All Women Are Hedonistic By Nature - MGTOW

My defense of the premise that "All Women Are Hedonistic By Nature." I use this premise across many of my videos so I figured I out to put forward a formal argument in its defense.

Patreon
https://www.patreon.com/ground....work_for_the_metaphy

Paypal
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin..../webscr?cmd=_s-xclic

Script
http://www.gftmom.com/portfoli....o-item/women-are-hed

In my video pertaining to women’s relationship to logic I was presented with an observation which I thought was worth addressing. This observation was not so much a criticism but a valid way of dismissing my argument. The observation was that I had not offered an account defending the premise that all women are hedonistic by nature. As such, one can dismiss my argument being grounded on an unproven premise. As several of my videos rest on this premise and as I have intentions to use this premise as a starting point for future videos addressing the essence of woman, I feel it is necessary to put forward a formal proof justifying this claim. So let’s get started!

I am going to start with a controversial statement that will become clear as my argument progresses; woman is perfect. This is not to say that any particular woman is perfect, but that the essence of woman is perfect. In this same way man is perfect, hammer is perfect, frog is perfect, squirrel is perfect, and any other thing which exists is perfect. However, this may still be unclear and seem like a radically crazy assertion to make so to keep things rigorous let me prove this to you.

1. We perceive sensible objects to be F.
2. But every sensible object is, at best, imperfectly F. That is, it is both F and not F. It falls short of being perfectly F.
3. We are aware of this imperfection in the objects of perception.
4. So we perceive objects to be imperfectly F.
5. To perceive something as imperfectly F, one must have in mind something that is perfectly F, something that the imperfectly F things fall short of. (E.g., we have an idea of equality that all sticks, stones, etc., only imperfectly exemplify.)
6. So we have in mind something that is perfectly F.
7. Thus, there is something that is perfectly F (e.g., Equality), that we have in mind in such cases.
8. Therefore, there is such a thing as the F itself (e.g., the Equal itself), and it is distinct from any sensible object.

So let us apply this argument to women.

1. I judge any particular woman to be imperfect.
2. That is, I judge women to lack perfection.
3. Hence, I have the idea of the perfect woman.
4. Hence, there is a thing that this idea is an idea of.

This argument is known as the imperfection argument for the existence of forms as presented by Socrates in the Platonic dialogue. Now, what we get out of this argument is what I have always attempted to do when presenting the arguments I compose. I am looking for knowledge; namely, the form of the thing I am investigating. As knowledge can only exist about things changeless, eternal, and perfect, it follows that if I am to successfully defend my premise that all women are hedonistic by nature, I must demonstrate that a hedonistic woman is more perfect than a non-hedonistic woman. In other words, hedonism in women makes for a more perfect woman. Whether-or-not any particular woman is perfect is immaterial.

Now, it may come across as strange to say that a hedonistic woman is more perfect than one who is not. The strangeness in such a statement, however, comes from how we as men typically look upon women. We tend to think of women in terms of our relation to them. When we talk of the perfect woman, we are actually talking about the perfect wife or girlfriend; not woman as such, but woman as related to us. But here we are mistaken in our thinking. We need to remove ourselves as men from the picture completely. We must look upon woman as woman. Yet here too we must not fall into the trap of thinking about what is best for women, for to think in such terms we have once again shifted our focus from the object of inquiry, namely woman, to the good itself. No. We must focus our attention simply on the form of woman.

Now, Aristotle has argued that to know a thing one must know its final cause; namely, its function. Now, if the function of a knife is to cut, then a good knife is a knife that cuts well and a bad knife a knife that cuts badly such as a dull knife. In this way, the sharp knife is better than a dull knife, therefore the sharp knife is more perfect than the dull knife. In fact, if a knife had no edge at all, it would stop being a knife altogether as it could not cut at all. As a knife is defined by its function of cutting, a thing that cannot cut cannot be a knife.