relationship of the mind and the Spirit.

.
There has been a steadfast group of philosophers in the western tradition who still consider that God exists and this idea forms part of their philosophy. Most of the modern Renaissance men were Christians so it was hard to extricate this influence in their life. God had a role to play and he could be used to explain that mysterious force which controls all things.

.
In the modern context, however, philosophers began to think about this force as being some kind of 'Will' that propels man and his action. You can call it the 'Thing in Itself ' or just the main driving force of man. A philosopher's whole life can be consumed with the business of knowing and reasoning based on the information that is available.

.
But, whatever philosophy you subscribe to, be it Christian or god oriented or based on some materialistic conception of things there is, I believe, a central theme to consider. And, that is, that man is essentially broken. As a corporeal being and as a spiritual being. The existentialists concentrate on this notion of being, and I think that is the right approach to take. I am me. I am Carl Baydala, existing in the here and now. I know not from what or where I came from and neither do I know what my fate is in the future. My origins are unclear as well any possible future outcome. Everything is in doubt. If there is a God I am separated from him and I do not know him. The link is broken. And, in the materialist sense there is a brokenness as well. Why is there man and woman? Who or what decided that these two creatures should exist side by side and require the sexual cooperation of each other for the continuation of their species. Why?

.
The modern philosopher, if he is not a Christian is a thinking man. He is forced to be because he knows that no rational answer is available for the explanation of things. The Christian person can live a life of fantasy if that is his want, but he still does not know if the Entity exists or not. And, even his life is given to soul searching and becoming closer to God or of trying to understand him. He is making up ideas in his mind about something he believes exists, but cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this is the case or not. So, in a way, he is still separated from his god as well; he wants to move closer to the Entity. Just as the modern materialist philosopher wants to move closer to the truth. The atheist is not going to deny the existence of a 'God'. That god for him is going to be the culmination of his entire being and of this thought processes. Man could be God Amighty himself, or nature could be God. These are possibities among many. He doesn't know and that forms the basis of his knowledge. Man is separated from reality because he does not really know it. Man is limited by what he can know in the finite as well as the infinite. He is missing some information. He does not know if the infinite exists because he cannot imagine it. Man tries to get to the bottom of things through logic. That is his main tool and this is where the ideas about reality, being, and knowledge are thrashed about. He can, or will most likely work out a logical explanation of the physical world about him. But, it is like being stuck in a closed box in the middle of outer space and someone chucks an object inside of that box. His job is to explain that object and his next job is to explain who or what is responsible for placing the thing in his presence.
.
Man is a broken or separated creature. He is broken because he cannot truly understand his reality in relation to others and why he came to exist in the form that he did. He is detached from his God if he has one, and in everyday life must absorb the meaning and existence of the objects that surround him.
.
But, I really believe that understanding women may be the answer to all of life's mysteries. In women you find mystery in a whole host of ways. They are different in physical form and they can be challenging mentally as well. Call it love or lust as I mention above, but man is drawn into women for the purposes of sex and reproduction. Man and women are just matter, matter all broken up and split in two. Maybe the Greeks were right about man and woman originally being one entity. Maybe the entire universe was one solid mass at one time and then everything just broke apart; the galaxies and all the other phenomena in space were tranformed. Maybe the concept of life did not exist in the far past. Maybe life did just evolve from nothing as they say. Does that involve the work of the Almighty? Not necessarily I would retort. As a materialist I have to stick to my guns. I do think all things are created from matter, including thought. And, that is the true secret of the universe is it not? The origin and nature of thought I mean. If this theory is true then you would have to examine what the essence of thought is and upon discovering that you would have to say that some other form of matter at some time was involved in the business of thought. Can a rock think? If you are a materialist like myself you would have to answer in the affirmative. The philosopher John Locke, a former idealist turned atheist thought as I do in this matter. Can you imagine myself having to appear in a courtroom somewhere in the backwaters of space and defend such a notion such as that? Well, that is precisely what the Christians are doing by saying that God exists. And, all they are doing is defending an Idea.

.

I would begin my case by thrusting into the hand of each juror in that courtroom a piece of rock, a glass or a puddle of water, any burning flame or any other form of matter that I could get my hands on. And, I would explain to the court that these are the things that I know, that I know them as I know my own body. These are my realities as they are your own. You can understand the essence of these things better than any other thing including all of the ideas in your mind. These ideas in your mind may have essences and meanings I do not disagree. We both know what they are and that is how we understand one another - we agree on meanings. You must decide the case based on this issue and this alone. And, here it is. Does the idea that we both know exist forever ( say the notion of a Supreme Being ) or is the matter that exists forever in all of its various forms? If we both accept logic as the basis of our agreement then which is the more likely or believeable of the two? Matter does not die or disappear and neither does an idea in some instances.

