Otto Weininger

[Anonymous No.18193847]

Was he ever proven wrong /lit/?

[Anonymous No.18193857]

>>18193847
Otto Weininger was born on 3 April 1880 in Vienna, a son of the Jewish goldsmith...

[Anonymous No.18193868]

>>18193857
Fuck off /pol/

>He hasn't read the part of the book that is actually dealing with Judaism
> Dietrich Eckart made about Weininger: "I only knew one decent Jew and he committed suicide on the day when he realized that the Jew lives upon the decay of peoples...

[Anonymous No.18193876]

>>18193868
>/pol/ bad
>quotes Eckart
Choose one.

[Anonymous No.18193879]

>>18193876
I'm just showing that Anon is wrong even from a national socialist/pol perspective

[Anonymous No.18194617]

>>18193847
He proved himself wrong by committing suicide.
Also
>women bad
Did you all have bad mothers or something? Your mother is a woman, mine has always been good to me, above anyone else in my life.

[Anonymous No.18194770]

>>18194617
Girls want to be gazed at by handsome men, which would appear to be great entertainers ,especially sexually, and free of charge since girls want men to pay for the seduction. for instance a girl refuses to pay or work for sex. It's always the man who must pay and amuse the girl . it's the competition. Women do not compete for men.


Now it turns out 99% of men are not handsome and worse, women hate when repulsive men even think of having a chance with them.

So the problem for a girl is really her own making: a girl lives a lavish life from the male competition for her, and from this male despair of winning the competition, as usual, some men don't take well the defeat and some men cheat, some men go over the line.

ALL of this is due to the men putting women and their conception at the center of their life.
Men put women on a pedestal only because women benefit from this, women leech off men.

This parasitic life of the female works well on a global scale, but there will always be fuck ups.
This is the price to pay by women-as-a-whole.

Even the life of a woman is not entirely free of charge and the price is just having to deal with the few mean who overstep their bounds.

Although to be fair, when a woman FEELS (and it's all what is relevant) harassed, she starts crying and due to the competitive nature of the female-male relation, the males orbiting her will start defending her free of charge (as usual, men don't have the luxury to make women pay for the male service) and trying to solve her problems.

This is why women are capitalistic and men are communist....

[Anonymous No.18194846]

>>18194617
Are you a woman, because you argue like one? Can you say something against the thoughts in the pic in OP, prove them wrong, offer perspective, instead of going full >who hurt you sweetie?! Your mom didn't love you :(

[Anonymous No.18194896]

>>18193847
At the time there was little controversy to most of his claims but it was considered bad taste to write them down even in his systematic treatise.
Then he got forgotten. Then became too problematic to even discuss.
So no he was never refuted. Although there are a few things you could object. Like faggotry. He mentions it as a puzzling phenomenon not fitting his attraction theory, only to dismiss its relevance.

[Anonymous No.18194995]

Very few people have responded to him seriously, in part because his kind of thought has been unfashionable as of late. Zizek has an interesting response to him in his book Metastases of Enjoyment (I believe part 6) but there are also some pretty immediate problems with some of the stuff in the image.

One such problem might be the idea of motherly love being non-moral because it is not individual. First, having spoken to and listened to mothers, motherly love is decidedly individual. She may have loved you if you were a different person, but she would have loved you in a qualitatively different way. Even still, the highest kind of love (God’s love for mankind) is a love of forgiveness despite sin. This seems closer to a motherly love, which loves the child despite the child not necessarily being virtuous. A mother can also be upset by a child’s lack of virtue and still love them, the recognition of sin does not render love impossible. The highest example of mankind is Jesus who loved despite sin.

The stuff about polyamory and monogamy could be another point of dispute. Monogamy is not “natural” to either men or women in the sense of it being easy or common. It is natural because it is right (according to nature as God’s creation). It is a relationship analogous to that between Jesus and the Church, it’s an example of a higher kind of human relationship that redeems sexuality and human love for the purpose of spiritual development.

There is also the issue of his discussion of femininity being sexual. In this part I think he overextends by discussing female sexuality as if it were male sexuality. Zizek discusses this a little bit too.

I will also say that for the most part, men don’t actually expect chastity from women, they expect them to abstain from sex. Real chastity, spiritual aims, etc, are so rare that to say men actually desire them from a partner would be nonsense. The most common reasons I see for desiring women to abstain from sex is physical/materialistic or psychological, not of a higher moral order, often for the benefit of himself.

[Anonymous No.18195011]

>>18194770
>This is why women are capitalistic and men are communist....
Most brilliant conclusion, well done.

[Anonymous No.18195754]

>>18194896
This doesn’t really follow since there were contemporary reviews which disagreed with him and have been multiple responses since. What part do you think is “obvious” or previously has always been acknowledged?

[Anonymous No.18195898]

>>18195754
Which are these, what is the best critique of his work? As far as I know he was praised as a genius after his suicide, forgotten, then rediscovered. Also people like Wittgenstein praised the work, saying that it is wrong but the work of a genius. I'm pretty sure they agreed though and just added the wrong because Weininger is problematic today. I know that Karl Krauss valued the work greatly as well.

[Anonymous No.18195907]

Bump

[Anonymous No.18195991]

>>18195898
Zizek’s critique is probably the most recent and, I believe, points out some interesting things about Weininger’s work. As an aside, I think the people who call him “problematic” and don’t engage with him are at the same level as people who say that he was right without really engaging as well.

