Hey im new here

[Blair]

Is this your ham-handed way of getting around the spamming mechanism in place? Pfft.

You are a toadweasels' frothing acne discharge on the ass of a tick.

[Philosophaster]

Hey prince.

Just wanted to drop by and let you know that you have been unbanned from KIR, if you would like to post there. :-)

[RobertGreenSky]

While Prince/Blair is relegated to a designated area, everyone else is free to post across the board at KIR. With Dan away and with David and Kevin increasingly inactive on the human plane - they shrink an insignificant amount each year - you should feel welcome to come join us until Dan returns, and even stay with us longer if you like.


Best wishes,

RobertGreenSky

[cousinbasil]

Hey prince.

Just wanted to drop by and let you know that you have been unbanned from KIR, if you would like to post there. :-)

Hi philo
Who is the hottie in your avatar? I know it's not you, because you are a guy by the way you write.

[Philosophaster]

Hi cousinbasil,

The woman in my avatar is Asia Argento, an Italian actress.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

• Don't fall for the Sirens: it's a trap! :-)

[jupiviv]

While Prince/Blair is relegated to a designated area, everyone else is free to post across the board at KIR. With Dan away and with David and Kevin increasingly inactive on the human plane - they shrink an insignificant amount each year - you should feel welcome to come join us until Dan returns, and even stay with us longer if you like.


Best wishes,

RobertGreenSky

I took a look at that link. It seems like all the people who couldn't get their bearings over here went over there to complain about it and feel reassured. A word of advice - rename the "religion/philosophy" forum to "conscientious gardening."

[RobertGreenSky]

Jupiviv,

We like to think of the KIR philo forum as no place for a Weininger fanboy like yourself. You're welcome to come show us that we're wrong and that Weininger wasn't the pathetic mentally ill bigot we all take him to be.

Happy (US) Birthday to Dan Rowden, whom I wish well. I don't do that often, so appreciate it, Dan.

[jupiviv]

We like to think of the KIR philo forum as no place for a Weininger fanboy like yourself. You're welcome to come show us that we're wrong and that Weininger wasn't the pathetic mentally ill bigot we all take him to be.

Wow. You start off by saying that the forum is no place for me and then invite me to join it in the next sentence....Who else can be a better judge of Weininger than you?

[RobertGreenSky]

We like to think of the KIR philo forum as no place for a Weininger fanboy like yourself. You're welcome to come show us that we're wrong and that Weininger wasn't the pathetic mentally ill bigot we all take him to be.

Wow. You start off by saying that the forum is no place for me and then invite me to join it in the next sentence....Who else can be a better judge of Weininger than you?

I started off by saying the forum was no place for Weininger fanboys and then in the succeeding sentence I challenged you to prove otherwise. I was not contradicting myself and your description was ill-conceived, whether or not intentionally so.

I do not set myself up as a particularly good judge of Weininger in the sense of familiarity with his writings - heaven forbid I should be familiar with them. Although my limited familiarity has occasionally been put to very good use, as better judges of Weininger than myself I would suggest both Naturyl (Unidian) and Carmel. That does not suggest as such their willingness to discuss anything, but is instead merely my estimation of their capacities. If your comment was rhetorical, then it was a meaningless insult.

I really can't continue jousting over nothing. I did want to 'humorously "poach"', but all of you are welcome at KIR. We do not see Buddhism-Zen-Daoism as those disciplines are seen here, nor Weininger, nor the path to high-testosterone masculine wisdom and enlightenment, but we can engage in conversations on those matters and others.

Robert Larkin

[jupiviv]

I started off by saying the forum was no place for Weininger fanboys and then in the succeeding sentence I challenged you to prove otherwise.

You want me to prove that I'm not something - that you accused me of being in the same post - on that forum, because the forum is no place for it. Makes perfect sense.

Also, what is a "fanboy", exactly? If it means someone who agrees with and respects Weininger(i.e, his thought) then I am a Weininger fanboy. So I'll obviously not be welcome on your forum.

I do not set myself up as a particularly good judge of Weininger in the sense of familiarity with his writings - heaven forbid I should be familiar with them.

Heaven also forbids that you should not judge him in any way if you don't know/understand what his actual thought was.

Although my limited familiarity has occasionally been put to very good use, as better judges of Weininger than myself I would suggest both Naturyl (Unidian) and Carmel.

Just because someone has read a book doesn't mean they've understood it. I had some dealings with Carmel on here in the past, and she's no more familiar with Weininger than you are, but this doesn't stop her from piling insults upon him and his work.

I don't mind that you enjoy desecrating a corpse. I only wish you were more honest about that enjoyment instead of shrouding it with the veil of righteous judgment. But I guess that's too much to expect from you.

[cousinbasil]

Just because someone has read a book doesn't mean they've understood it. I had some dealings with Carmel on here in the past, and she's no more familiar with Weininger than you are, but this doesn't stop her from piling insults upon him and his work.