.

But, there is a difference and an essential difference in the two. An idea can exist, but did it exist forever like the Forms of Plato? Again, the answer may be yes. But, I would qualify the response by saying that this eternal idea could not exist without the mind identifying its existence. Therefore, for this idea to exist required some matter to contemplate it. How do we know if God existed for an eternity if we do not create a concept for that to occur? Or, maybe you think that up in the skies the ideas talk to themselves as they stroll about on their merry way. Perhaps 'Beauty' herself is walking in the park one day and comes across 'Goodness' and wishes her a " Good Day. " And, similarly 'Goodness' responds by wishing her all of the happiness that she can muster up . And, the 'Lord God Jehovah' himself, perhaps even aided by 'Jesus Christ' would have have occasion to bid a " A Happy Good Morning. " to them both. This chance meeting could occur regularly if they are such pervasive ideas in the universe. Like radio waves maybe all they need is a receiver to acknowledge their existence. An idealist and believer in God would ultimately have to believe in these kinds of things if he is to be credible and consistent, and logical. But, an Atheist, on the other hand, would question the eternal nature of these sorts of ideas, and his primary proof would be that he never heard of such things until another human told him about them. He did not have occasion to imagine them for himself, but if he did he would most surely question why he is thinking these kinds of things. Can you perceive of some idea wandering about in space that exists without someone knowing about it? Why would a rational idea exist if someone could not recognize it? What would be its purpose in " life " if this were the case? Think about a beautiful woman prettying herself up to be noticed. Do you think her intended object of affection is another idea, or some human thing who is possessed by an idea about beauty and as a consequence of that would be able to appreciate the efforts of the female?

.

To prove my case in its finality I would say the following: For an idea to exist in its eternal manner required the former existence of some matter. That idea became an extension of matter; it is the objective reality of matter and hence becomes a real thing to the creator, which in this case is man. This is where all ideas reside and is the home of the Christian God as well. Logically, it can be no other way. That is why there are a multitude of gods and religions in the world, because there is a multitude of peoples thinking differently about ideas such as gods and religions.

.

Ideas are the abstractions that become mirrors for man; they allow him to see himself. The consciousness of man created these things. Did a piece of matter wake up one day and say: today is the day that I am going to create an idea so that I may better understand myself. Maybe not a piece of matter, per se, but most likely the coming together of a multitude of matter, and combined with a catalyst ( some other form of matter ) allowed the entity of man to be finally formed, culminating in a brain that could think, and create ideas which are meanings for him; they are his tools of understanding. How can he understand himself if he cannot draw a picture or envision an idea which makes sense to him? He does these things to understand himself and his condition in the universe. His actions are the recognitions and expressions of his thought; his thought is that thing that enables him to know. His ideas and those of others are his only means of knowing. I am thinking right now. How do I know this? Because I formed an idea or something that described this phenomenon for me. Thinking is the abstraction of the reality; it allows to me to understand; it is my meaning provider. I do not know that my Being is real until I can devise a method to test this out and prove it. Thinking does that. Do you think God is planting all of these ideas in my mind or is mind, which is composed of matter, doing all of the work? Maybe we should check the sparks of electricity and the chemicals reacting to one another in my mind to determine whether or not they are coming from outer space or whether the source is inside of my brain.

.

The Christians, I know, would counter with the argument that God the 'ClockMaker' made it all come together and that is how man and the universe were created. Think about what the Christian is doing with his philosophy here. He is using ideas, not facts to explain his case. His arguments are flowery and fanciful, but they are only speculation and imagination. They can be nothing else because his god is an imaginary one. First, he has envisioned his God in the sky and now this objectification takes on further meaning for him; it allows him to override all logic and place this mystical god on a pedestal - he becomes the Supreme Ruler and Creator of all things. But, he is still just an idea and no more. Each individual person has to decide for himself or herself if that idea existed forever without the benefit of the human brain discovering it. If you did not exist you would never have heard of the notion of the Christian God. This does not mean that " He " did not or does not exist. It just means that you are never going to find out in any human way that we know about; to the human mind God is only an idea.

.

But, to return to my final argument. Man is matter broken up into two pieces, man and woman. The Greeks did it and so did the Jews. They made woman separated from man, but originally part of him. Why? Because all matter is one. Maybe that is why the Jews settled upon a monotheistic religion as opposed to the polythiests; they wanted to bring it all together again.

.