Wittgenstein had no problem with him being “problematic.” Not only was Wittgenstein open and clear about his dislike of women (there are many testimonies to this effect) there is also a lot of work in his diary about his thoughts on Jews and Jewish thought, much of it negative. Considering Wittgenstein had other influences which he openly talked about like Spengler and Evola, I highly doubt he was wary of not being PC. He was an original, rigorous thinker and his “~” which he put before the book has more content to it than simply a psychological or political thing, especially since it was in a letter to Moore. There are many suggestions as to what he could have meant. Some people believe it meant he admired the style of thinking but not the conclusions, or that he didn’t necessarily disagree with some of the statements (once again, he was not fond of women) but that he did disagree with the project as a whole. I have also seen the suggestion that he objected to the ontologization. I am less impressed by the idea that he simply wanted to avoid saying something uncomfortable, given the fact that he regularly did antisocial, original things and believed, like many others during his time, that women did not belong in the academy/public life.

I believe Strandberg and Krauss, both of whom disliked women, liked his work. His funeral was attended by many important Viennese intellectuals, including Wittgenstein. He was influential on Joyce as well. Few would dispute that he was a talented and courageous writer, but most have acknowledged and disagreed with his book.

For contemporary reviews, I’m afraid you’ll have to look them up but they should be online. I’ll try to find them but I don’t have it readily on me.

[Anonymous No.18196086]

>>18195898
Many people read him today, and have read him in the past. He wasn’t really ever “forgotten.” Many feminists were also interested in his work (I think, although I’m not as sure here, that both Germain Greer and Andrea Dworkin mentioned him briefly), his contemporaries knew about his work, Wittgenstein and Evola both were indebted to him, there’s been a bunch of academic stuff written about his affect on Wittgenstein, and a lot of stuff describing the context in which he was working or treating him like a historical figure (which isn’t so much a critique).

Also, I would still be interested to read what you think was kind of obvious about his work, or what people naturally agreed with.

[Anonymous No.18196177]

>>18196086
I'm aware that I will mostly speak of personal views and impressions I had that convinced me that a great part of this work is indeed correct. "Motherhood and Prostitution" was the most influential chapter for me. I agree with most of his propositions on women, I was especially interest in the fact that there is no Madonna equivalent in the Feminine view of men, of what they desire. His excursion on the Genius was rather interesting as well, but less so than the part on women. The claim that every individual is a % of man and female was interesting to me as well, I tried to use his method on some of my friends and people I know and generally found that people that I deemed feminised in they way of movement and behavior (it is interesting than many men react violently to womanly behavior in a man) also had rather feminine body features, like wide hips or a rather female-like bottom. I also find that women being only sexual, and man also sexual rings true in life. Weininger went into this in more detail and I think he's right when he says that the historical opportunities were not the main reason women are not present enough in art or science. It reminds me of Nietzsche's remark that there is something wrong with a woman's sexual organs if she has scholarly inclinations. There are more things I could list but sadly I haven't read the book in a while and I would need to check my notes. I found myself agreeing with him throughout most of his book. The part on Judaism seemed less interesting and I don't remember too much about it. If anything reading Weininger encouraged my views that Women, like man, have had specific evolutionary roles throughout history and that these were reinforced through the flow of time. It is therefore no surprise that men are good at what they do, and that women are mostly specialized for sexuality, that is, giving birth and having a special connection with their offspring. I honestly feel that every women doing any jobs except that is wasted potential for childbirth and raising children that can't be replaced by a man, while every Job a female does outside of that spectrum can easily be filled by men as well.

[Anonymous No.18196249]

>>18196177
It is interesting that he suggests there’s no correlation to the Madonna figure for women. Here, and I know I’m repeating myself so I apologize, I would recommend Zizek.

The stuff about femininity/masculinity as a spectrum isn’t particularly interesting. Its a very common idea which has been present for a long time. I think men react negatively to feminine/female behavior because women are a kind of “threat” to masculinity, but in being a “threat” they confirm or make masculinity dependent on the threat. Like Lacan/Zizek’s symptom.

Women/men being specialized to different realms is also commonly acknowledged. Women didn’t only participate in reproduction though, they also had social roles as heads of households, managers, etc.

[Anonymous No.18196324]

>>18196249
>Women/men being specialized to different realms is also commonly acknowledged. Women didn’t only participate in reproduction though, they also had social roles as heads of households, managers, etc.

This might be true, and some examples can be cited from the history we know, that is the history of the last ten thousand years and even much less. I'm thinking about the vast amount of prehistory where women were most likely to have been in their most important role, childbirth and the care of children. It is senseless to postulate that women were meant for anything else and that evolution led them in that direction, it would be a waste of their most important aspect. All whole "problem" and case of women can be led back to pregnancy, birth and child.

[daisytdent No.18196398]

>>18193847
>

[Anonymous No.18196419]

>>18196398
What is this meant to prove? You don't understand, Madonna is meant as a symbol of virtue, the pure virgin as a sexual desire. No women desires virtue=the pure male virgin

[Anonymous No.18196599]

>>18194846
>Are you a woman
No, and you are mistaken to think I was saying something like "who hurt you sweetie"
I know that "women bad" arguments are wrong because my mother is good and she is a woman. This is simple logic.
In fact if I was to continue my thought, I would say women are better than men, because my mom is far and away the best person I have ever encountered, male or female, and has never, ever let me down.
Dumb incel shit about why you can't get a gf or wife or have sex, I don't give a shit about it. Does nothing to me. I couldn't even care less about getting laid and getting the perfect wife, I just want kids, I might adopt.

[Anonymous No.18196639]

>>18196599
>Dumb incel shit about why you can't get a gf or wife or have sex,
Where is any of that in OP or Weininger?
I'm more convinced that you're a woman.

[Anonymous No.18196686]

>>18196639
I'm not going to bother typing up what's in OP's pic, just look at all the accusations he makes about how vile and slutty and inferior women are. He's clearly a hateful person. Considering he committed suicide he clearly hated himself as well. Hatred of women, belief in supposed superiority of oneself and of men, depression, suicide, it all goes together.

[Anonymous No.18196705]

>>18196686
Flawless argumentation madam, I'll just burn this vile book right now.

[Anonymous No.18197233]

bump

[Anonymous No.18197259]

>>18193868
>Dietrich Eckhardt
>anti-semitic poet
>wife was called Rosa Marx
what

[Anonymous No.18197281]

>>18194770
>Women do not compete for men.
this person has never talked to a woman

[Anonymous No.18197324]

>>18196419
This point is strange. If men have a sexual desire for the Madonna, that renders their conception of the ideal sexual as well. If women can separate the male ideal from their sexual desires, that would imply a greater ability to differentiate. By being passive and silent, women actually preserve an ideal because they do not defile it by systemizing it through sexual desire.

If a lion could speak, we could not understand him

[Anonymous No.18197346]

>>18196705
It’s true that this person hasn’t decided to seriously evaluate the claims, but you also haven’t engaged with any of the responses (?).

[Anonymous No.18197370]

>>18197324
The point is I think in symbolism: every man feels the ideal of unsoiled beauty, virginity, chastity (loyalty to him as a man). There is nothing comparable to that with women: they do not desire the man who is pure, full of virtue, who is less sexually experienced, to share with him a pure bond. They desire everything that is contrary to that, therefore they do not desire virtue, that is the "Madonna" equivalent for men.

>>18197346
No, serious claims have been made, only baseless claims: he hates women, he didn't have sex, incel ect. Also the person hasn't read the book quite obviously.

[Anonymous No.18197386]

>>18193857
Even Hitler liked Weininger

[Anonymous No.18197387]

>>18193857
If you weren't poltarded, you'd find more humor in Weininger being hilariously, self-loathingly antisemitic

[Anonymous No.18197574]

>>18197370
Sorry I wasn’t referring to that person’s responses but the other ones in the thread.

Yes I think weininger does end up making a really interesting point here which is that men enact their relationship with themselves onto a woman (I.e., look for chastity/beauty) whereas women do not seem to do so for men. What I would point out is that the stuff he mentions about women being “mothering” to men when they embody the mother-type is a similar projection, the projection on the part of the woman onto the boy of desiring love, care, compassion, mercy, etc. and here I think there begins to be a break in his system. He wants women to be when objects of everything, the matter onto which things are projected, but in reality the Madonna type only exists because a woman projects adult desires, feelings, etc. onto the child. Here the woman is the ultimate subject. Not only that, but before a child truly develops into an individual, the mother already has the “individualizing” projection. He takes issue with the fact that the mother is attached to everything by the sort of symbolic umbilical cord, yet forgets that it’s the woman who cuts the cord. I think this is one of his bigger mistakes, he approaches initially with insight but then over extends the male perspective.

[Anonymous No.18197693]

>>18196419
>>18197370
https://3lib.net/book/926272/1443cd
The sixth chapter is his discussion of W.

[Anonymous No.18198001]

Bump

[Anonymous No.18198074]

>>18193847
Otto was based.

[Anonymous No.18198302]

Bump

[Anonymous No.18198313]

>>18198074
Do you think he’s right? Do you have romantic relationships after this, or have to be celibate?

[Anonymous No.18198643]

Bump

[Anonymous No.18198999]

Bump

[Anonymous No.18199655]

Bump

[Anonymous No.18200853]

Bumping for interest

[Anonymous No.18200858]

Why did Mishima jsut randomly namedrop this dude in Spring Snow?
Seemed so random.

[Anonymous No.18200864]

>>18200858
What did he say, can you post the passage?

[Anonymous No.18200875]

>>18200864
no sorry. I already gave it back again to the library, and there really wasnt much to it if I remember correctly.
He usually just named some western thinkers or thoughts when trying to show Honda in conflict with the world of Kiyoaki.

[Anonymous No.18200913]

There are many things that influenced me in Weininger, but to use 4chan lingo, the biggest blackpill probably was that women are absolutely a-moral, not capable of grasping these principles and not in any way interested in them. Pic related is interesting as well.

[Anonymous No.18201068]

>>18193847
Women are capable of love. Not for the average incel thought.
A women would kill herself for a true chad.
The problem is not that women cannot love, it is that they cannot love YOU. Like a dog cannot kill a lion, even if he wanted to, a women cannot love a creepy incel.

[Anonymous No.18201536]

>>18194770
>This is why women are capitalistic and men are communist....
Matriarchal society were communal. I don't see a problem with women leeching of men, if women give birth to children and take care of them. They need to feed the kids after all. Women leeching of men becomes a serious problem if they are hedonistic childless. In this case, better not to pay for the women, at all.

[Anonymous No.18201943]

>>18201068
Cope.

[Anonymous No.18202951]

No.

[Anonymous No.18203457]

>>18202951
What do you think he was right about?

[Anonymous No.18203465]

>>18200913
What about nuns or women who made difficult moral choices? Weininger writes them off as being either mannish or hysterical, but there a serious number of women who become nuns, who volunteer, etc. it seems unlikely that none of them “mean” it.

[Anonymous No.18203480]

>>18201943
Women do love, and often. Weininger seems to argue that motherly love is non moral, because it’s not with respect to the individual. But motherly love is super-individual because regardless of outside conditions it is love that addresses the core of the child, the ideal part. Mothers always wish the best for their children and idealize them. The female counterpart to the Madonna is the son.

[Anonymous No.18203495]

>>18201536
Matriarchal societies haven't existed until the post-Enlightenment West you fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.18203500]

>>18203480
If you think the mother-child relation is solely revolving around the mother wishing the best for the child you are an effeminated retard. Mothers use their children to elevate their status all the time.