The Will, the Force, the God, the Love, the whatever you want to name it are things that attempt to explain the whole thing for us. Man desires woman. He does not desire the idea of a woman. A woman for him exists. She is a real object that is separated and different from him, physically. The Christians explain to her that she was created out of man. What kind of a life is that for a woman? How is she supposed to react? Maybe that is why she was given the role of childbirth; to become equal with man in his ability to create things. Does this mean that God is a fair God then in this regard? Does fairness enter the picture as a dominant theme in understanding? You can believe this if you like, but more likely the psychological theme would be that woman is separated from man. They both appear to desire one another and to become whole again, and they want to continue on living forever. And, so they create children. If man cannot live forever at least his progeny can. Man desires to be whole and sexual union is part of that desire. He also like the idea of eternity as well; so maybe some pleasurable experiences have aided him in this desire. And, if man had not heard about God and the Devil and Hell do you think he would be so concerned about death if he did not " know " it?

.

But, I think the Christians are on the right track in a round about sort of way. Woman was created of man, just like the idea was created from matter; it can be no other way. That is why the concept of a rock doing the thinking is a workable one. Man the rock or the earth creates something; in this case a woman. This may or may not be true, in the Biblical sense. But, it is revealing and supports our argument that matter is primary over the idea. Even the Christian God or his originators are admitting this fact. They have revealed themselves through their logic and their fables. Their cause and effect uses the idea of matter as the primary thing and not the other way around. The woman becomes the same thing as the idea. And, ideas can be very powerful things as you can well imagine. Think of the angst of man this way: not only was he responsible for the creation of woman ( according to religious imagination ), but he is also responsible for the creation of the idea. He wants to reconcile these things in his mind. In the first instance, he is dealing with something that he wants to be with and sometimes needs, namely the woman. She is different and she is separated from him. He does not understand why this is so, but the fact perplexes him. He needs to rationalize his existence with her; is she a physical need only or is there more to it than that? Morality and consciousness enter the picture and he decides that there is more to the relationship than meets the eye. Ideas and philosophies further enter the picture; his working mind is producing ideas for him, as regards his conduct and relationship with the woman. If he believes in something like a Christian God his task is simplified for him; all is explained.

.

But, an atheist has a different problem on his hands. He is confronted by physical woman and different notions about things. If he senses that all is created out of matter, including ideas, then his approach to the woman and to life is different. This is not to suggest that his morality is any different than that of the Christian. Not at all. They may in fact be identical. But, the difference between the Christian and the atheist is different in the way they understand the world; their meanings of things differs. Girls and boys are different things, sexually that is. They live out their lives in love or lust and then they die. They return to the earth or the sky from whence they came. And, once again we are stuck with the difference between the idealist believer in God and the atheist. The soul of the believer goes to Heaven. The soul or consciousness of the atheist does not. His matter is broken up and scattered throughout the universe; his consciousness " dies." When his consciousness dies it cannot produce anymore ideas. These ideas that I am relaying to you are being presented by a living person composed of matter. My brain is thinking and transferring thoughts into something that you can perceive and understand. Does the Christian work in this manner? In direct communication, I mean? Or does his message get transmitted third hand by someone's idea about him? You cannot know God directly, only indirectly. Is that good enough for an enquiring mind that wants to know the truth?

.

You have to ask yourself at what point in the womb of the female does the new baby become a human; when does it begin to think? In the process of the joining of the egg and the sperm something was created; we like to call that thing life. An egg cannot think, but it can exist. You would think nothing of walking upon an ant and squishing it to death, something which is composed of the same things as you and I, namely matter. It even has a tiny brain and may have some feelings, or at the very least, knows when danger appears and what it 'means.' Think about it, a tiny little creature going about the business of surviving just like you and I. An ant is a life form. Why do the idealists have such trouble grappling with the fact that an ant is matter like himself; a creauture that is possessed to succeed and to destroy something else in the process if this other thing should stand in the way of its 'will '?

.

these thoughts by yours truly,

Carl Baydala

.

* * * *

.

Here is a very fine essay that I discovered after I wrote the above thoughts. This article is part of a format on the study of Plato and of his dialogue The Symposium. The dialogue is considering some aspects of love.

.

Foundations of Philosophy
By Professor Emil J. Piscitelli
Education and Dialectics

.

I bring this essay to your attention because this author thinks like I do. He makes a statement earlier on his writing and states:

.

To appropriate the attitudes of openness to understanding, openness to knowing, and hope along with the fundamental orientations to the meaningful, the true, and the good requires a foundational decision and commitment that can best be described as a conversion or a series of conversions because the higher viewpoint or the authentic human self is always the result of a withdrawal from inauthenticity rather than a complete identification with the meaningful, the true, or the good. The reason for this is twofold: first human beings will never be able to understand or know everything about everything or be involved with everything that is really worthwhile and secondly human persons are de facto a conscious reality in tension with their own radical inauthenticity. In a word we are finite and alienated from ourselves, from others, from nature, and from God.