[Anonymous No.18203530]

>>18203480
You're mixing up things here. First thing: When Weininger says that there is no Madonna equivavalent that Females have constructed in regards to men he is obviously operating in the realm of sexual desire and low. That's why he says that women are incapable to desire virtue in a man. In the German original Weininger uses gewollt for desired, it highly implies a sexual desire and has nothing to do with the motherly relation to her child. As for motherly love being superindividual, it might be - but the fact remains that motherly love is not based in any sort of ethics, even romantical love is more ethical because love. Motherly love is unconditional, therefore not ethical, for the mother loves the child despite all flaws, depravity, he could be a rapist, criminal, murderer, the mother still loves him, therefore her love is amoral and unethical.

>>18203500
Also this is true. Even if it wasn't there are a million cases especially today where the mother is destructive to the child or son, keeping him too sheltered, not letting him evolve into independence due to her own selfish reason of needing him and not wanting to be left alone.

[Anonymous No.18203619]

>>18203530
Yes, love is not an ethical force because it doesn’t have a evaluate the beloved objectively, especially in the case of unconditional love. He’s clear that all types of love are either non-ethical (in the case of unconditional love) or immoral (in the case of romantic love). But don’t mothers love differently according to the character of their child? A mother doesn’t necessarily love two children identically.

Of course bad and selfish mothers exist, and it’s true that it can be a status-seeking behavior that drives a mother rather than real love. The same can be said for any kind of important relationship though. In fact, he makes the argument that men use women by ignoring the reality of women and in intercourse. I’m not trying to say that all mothers are good.

I disagreed with the fact that women don’t love. They do.I would agree that there is no female counterpart to the idea of courtly love. But I see this not as proof that women are the object of everything, but rather that they are the subject. I think Zizek really does elucidate this, and I would be interested to hear your thoughts on his response.

[Anonymous No.18203732]

>>18203465
Nuns were mostly women who had lost their purity and were shunted off to avoid shame or else femcels

[Anonymous No.18203787]

>>18203732
Why don’t “femcels” count as women who made the choice to become a nun. Also, there are records of female saints, martyrs, etc. What about nuns today, who freely choose to take vows?

[Anonymous No.18203801]

>>18203619
I also think that, assuming an agreement with Christianity, this breaks down. If God loves unconditionally, even though people sin, is God really being unethical? Isn’t it more unethical to only love conditionally without recognizing an underlying ideal despite the fact that someone is sinful?

[Anonymous No.18203988]

There a few things lower than the thought hat that fat discount marxist, sniffing pervert balkannigger, plebeian spectacle loving """philosopher""" Žižek found it in himself to criticize someone like Weininger. It is sad really, just reading his critique points out why Weininger is not only higher, why he is another dimension alltogether (you can see him as a genius or not). While Sex and Character is about observations, thoughts on the nature of women, the approach to answer the question scientifically and metaphysically, Žižek is all over the place: Lacan, Hegel, Kant, Rosenberg, Malcom X, Fascist corporatism (many things that came after Weininger to somehow explain him), mumbo-jumbo, self-serving philosophical principles not grounded in any reality, not even in a graspable phantasy, and all this without a single word, without a single claim of to reverse the weiningerian judgement of women, to save them from his condemning words. I don't even know if that sniffing charlatan even speaks German, but his understanding of the "Motherhood and Prostitution" chapter is inherently flawed, not even considering the male factor of influence on this dichotomy. Also if I wanted an exegesis on Weininger (implying one is needed, as the newer "philosophers" cannot write outside of their academic cult lingo), I wouldn't be reading you, I'd just read his damn book again. I hate what academia has become, I hate the fact that Žižek is seen as an intellectual, and I hate the fact that he thinks he has it in himself to measure up to someone as Weininger.

[Anonymous No.18204003]

>>18197259
Jews adopted German surnames, not the other way round.

[Anonymous No.18204016]

>>18203787
You do know celibacy is taken by one's own will, right? i.e. voluntarily

Despite what the meme word is, technically, they're femcels.

[Anonymous No.18204332]

[Anonymous No.18204397]

>>18203988
Zizek is not a “great” thinker, but this is a misrepresentation. He, in a short essay, lays out the similarities between Weininger’s system and Lacan’s later ideas about gender, and then shows how Weininger’s system is actually inverted. I am certainly sympathetic to your dismay at the degradation of academia and the fact that he is considered a great intellectual. That being said, to say his essay is without any claims is not the case. Do you fully agree with Weininger?

[Anonymous No.18204619]

bump

[Anonymous No.18204770]

>>18204397
I'm not familiar with Lacan's system. How is Weininger inverted? Inverted in relation to Lacan's system? Can you point out where Žižek went deeper into any of the actual thoughts of Weininger without him basically navigating the history of philosophy to show a framework, existing or non-existant, and actually engaged with the essence of his thought?

As for me agreeing with Weininger or not: I would have to say no, since I do not agree fully with anybody else since I am not them. I would say I agree with most of his thoughts. When I think about things I disagree with it would probably be some of the thoughts on attraction, the fact that the percentages of Male and Female seek each other out, to complete themselves. I still think there is merit in the thesis that every individual is a % of Male or Female.