.

Source Here

"Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise: Which having no guide, overseer, or ruler, Provideth her meat in the summer, and gathereth her food in the harvest" (Proverbs 6:6-8).

.

Ant Facts

.

My Home Page and Blog Organization

.

Dear Diary

.

Today in History 24 Years Ago

.

.

Arthur Schopenhauer on Women

.

Arthur Schopenhauer

.

on Women


One of my favorite philosophers is Arthur Schopenhauer. ( 1788 to 1860 ) He is most famously known for his: " The World as Will and Representation. " He is also considered to be the most pessimistic of the philosophers on account of his dim view on the nature of man and what is in store for him. The world according to Schopenhauer consists of two parts, what we see and the second part of our will. This will would be his ' thing in itself '. This is the blind force that guides our actions and is the cause of the interactions between men. An atheist such as myself would be attracted to such an idea and would replace the notion of an all-knowing omnipotent god - the creator and mover of all things. We seem to have a lot in common as regards philosophical thought and like myself, he was a bachelor. And, like myself, he fell in love with a seventeen year old girl who rejected him. He was 43 and I was 34. I take this fact to be a significant similarity and it certainly adds to my interest in the man and his thoughts concerning women.

.

So, when I stumbled upon this essay concerning women naturally I was intrigued by his thoughts concerning them. I was curious as to whether or not we have had similar experiences in dealing with the opposite sex. I do not necessarily agree with his views on women as they are presented here, but I think we might learn more about the man and his thoughts if we know how he feels and reacts to women. Women are after all a predominant feature in society and would have had an effect on the bachelor philsopher. While reading this article on women, however, I got the feeling that much of what he says would be done with the idea of provoking women since much of what he says is not positive about them. Again, this would be attractive to me as an idea and a further connection to Schopenhauer and myself. Part of my personality would support an idea as to what he is trying to accomplish here - to kid around with women. The trick for me would be to get them to know that I am only playing with them. But, then again I do not know what the real intent of Schopenhauer was in writing this piece. He was after all considered to be a misogynist.

.

On Women.

.

by Arthur Schopenhauer

.

.

Here is a video you might want to watch and listen to:

.

.

On Women Video

.

.