Also on pic related, anybody feel a possible reference to Zarathustra? (The vision and Enigma): This did I speak, and always more softly: for I was afraid of my own thoughts and arrear-thoughts. Then suddenly I heard a dog howl near me. Had I ever heard a dog howl thus? My thoughts ran back. Yes! When I was a child, in my most distant childhood: Then did I hear a dog howl thus. And saw it also, with hair bristling, its head upwards, trembling in the stillest midnight, when even dogs believe in ghosts: --So that it excited my commiseration. For just then went the full moon, silent as death, over the house; just then did it stand still, a glowing globe--at rest on the flat roof, as if on some one's property:-- Thereby had the dog been terrified: for dogs believe in thieves and ghosts. And when I again heard such howling, then did it excite my commiseration once more. Where was now the dwarf? And the gateway? And the spider? And all the whispering? Had I dreamt? Had I awakened? 'Twixt rugged rocks did I suddenly stand alone, dreary in the dreariest moonlight. BUT THERE LAY A MAN! And there! The dog leaping, bristling, whining--now did it see me coming--then did it howl again, then did it CRY:--had I ever heard a dog cry so for help? And verily, what I saw, the like had I never seen. A young shepherd did I see, writhing, choking, quivering, with distorted countenance, and with a heavy black serpent hanging out of his mouth.

[Anonymous No.18204836]

>>18194995
>One such problem might be the idea of motherly love being non-moral because it is not individual. First, having spoken to and listened to mothers, motherly love is decidedly individual. She may have loved you if you were a different person, but she would have loved you in a qualitatively different way. Even still, the highest kind of love (God’s love for mankind) is a love of forgiveness despite sin. This seems closer to a motherly love, which loves the child despite the child not necessarily being virtuous. A mother can also be upset by a child’s lack of virtue and still love them, the recognition of sin does not render love impossible. The highest example of mankind is Jesus who loved despite sin.
Mother's love is caused by oxytocin. It is not a decision. Also there is something called SIDS, look it up.

>>18194770
Wrong. We are animals in a jungle and our lizard brain forces us to be obsessed with breeding. There wouldn't be any life without this. Males are expendable. Females are more valuable. It is quite easy to realize why sexuality is only a part of men's lives but the entire reason to keep living for women.

[Anonymous No.18204920]

>>18204770
It would be very helpful to be familiar with Lacan here. One of his well known quotes is (roughly) “woman does not exist.” Yes, Lacan’s system, as Zizek shows, shares an uncanny similarity to Weininger. He develops this further showing how Lacan’s understanding of woman as a symptom mirrors that of Weininger’s woman as man’s sin. Yet, the departure between the two is important. Where Weininger sees woman as a nullity with no relation to reality, the woman in Lacan’s system is the “subject par-excellence.”

If you are looking for something that argues against any negative characterizations of women (as deceptive, unfaithful, etc.) that is not really what Zizek focuses on. He’s focusing more on the system as a whole, what “woman” means, which I think is actually a deeper engagement. The other stuff he brings up, i agree is sometimes tangential but it’s also more in relation to Weininger’s writing on Jews.

Yes, I think the attraction theory is also lacking. In part because I can think of many great men/geniuses who practiced homosexuality, even taking a feminine/passive role (Michaelangelo, Da Vinci, others)


I will say, I am not a fan of most psychoanalysis, but I also find most discourse around psychology and gender largely not very interesting. I think Lacan does have merit and is worth reading. Even if one still retains harsh or negative views on women. I would recommend that so the essay makes more sense.

Also, nice reference to Nietzche, do you like his work as well? It kind of reminds me of when Weininger writes (in his other book On Last Things) about the the dog as a kind of symbol of criminality. I believe before his suicide he wrote about seeing a black dog following him.

[Anonymous No.18205383]

bump

[Anonymous No.18205677]

Bump

[Anonymous No.18206016]

bump

[Anonymous No.18206179]

>>18193868
That’s not why he killed himself to my knowledge but lol

[Anonymous No.18206222]

>>18194896
No, he was not forgotten until after the second world war, when any taint of feeling against Jewish culture became tantamount tot treason in the victorious countries. Before that, he was an influence on Joyce, Wittgenstein, Strindberg and others.

[Anonymous No.18206255]

>>18194995
I disagree with him almost on everything, but I find myself exclusively defending him in these threads because he's so often misrepresented and people don't see how gifted he truly was. His thought was much deeper and subtler than people think, and to fully understand it depends on whether or not you have comprehended his metaphysical worldview of birth as a cowardly descent into time and space, with the end goal of life being to conquer dependence on these things spiritually and arrive on a new plateau.

But yes, I don't see how Weininger's interpretation of the life of Jesus can fit in any way with the actual sayings found in the gospels.

> men don’t actually expect chastity from women, they expect them to abstain from sex
What do you think of as actual chastity?

[Anonymous No.18206267]

>>18204920
>Yes, I think the attraction theory is also lacking. In part because I can think of many great men/geniuses who practiced homosexuality, even taking a feminine/passive role (Michaelangelo, Da Vinci, others)
That's not such a problem for Weininger's theory since, according to him, every man of genius will also be partly womanly, partly jewish, partly criminal, while at the same time being LESS of these things than all other men, because the "center" or the substantial part of him is masculinity, which comprehends these things by being beyond them.

[Anonymous No.18206272]

>>18204770
>that Nietzche passage
lol I've never seen such poorly recycled Poe and Buadelaire in all my life

[Anonymous No.18206285]

>>18204397
Can you post or link Zizek's esssay? I recall him mentioning Weininger in one of his lectures. He talked about the quote, "socialism is aryan, communism is Jewish" and said akshually zchat is preechishley why eye like da commoonism.

[Anonymous No.18206289]

>>18203480
>Women do love, and often.
You can't just say something like that in this context lol, you have to go deeper. I personally agree, but at the same time you have to admit someone trying to prove that women fall in love has more his work cut out for him than someone trying to prove the same of men (this is not to speak of maternal love, which opens up a whole nother aspect of the same problem)

[Anonymous No.18206461]

why are women's standards so high?

are there even any billionaires that look like male underwear models irl?