These few words of Jouy, Sans les femmes le commencement de notre vie seroit privé de secours, le milieu de plaisirs et la fin de consolation, more exactly express, in my opinion, the true praise of woman than Schiller’s poem, Würde der Frauen, which is the fruit of much careful thought and impressive because of its antithesis and use of contrast. The same thing is more pathetically expressed by Byron in Sardanapalus, Act i, Sc. 2:—
“The very firstOf human life must spring from woman’s breast,Your first small words are taught you from her lips,Your first tears quench’d by her, and your last sighsToo often breathed out in a woman’s hearing,When men have shrunk from the ignoble careOf watching the last hour of him who led them.”
Both passages show the right point of view for the appreciation of women.
One need only look at a woman’s shape to discover that she is not intended for either too much mental or too much physical work. She pays the debt of life not by what she does but by what she suffers—by the pains of child-bearing, care for the child, and by subjection to man, to whom she should be a patient and cheerful companion. The greatest sorrows and joys or great exhibition of strength are not assigned to her; her life should flow more quietly, more gently, and less obtrusively than man’s, without her being essentially happier or unhappier.
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.
The nobler and more perfect a thing is, the later and slower is it in reaching maturity. Man reaches the maturity of his reasoning and mental faculties scarcely before he is eight-and-twenty; woman when she is eighteen; but hers is reason of very narrow limitations. This is why women remain children all their lives, for they always see only what is near at hand, cling to the present, take the appearance of a thing for reality, and prefer trifling matters to the most important. It is by virtue of man’s reasoning powers that he does not live in the present only, like the brute, but observes and ponders over the past and future; and from this spring discretion, care, and that anxiety which we so frequently notice in people. The advantages, as well as the disadvantages, that this entails, make woman, in consequence of her weaker reasoning powers, less of a partaker in them. Moreover, she is intellectually short-sighted, for although her intuitive understanding quickly perceives what is near to her, on the other hand her circle of vision is limited and does not embrace anything that is remote; hence everything that is absent or past, or in the future, affects women in a less degree than men. This is why they have greater inclination for extravagance, which sometimes borders on madness. Women in their hearts think that men are intended to earn money so that they may spend it, if possible during their husband’s lifetime, but at any rate after his death.
As soon as he has given them his earnings on which to keep house they are strengthened in this belief. Although all this entails many disadvantages, yet it has this advantage—that a woman lives more in the present than a man, and that she enjoys it more keenly if it is at all bearable. This is the origin of that cheerfulness which is peculiar to woman and makes her fit to divert man, and in case of need, to console him when he is weighed down by cares. 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 because women’s reasoning powers are weaker that they show more sympathy for the unfortunate than men, and consequently take a kindlier interest in them. On the other hand, women are inferior to men in matters of justice, honesty, and conscientiousness. Again, because their reasoning faculty is weak, things clearly visible and real, and belonging to the present, exercise a power over them which is rarely counteracted by abstract thoughts, fixed maxims, or firm resolutions, in general, by regard for the past and future or by consideration for what is absent and remote. Accordingly they have the first and principal qualities of virtue, but they lack the secondary qualities which are often a necessary instrument in developing it. Women may be compared in this respect to an organism that has a liver but no gall-bladder.9 So that it will be found that the fundamental fault in the character of women is that they have no “sense of justice.” This arises from their deficiency in the power of reasoning already referred to, and reflection, but is also partly due to the fact that Nature has not destined them, as the weaker sex, to be dependent on strength but on cunning; this is why they are instinctively crafty, and have an ineradicable tendency to lie. For as lions are furnished with claws and teeth, elephants with tusks, boars with fangs, bulls with horns, and the cuttlefish with its dark, inky fluid, so Nature has provided woman for her protection and defence with the faculty of dissimulation, and all the power which Nature has given to man in the form of bodily strength and reason has been conferred on woman in this form. Hence, dissimulation is innate in woman and almost as characteristic of the very stupid as of the clever. Accordingly, it is as natural for women to dissemble at every opportunity as it is for those animals to turn to their weapons when they are attacked; and they feel in doing so that in a certain measure they are only making use of their rights. Therefore a woman who is perfectly truthful and does not dissemble is perhaps an impossibility. This is why they see through dissimulation in others so easily; therefore it is not advisable to attempt it with them. From the fundamental defect that has been stated, and all that it involves, spring falseness, faithlessness, treachery, ungratefulness, and so on. In a court of justice women are more often found guilty of perjury than men. It is indeed to be generally questioned whether they should be allowed to take an oath at all. From time to time there are repeated cases everywhere of ladies, who want for nothing, secretly pocketing and taking away things from shop counters.
Nature has made it the calling of the young, strong, and handsome men to look after the propagation of the human race; so that the species may not degenerate. This is the firm will of Nature, and it finds its expression in the passions of women. This law surpasses all others in both age and power. Woe then to the man who sets up rights and interests in such a way as to make them stand in the way of it; for whatever he may do or say, they will, at the first significant onset, be unmercifully annihilated. For the secret, unformulated, nay, unconscious but innate moral of woman is: We are justified in deceiving those who, because they care a little for us,—that is to say for the individual,—imagine they have obtained rights over the species. The constitution, and consequently the welfare of the species, have been put into our hands and entrusted to our care through the medium of the next generation which proceeds from us; let us fulfil our duties conscientiously.
But women are by no means conscious of this leading principle in abstracto, they are only conscious of it in concreto, and have no other way of expressing it than in the manner in which they act when the opportunity arrives. So that their conscience does not trouble them so much as we imagine, for in the darkest depths of their hearts they are conscious that in violating their duty towards the individual they have all the better fulfilled it towards the species, whose claim upon them is infinitely greater. (A fuller explanation of this matter may be found in vol. ii., ch. 44, in my chief work, Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung.)
Because women in truth exist entirely for the propagation of the race, and their destiny ends here, they live more for the species than for the individual, and in their hearts take the affairs of the species more seriously than those of the individual. This gives to their whole being and character a certain frivolousness, and altogether a certain tendency which is fundamentally different from that of man; and this it is which develops that discord in married life which is so prevalent and almost the normal state.
It is natural for a feeling of mere indifference to exist between men, but between women it is actual enmity. This is due perhaps to the fact that odium figulinum in the case of men, is limited to their everyday affairs, but with women embraces the whole sex; since they have only one kind of business. Even when they meet in the street, they look at each other like Guelphs and Ghibellines. And it is quite evident when two women first make each other’s acquaintance that they exhibit more constraint and dissimulation than two men placed in similar circumstances. This is why an exchange of compliments between two women is much more ridiculous than between two men. Further, while a man will, as a rule, address others, even those inferior to himself, with a certain feeling of consideration and humanity, it is unbearable to see how proudly and disdainfully a lady of rank will, for the most part, behave towards one who is in a lower rank (not employed in her service) when she speaks to her. This may be because differences of rank are much more precarious with women than with us, and consequently more quickly change their line of conduct and elevate them, or because while a hundred things must be weighed in our case, there is only one to be weighed in theirs, namely, with which man they have found favour; and again, because of the one-sided nature of their vocation they stand in closer relationship to each other than men do; and so it is they try to render prominent the differences of rank.
It is only the man whose intellect is clouded by his sexual instinct that could give that stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped, and short-legged race the name of the fair sex; for the entire beauty of the sex is based on this instinct. One would be more justified in calling them the unaesthetic sex than the beautiful. Neither for music, nor for poetry, nor for fine art have they any real or true sense and susceptibility, and it is mere mockery on their part, in their desire to please, if they affect any such thing.
This makes them incapable of taking a purely objective interest in anything, and the reason for it is, I fancy, as follows. A man strives to get direct mastery over things either by understanding them or by compulsion. But a woman is always and everywhere driven to indirect mastery, namely through a man; all her direct mastery being limited to him alone. Therefore it lies in woman’s nature to look upon everything only as a means for winning man, and her interest in anything else is always a simulated one, a mere roundabout way to gain her ends, consisting of coquetry and pretence. Hence Rousseau said, Les femmes, en général, n’aiment aucun art, ne se connoissent à aucun et n’ont aucun génie (Lettre à d’Alembert, note xx.). Every one who can see through a sham must have found this to be the case. One need only watch the way they behave at a concert, the opera, or the play; the childish simplicity, for instance, with which they keep on chattering during the finest passages in the greatest masterpieces. If it is true that the Greeks forbade women to go to the play, they acted in a right way; for they would at any rate be able to hear something. In our day it would be more appropriate to substitute taceat mulier in theatro for taceat mulier in ecclesia; and this might perhaps be put up in big letters on the curtain.
Nothing different can be expected of women if it is borne in mind that the most eminent of the whole sex have never accomplished anything in the fine arts that is really great, genuine, and original, or given to the world any kind of work of permanent value. This is most striking in regard to painting, the technique of which is as much within their reach as within ours; this is why they pursue it so industriously. Still, they have not a single great painting to show, for the simple reason that they lack that objectivity of mind which is precisely what is so directly necessary in painting. They always stick to what is subjective. For this reason, ordinary women have no susceptibility for painting at all: for natura non facet saltum. And Huarte, in his book which has been famous for three hundred years, Examen de ingenios para las scienzias, contends that women do not possess the higher capacities. Individual and partial exceptions do not alter the matter; women are and remain, taken altogether, the most thorough and incurable philistines; and because of the extremely absurd arrangement which allows them to share the position and title of their husbands they are a constant stimulus to his ignoble ambitions. And further, it is because they are philistines that modern society, to which they give the tone and where they have sway, has become corrupted. As regards their position, one should be guided by Napoleon’s maxim, Les femmes n’ont pas de rang; and regarding them in other things, Chamfort says very truly: Elles sont faites pour commercer avec nos faiblesses avec notre folie, mais non avec notre raison. Il existe entre elles et les hommes des sympathies d’épiderme et très-peu de sympathies d’esprit d’âme et de caractère. They are the sexus sequior, the second sex in every respect, therefore their weaknesses should be spared, but to treat women with extreme reverence is ridiculous, and lowers us in their own eyes. When nature divided the human race into two parts, she did not cut it exactly through the middle! The difference between the positive and negative poles, according to polarity, is not merely qualitative but also quantitative. And it was in this light that the ancients and people of the East regarded woman; they recognised her true position better than we, with our old French ideas of gallantry and absurd veneration, that highest product of Christian–Teutonic stupidity. These ideas have only served to make them arrogant and imperious, to such an extent as to remind one at times of the holy apes in Benares, who, in the consciousness of their holiness and inviolability, think they can do anything and everything they please.
In the West, the woman, that is to say the “lady,” finds herself in a fausse position; for woman, rightly named by the ancients sexus sequior, is by no means fit to be the object of our honour and veneration, or to hold her head higher than man and to have the same rights as he. The consequences of this fausse position are sufficiently clear. Accordingly, it would be a very desirable thing if this Number Two of the human race in Europe were assigned her natural position, and the lady-grievance got rid of, which is not only ridiculed by the whole of Asia, but would have been equally ridiculed by Greece and Rome. The result of this would be that the condition of our social, civil, and political affairs would be incalculably improved. The Salic law would be unnecessary; it would be a superfluous truism. The European lady, strictly speaking, is a creature who should not exist at all; but there ought to be housekeepers, and young girls who hope to become such; and they should be brought up not to be arrogant, but to be domesticated and submissive. It is exactly because there are ladies in Europe that women of a lower standing, that is to say, the greater majority of the sex, are much more unhappy than they are in the East. Even Lord Byron says (Letters and Papers, by Thomas Moore, vol. ii. p. 399), Thought of the state of women under the ancient Greeks—convenient enough. Present state, a remnant of the barbarism of the chivalric and feudal ages—artificial and unnatural. They ought to mind home—and be well fed and clothed—but not mixed in society. Well educated, too, in religion—but to read neither poetry nor politics—nothing but books of piety and cookery. Music—drawing—dancing—also a little gardening and ploughing now and then. I have seen them mending the roads in Epirus with good success. Why not, as well as hay-making and milking?
In our part of the world, where monogamy is in force, to marry means to halve one’s rights and to double one’s duties. When the laws granted woman the same rights as man, they should also have given her a masculine power of reason. On the contrary, just as the privileges and honours which the laws decree to women surpass what Nature has meted out to them, so is there a proportional decrease in the number of women who really share these privileges; therefore the remainder are deprived of their natural rights in so far as the others have been given more than Nature accords.