>rich
>leader of men (president of fortune 500 company, prince, bike gang leader, mma champion etc)
>intimidating bad boy
>6'2-6'4"
>5% bodyfat
>10/10 face
>smart, witty, humorous

meanwhile guys justs fantasize over some meek bookish girl-next-door type who's of average height and not obese or anorexic

[Anonymous No.18206472]

>>18204836
Sorry materialism and scientific realism is debunked, stop being a stem parroting bugman

also Mother's love is a desperate attempt by women to care for something else than sex for a few yeas in their life.

[Anonymous No.18206479]

>>18203787
There are no femcels. A woman doesn't even know how to be celibate lol.

[Anonymous No.18207091]

>>18206461
Simply not true, most fantasize about a 15-years old (or looking like) ideally cut always horny bitch with savage sex on demand, and the one that does not exist when her male overlord has no current need for sex or food. A though of such bitch being morally tired, unkempt due to long hard house cleaning, or better yet on her period does not register in the fantasy.
That is a sex toy, not a wife. And toys are to be bought and sold, much like the ideal image of a man to be "bought"..
Notice how your image lacks any character besides "intimidating", and nothing on his job, way of life, close friends, owned or desired housing, hobbies, plans for his children etc. It is a dildo doll with nasty-comments-during-sex generator, not a human bean.

[Anonymous No.18207345]

>>18204920
>Also, nice reference to Nietzche, do you like his work as well?

I do, and I especially think that some of the things Nietzsche said about women can be used in a weiningerian sense as well, especially the idea that there is something wrong with the sex organs of a woman that has true scholarly inclinations (she is more man than woman). Also the passage "A culture of men" from Human all too human, but I think pic related is one of the most important moments Nietzsche deals with women.

[Anonymous No.18207607]

>>18206461
>>18207091
only shallow men/women want this, dont need to generalize. We should do better than caring about what general population wants and thinks about.

[Anonymous No.18207608]

>>18197259
>whatcha doin schlomo?

[Anonymous No.18207626]

>prominent historical western intellectual
>jew
this happens a lot

[Anonymous No.18207631]

>>18203988
if you spend more time ad homing a thinker than actually refuting what he says I just can help myself thinking that you just got filtered

[Anonymous No.18208143]

>>18206461
>why are women's standards so high?
If the likes of Bezos, Gates or Musk get divorce raped and the likes of Augustus or Napoleon got cucked there really is little to expect from standards.

[Anonymous No.18208695]

Women are an invasive species. Women are theoretically capable of possessing a soul, but most of them don't for the simple reason that it's not necessary, and in fact it's even punished in most cases. The safest, happiest, easiest way to live as a woman is to be a walking life support system for your vagina, which you trade for attention, protection, favors, companionship, etc. Even when they are not directly trading their pussy for something, they still live within a social system that presumes women are important and worth having around because they have pussies.

Women are on autopilot through life unless they actively choose not to be, and all a woman gets for choosing to be a real person and develop a soul is social ostracism, depression, lack of understanding and jealousy from other women, and bitterness from their relations with men, most of whom either want to worship them for having a pussy, or they want a submissive sidekick in a partner, or they actively hate women (for understandable reasons since most are shit).

All this would be fine if women stayed in womanly spaces but they don't. Their insatiable lust for attention and inner emptiness drives them to colonize spaces not yet ruined by them. Because most men are horny simps, they will welcome shitty women and accelerate this process unless thoroughly acculturated to anti-simp and anti-thot behaviors. These behaviors do not come naturally to men, they have to be established with deep traditions and lots of reinforcement. 4chan cultivates a culture of misogyny to keep these thots out, to keep the worst simps out because of the dearth of thots, and to keep weak men within the community from becoming simps. It took years to build this up to healthy levels and it still requires constant maintenance to keep it keen.

Virulent misogyny is one way of maintaining it. The fact that tourist roasties and normalfags react so bad to it is manifest proof of its necessity and efficacy, which is why it works so well. Stupid roasties accustomed to being accepted just because they're a token woman or because the local simps welcome them are baffled by even mild misogynistic banter, and leave. Simps are ridiculed. Women with souls can post anonymously and not be simped at or lusted after for once in their lives. Everybody wins.

[Anonymous No.18208737]

>>18193857

You should read his book if you are anti Semitic

anyways bros. I recently read that Wittgenstein loved weineger and would buy copies for his friends at Cambridge and recommend they read him. He would tell them you’ll probably disagree but he’s only wrong in that you could put a ‘~’ at the front of the book and it would all be correct .

I can’t figure out exactly what he means by it to be honest. To be honest or which book he was giving out.

Basically that he’s wrong about everyone? Or that that opposite of what he says is true?

[Anonymous No.18208936]

>>18208737
>~
Wiki says it just means something like 'approximately'.

Presumably he just mean 'It's close enough to be effectively true'.

[Anonymous No.18209004]

>>18208936
He means it in the logical sense of ‘not’

[Anonymous No.18209014]

>>18209004
did you talk with him about this on the phone??

[Anonymous No.18209033]

I'm friends with the guy owning the local bookshop and I often hang around in it. I often buy and gift random people Sex and Character (I've already gifted it to all my friends interested in philosophy and lit). When I see young men browsing philosophy, meaningful lit or history I often have it arranged to gift them a copy of Sex and Character, I especially point out that they should read this book if they're seriously considering marriage before they get married. I often wonder if and how many thots I patrolled indirectly.

[Anonymous No.18209046]

>>18209004
Why would he recommend a book he considered as wrong as can be?