For the unnatural position of privilege which the institution of monogamy, and the laws of marriage which accompany it, assign to the woman, whereby she is regarded throughout as a full equivalent of the man, which she is not by any means, cause intelligent and prudent men to reflect a great deal before they make so great a sacrifice and consent to so unfair an arrangement. Therefore, whilst among polygamous nations every woman finds maintenance, where monogamy exists the number of married women is limited, and a countless number of women who are without support remain over; those in the upper classes vegetate as useless old maids, those in the lower are reduced to very hard work of a distasteful nature, or become prostitutes, and lead a life which is as joyless as it is void of honour. But under such circumstances they become a necessity to the masculine sex; so that their position is openly recognised as a special means for protecting from seduction those other women favoured by fate either to have found husbands, or who hope to find them. In London alone there are 80,000 prostitutes. Then what are these women who have come too quickly to this most terrible end but human sacrifices on the altar of monogamy? The women here referred to and who are placed in this wretched position are the inevitable counterbalance to the European lady, with her pretensions and arrogance. Hence polygamy is a real benefit to the female sex, taking it as a whole. And, on the other hand, there is no reason why a man whose wife suffers from chronic illness, or remains barren, or has gradually become too old for him, should not take a second. Many people become converts to Mormonism for the precise reasons that they condemn the unnatural institution of monogamy. The conferring of unnatural rights upon women has imposed unnatural duties upon them, the violation of which, however, makes them unhappy. For example, many a man thinks marriage unadvisable as far as his social standing and monetary position are concerned, unless he contracts a brilliant match. He will then wish to win a woman of his own choice under different conditions, namely, under those which will render safe her future and that of her children. Be the conditions ever so just, reasonable, and adequate, and she consents by giving up those undue privileges which marriage, as the basis of civil society, alone can bestow, she must to a certain extent lose her honour and lead a life of loneliness; since human nature makes us dependent on the opinion of others in a way that is completely out of proportion to its value. While, if the woman does not consent, she runs the risk of being compelled to marry a man she dislikes, or of shrivelling up into an old maid; for the time allotted to her to find a home is very short. In view of this side of the institution of monogamy, Thomasius’s profoundly learned treatise, de Concubinatu, is well worth reading, for it shows that, among all nations, and in all ages, down to the Lutheran Reformation, concubinage was allowed, nay, that it was an institution, in a certain measure even recognised by law and associated with no dishonour. And it held this position until the Lutheran Reformation, when it was recognised as another means for justifying the marriage of the clergy; whereupon the Catholic party did not dare to remain behindhand in the matter.
It is useless to argue about polygamy, it must be taken as a fact existing everywhere, the mere regulation of which is the problem to be solved. Where are there, then, any real monogamists? We all live, at any rate for a time, and the majority of us always, in polygamy. Consequently, as each man needs many women, nothing is more just than to let him, nay, make it incumbent upon him to provide for many women. By this means woman will be brought back to her proper and natural place as a subordinate being, and the lady, that monster of European civilisation and Christian–Teutonic stupidity, with her ridiculous claim to respect and veneration, will no longer exist; there will still be women, but no unhappy women, of whom Europe is at present full. The Mormons’ standpoint is right.
In India no woman is ever independent, but each one stands under the control of her father or her husband, or brother or son, in accordance with the law of Manu.
It is certainly a revolting idea that widows should sacrifice themselves on their husband’s dead body; but it is also revolting that the money which the husband has earned by working diligently for all his life, in the hope that he was working for his children, should be wasted on her paramours. Medium tenuere beati. The first love of a mother, as that of animals and men, is purely instinctive, and consequently ceases when the child is no longer physically helpless. After that, the first love should be reinstated by a love based on habit and reason; but this often does not appear, especially where the mother has not loved the father. The love of a father for his children is of a different nature and more sincere; it is founded on a recognition of his own inner self in the child, and is therefore metaphysical in its origin.
In almost every nation, both of the new and old world, and even among the Hottentots, property is inherited by the male descendants alone; it is only in Europe that one has departed from this. That the property which men have with difficulty acquired by long-continued struggling and hard work should afterwards come into the hands of women, who, in their want of reason, either squander it within a short time or otherwise waste it, is an injustice as great as it is common, and it should be prevented by limiting the right of women to inherit. It seems to me that it would be a better arrangement if women, be they widows or daughters, only inherited the money for life secured by mortgage, but not the property itself or the capital, unless there lacked male descendants. It is men who make the money, and not women; therefore women are neither justified in having unconditional possession of it nor capable of administrating it. Women should never have the free disposition of wealth, strictly so-called, which they may inherit, such as capital, houses, and estates. They need a guardian always; therefore they should not have the guardianship of their children under any circumstances whatever. The vanity of women, even if it should not be greater than that of men, has this evil in it, that it is directed on material things—that is to say, on their personal beauty and then on tinsel, pomp, and show. This is why they are in their right element in society. This it is which makes them inclined to be extravagant, especially since they possess little reasoning power. Accordingly, an ancient writer says, [Greek: Gunae to synolon esti dapanaeron physei].10 Men’s vanity, on the other hand, is often directed on non-material advantages, such as intellect, learning, courage, and the like. Aristotle explains in the Politics11 the great disadvantages which the Spartans brought upon themselves by granting too much to their women, by allowing them the right of inheritance and dowry, and a great amount of freedom; and how this contributed greatly to the fall of Sparta. May it not be that the influence of women in France, which has been increasing since Louis XIII.‘s time, was to blame for that gradual corruption of the court and government which led to the first Revolution, of which all subsequent disturbances have been the result? In any case, the false position of the female sex, so conspicuously exposed by the existence of the “lady,” is a fundamental defect in our social condition, and this defect, proceeding from the very heart of it, must extend its harmful influence in every direction. That woman is by nature intended to obey is shown by the fact that every woman who is placed in the unnatural position of absolute independence at once attaches herself to some kind of man, by whom she is controlled and governed; this is because she requires a master. If she, is young, the man is a lover; if she is old, a priest.

.

Link to essay shown below

.

Also on this link you will find an essay entitled

.

Metaphysics of Love.

.

by Arthur Schopenhauer

A paragraph from this essay below:

.

Every kind of love, however ethereal it may seem to be, springs entirely from the instinct of sex; indeed, it is absolutely this instinct, only in a more definite, specialised, and perhaps, strictly speaking, more individualised form. If, bearing this in mind, one considers the important rôle which love plays in all its phases and degrees, not only in dramas and novels, but also in the real world, where next to one’s love of life it shows itself as the strongest and most active of all motives; if one considers that it constantly occupies half the capacities and thoughts of the younger part of humanity, and is the final goal of almost every human effort; that it influences adversely the most important affairs; that it hourly disturbs the most earnest occupations; that it sometimes deranges even the greatest intellects for a time; that it is not afraid of interrupting the transactions of statesmen or the investigations of men of learning; that it knows how to leave its love-letters and locks of hair in ministerial portfolios and philosophical manuscripts; that it knows equally well how to plan the most complicated and wicked affairs, to dissolve the most important relations, to break the strongest ties; that life, health, riches, rank, and happiness are sometimes sacrificed for its sake; that it makes the otherwise honest, perfidious, and a man who has been hitherto faithful a betrayer, and, altogether, appears as a hostile demon whose object is to overthrow, confuse, and upset everything it comes across: if all this is taken into consideration one will have reason to ask—“Why is there all this noise? Why all this crowding, blustering, anguish, and want? Why should such a trifle play so important a part and create disturbance and confusion in the well-regulated life of mankind?” But to the earnest investigator the spirit of truth gradually unfolds the answer: it is not a trifle one is dealing with; the importance of love is absolutely in keeping with the seriousness and zeal with which it is prosecuted. The ultimate aim of all love-affairs, whether they be of a tragic or comic nature, is really more important than all other aims in human life, and therefore is perfectly deserving of that profound seriousness with which it is pursued.

.

Link Here

.

My Home Page and Blog Organization

.

Dear Diary