I don't think Witty was very coy about his dislike of woman, and as Weininger's book can only be taken as anti-woman, I fail to see how he could in any way recommend it. What do you think anon?

[Anonymous No.18209082]

>>18209014
He was a philosophy student of Russel communicating with intellectuals who specialized in logic...

[Anonymous No.18209189]

>>18209046
He thought it contained truth

[Anonymous No.18209216]

>>18209189
If '~' is 'not' logically speaking then all Weininger's propositions in the book are wrong, and it can't contain any truths whatsoever. I get what you're saying and I can see how it was just a throwaway quip on Witty's part, yet it still wouldn't seem quite right to recommend a book you regard as absolutely wrong.

[Anonymous No.18209243]

>>18193847

As Wolfgang Pauli would say, "he's not even wrong."

[Anonymous No.18209244]

>>18209216
No, somebody hasn’t taken logic

~(ducks are yellow)
(~ducks) are yellow
For example.

It’s hard for me to interpret an causal conversation he was having. Was he saying the whole book is wrong and thus provides truth or Was he just speaking of the method the results came about?
Sort of, weineger is right about everything fro the wrong reason.

[Anonymous No.18209311]

>>18208737
it is not the case that : (Sex and character)

means not sex or not character, or not both.

[Anonymous No.18209427]

>>18201068
Cuckold brain.
>Clearly that man is genetically superior to me so I must do everything in my power to get him to impregnate my wife!

[Anonymous No.18209428]

>>18197693
>>18206285
This is the book

[Anonymous No.18209449]

>>18209033
Lmfao where do you live that this even occurs. I’m imagining some 28 year old looming over some young guy in a boom store until he sees you and then handing him the book. Do you actually agree with Weininger or do you just do this for fun?

[Anonymous No.18209500]

>>18208936
>>18209046
>>18209189
Wittgenstein was particularly interested in the idea of Genius that he discusses. He recommended the book to many people, but did put the negation sign in front of it in a letter to Moore. The point is, I think, the book is wrong but it’s method or the parts that make it up are interesting or truthful. When someone called it “fantastic” (meaning not-truthful rather than good or something along those lines), he said it was both great and fantastic. It’s pretty clear that he didn’t agree with it as a whole, and it seems to have some connection to the move from the tractatus to LP. Yet it was also very influential on him.

[Anonymous No.18209504]

>>18209311
So then you could have sex but no character, or no sex and character. Or neither at once.

[Anonymous No.18209567]

>>18209500
I think it may be a case of him being precise but inaccurate. That is, he expresses something that is wrong in a very specific way, such that if you apply the operation ~ it becomes both precise and accurate.

The wiki definition of ~ says “The statement ¬A is true if and only if A is false.”

[Anonymous No.18209631]

>>18206267
I don’t think the individual cases are a problem for his theory, but it is interesting to see a pattern of homosexual geniuses (I’m sure one could dispute the title of genius, but for now I will just assume agreement). The pattern is strange given that Weininger discusses a proportional idea of gender. For instance, if someone were 80% man they would be 20% woman. It shouldn’t make sense for geniuses to be looking for another masculine partner, considering genius is already the masculine quality. It’s also strange since many of these men were not just homosexuals but also were quite sexual. I see the idea of the masculine core being able to remain against the kind of corrosive feminist/masculinity. But given his theory, one should be able to make the prediction that there should be very few homosexual geniuses, and I don’t see this prediction being true.

[Anonymous No.18209685]

>>18206255
Yeah I have to agree, there’s a big problem with not appreciating his interpretation of Kant and the consequences of his worldview, but most people only read as a kind of self-help exercise so there’s never a real discussion.

Actual chastity includes chastity of the mind. In fact I think he talks about this when he discusses the “demiverge” the idea of a promiscuous virgin. I think that for many people they simply want a partner that lacks sexual experience as a kind of base materialistic and selfish desire rather than real chastity which would be for spiritual reasons, and not just avoidance of sex.

[Anonymous No.18209694]

>>18209033
Is this real

[Anonymous No.18209839]

>>18209631
When I was younger I came to the conclusion of a percentage based Male/Female split present in everyone, merely biased towards manish traits for men and toward womanish traits for women.
I don't really believe this anymore. I know consider it along the more vulgar lines of mere evolutionary fitness: Men are the breadwinners, soldiers and everything else of great import in a primitive society, the dis-utilities that woman cause, if any, are acted out on the presumption of men 'coming to the rescue' as it were, preventing any serious weakening of the group by a woman's actions.

I don't really think of homosexuality as very special or rational, just an aberrant manifestation of the sexual desire directed towards something that approximates its intended goal. I don't think Turing's intelligence was in any way the cause of him chasing teenaged boys about, nor necessarily bestowed a particularly manly facade; there are two very separate scales of homosexual attraction:The bara, manly muscled type, and the Pretty, lithe, young and feminine look. That might posses more importance if one is looking to categorise homosexual lust in a Masculine/Feminine scale; but the fact of them both being lumped under the homogeneous umbrella of 'Homosexual', implies either a failure of linguistics or of categorisation.

[Anonymous No.18209914]

>>18209839
Right. I can understand those views, but with reference to W’s argument about sexuality and it’s importance, I think you’ve split off in a pretty different direction and I’m not entirely sure how you would recover it. Erotic/romantic inclinations are an important part of the argument and work, so if you disagree there, I think there are some ramifications on the conclusions you draw.

Sexuality, of course, doesn’t imply another set of qualities like masculinity, intelligence, whatever. But W is trying to show a link between masculinity and genius, and explains the typical heterosexual attraction by basically saying that opposites attract. A totally masculine man would desire a totally feminine woman. With these two claims in mind, a genius should be attracted to a womanly person if they do happen to be interested in sex or romance (which, also, in W’s view shouldn’t happen as much in geniuses because sexuality and morality are antithetical in his view). So, it’s strange to think that a significant amount of people considered geniuses or close to genius both display attraction to a man (even a feminine man is more typically masculine than a woman, according to W) and also are sexual. These patterns suggest a problem. If the argument against that is that there are men who take on a feminine role (similar to the Greek eromenos), I still don’t think that explains the phenomenon of masculine homosexual men being attracted to other masculine homosexual men, which is a common thing.

The importance of homosexuality is is that it is an inversion of common sexuality, which does have significance for W.

[Anonymous No.18209926]

>>18209449
>>18209694

I'm 30 and I live in Southeastern Europe, people are bit less autistic here and you can casually strike up a conversation with people in the book store. It's a very small place and you overhear people asking for certain books, like if someone asks for Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Spengler, Dosto, books I like I strike up a conversation. I later recommend Weininger and give it out on the house, I pay my friend for the book later. If they are young guys I tell them this was a very important book for me and I usually tell them its the one book they have to read before they decide to get married. My friend often has to order additional copies because I give them out often, the people where he orders from usually laugh it off and say: "WeiningerAnon is in action, again, right?" By my friends estimate I gifted around 50 copies throughout the years.

Some people probably think I'm retarded, I know for sure my friend doesn't since we often discuss the book and merit it highly. I sometimes play another sort of lottery in the bookstore. I put up a book I like, for example, Nietzsche's On the Genealogy of Morality, and if a young, beautiful girl shows serious interest (wants to play) my friend has to give it out for free and I pay for it later, anonymously. I use it to prove that women don't read good books and that they're not interested in anything. Books I've played this way: The Illiad, Dead Souls by Gogol, multiple books by Stendhal, Pascal, Montaigne, Rouchefoucould, La Bruyer, Human, all too Human... I only ever lost when I played Marcus Aurelius, because he's super popular now, and that was only once. I often thought about that I want to disapprove the low opinion I have of women by these games but I only reinforced it.

[Anonymous No.18209974]

>>18209427
This image makes me sad

[Anonymous No.18209978]

>>18209914
You're right; I haven't actually read the book so I cede the ground and agree with you. It does seem like it's the sort of argument that would hold a greater sway in a time where socially accepted sexual values were far more homogeneous; sitting in front of a computer, clicks away from a litany of the greatest debaucheries possible would probably illustrate a need for a more diffuse elaboration on women and attraction, one less linked with pure sexual desires—but that's just my view. Probably wrong anyhow.

[Anonymous No.18209981]

>>18209974
Existence is sad anon.

Want a hug? I've wanted to have a nice long hug for some time.

[Anonymous No.18210041]

>posting all day cause you're so stressed out that women have sex and we don't make buildings that are cool to me

[Anonymous No.18210115]

>>18209926
You are my new favorite person

[Anonymous No.18210139]

>>18209926

[Anonymous No.18210504]

>>18201068
>A women would kill herself for a true chad.
TOP KEK you made my day anon.

[Anonymous No.18210513]

personally i don´t hate women (except for my mother) but women are they way they are because of biology, i really don´t get the fuss about women being sexual or having sexual proclivities, so what? women treat sex and non-sex as two different universes, meanwhile us men treat sex and the non-sex as part of the same thing

[Anonymous No.18210706]

>>18210513
Why are your apostrophes like that?

[Anonymous No.18210724]

This is a literature board.

[Anonymous No.18210742]

>>18203787
>>18206479
There are and have been celibate women. Nuns also exist today in societies where women can freely choose to have/not have sex, and also are even encouraged to treat sex casually. This would suggest that some women choose to take vows of their own volition. If the idea is that all of these women couldn’t have sex if they wanted to, that seems incredibly unlikely.

[Anonymous No.18211136]

bump

[Anonymous No.18211513]

Bump

[Anonymous No.18211678]

Bump

[Anonymous No.18211700]

>>18209033
>>18209926
Great shit anon

[Anonymous No.18211715]

>>18211700
Do you like weininger?

[Anonymous No.18211809]

>>18201536
>Mathriarcal societies were communal

Much like Wonderland and Narnia and all those imaginary places

[Anonymous No.18211983]

>>18211700
>>18211715

[Anonymous No.18212547]

Bump

[Anonymous No.18212552]

b ump

[Anonymous No.18212907]

Bump

[Anonymous No.18214284]

live

[Anonymous No.18214438]

>>18193847
refuted by modern psychology

[Anonymous No.18214453]

>>18196599
>I couldn't even care less about getting laid and getting the perfect wife, I just want kids, I might adopt.
>I might adopt.
Come on, you are a woman.

[Anonymous No.18214465]

>>18196599
>because my mother is good and she is a woman
You're her son. Mothers are unconditionally good to their children (usually). You cannot judge women in general according to a specific, biologically necessitated case of unconditional love.

[Anonymous No.18214469]

>>18214438
Great post

[Anonymous No.18214470]

>>18207607
>only
>we should do better than caring about what general population wants and thinks about
so those who want these are "only the general population"? don't you realize how stupid you made yourself? and why should we not care about the general population?

[Anonymous No.18214471]

>>18214453
Either a woman or male pedophile.

[Anonymous No.18215260]

>>18214284
What does this mean

[Anonymous No.18215349]

>>18210041
Is this the female brain's full potential?

[Anonymous No.18215382]

>>18215349
Not gonna lie, she touched a weak spot by mentioning architectural monstrosities. I bet women are ok with this.

[Anonymous No.18216249]

>>18215382
Women...labyrinthine, unstructured, unfolding, distorted...modern architecture... it’s all coming together