Just because someone disagrees with you over a book (that she has read) doesn't mean she understands it less than you do. This precise criticism appears way too often at GF. It usually rings hollow. SAC does have the ability to divide, so in that sense it is a vital work. But I have noticed that its champions seem to harbor an emotional attachment to it and its author, out of all keeping with the views on such emotional attachment those same readers profess to hold.

I do understand this emotional reaction. Weininger was a peculiarly tragic young man, highly intelligent, and exposed to some intellectually cutting edge ideas of his time. But he was clearly not wise beyond his years. His bio states he became distressed at the failure of his initial efforts at publishing SAC. I submit his suicide was a result of the fact of his being published. Like his contemporary Freud, OW was keenly aware of the existing social structure and the strata thereof to which he had access. In other words, both Weininger and Freud desired to be accepted in elite society. (Freud, I believe, maintained that the world had about 600 people who were the creme de la creme, and he desired above all else to be one of them.)

In Weininger's case, he found himself having to deal with the negative response, or lack of any response, to his publication. He realized that the world was not going to recognize his "genius" after he had poured out his heart and soul into SAC. It was not just a failure. To him, it was a mistake - it was a stillbirth. It was premature. And yet it was out there, forever publicly marking him. One can take back a comment or remark; but a proclamation? To his 20-something-year-old mind, it was an onus he could not possibly shed, and what made it unbearable to live with was that it came from his own hand. Society - especially upper echelon females, would always see him in terms of these radical pronouncements that he could never rescind. He found this prospect unbearable to contemplate, and because he was not as wise beyond his years as he was intellectually ahead of (or at least out of step with) his time, he succumbed to despair.

I can see a gut-level emotional response to such a figure, almost a protective feeling, an empathy of knowing what it is to be misunderstood.

Yet for me this does not translate into embracing his ideas or their consequences. In fact, emulating or internalizing the world-view of such a figure could hardly seem less palatable. His defenders will wryly note that often the truth is unpalatable. This is of course deliberately misreading what I am saying. Because I know that often the foods that taste the best are bad for one when overdone, and much that is beneficial requires a developed taste. Weininger's theses are unpalatable as maggot-ridden, moldy meat. It tastes bad because it is bad.

Again, I believe he would have rescinded it if possible, and if it were possible for him to have a second chance at first publishing his grand intellectual tour de force, he would have opted to do so instead of taking his own life, which he would not have done if he didn't believe that things had gone nightmarishly wrong.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Why always making such a big deal of the suicide, I wonder? Any cursory interest in the time and place of the man would make it clear suicide was really epidemic, no matter the level of success or rejection of the person. Perhaps it was closer to a fashion statement than to some consequence of depression or mood swing. One cannot escape being a "man of his time" after all, even when striving for perfection and voicing the infinite or moving the unmovable. For example, it's being said Buddha died from some STD after having too much sex with pigs, or because he was addicted to mushrooms (the accounts do vary ... :-) If such things would matter to someone reading Buddhist scripture, all is already lost.

[RobertGreenSky]

Interesting pieces from cousinbasil and Diebert. The suicide is relevant imo since Weininger wrote from the perspective not only of a depressed individual but also of a very conflicted man, a Jewish antisemite, a possible homosexual, and all of which could well have colored his writings. I do not think a Jew sets out to condemn women so that he can in turn condemn Jews as feminine unless he is ... suffering. The other side of Weininger, beyond the bigotries, is that he really should be an object of pity.

[RobertGreenSky]

Jupiviv,

The challenge put to you was in a very typical form and your quibbling won't change the fact. Let me alter it slightly. Since you suggested we are gardeners why don't you login at KIR and prove you're our better. (That too is a challenge, one put in an analogous form, and I think everyone will recognize it.) I warn you however that if quibbling is the best you can do then KIR will indeed be a trap for you. I doubt you'll join us - I also doubt that Carmel wrote inadequately - but you (and everyone) are welcome to join and engage in mutually pleasant conversation or engage in good argument or both.

How much Weininger does one need to know in order to successfully argue? With adequate research I have been able to hold my arguments while only skimming Weininger's writings. On the other hand, a friend of mine has read Weininger's magnum dopus twice yet his erudition was rejected because he drew conclusions different than the conclusions ordinarily and myopically drawn at Genius Forum. 'The Jew's sin is smirking at the Good, as the simpleton's sin is smirking at wisdom.' (from A small sample of Aphorisms from Weininger's Notebooks.) I think one must take the Dharma Stick not only to Weininger but to the individual fostering antisemitism. Whether I am being self-righteous or I am being accurate is proved in argument, but I am not kicking any corpse.

[cousinbasil]

Why always making such a big deal of the suicide, I wonder? Any cursory interest in the time and place of the man would make it clear suicide was really epidemic, no matter the level of success or rejection of the person. Perhaps it was closer to a fashion statement than to some consequence of depression or mood swing. One cannot escape being a "man of his time" after all, even when striving for perfection and voicing the infinite or moving the unmovable. For example, it's being said Buddha died from some STD after having too much sex with pigs, or because he was addicted to mushrooms (the accounts do vary ... :-) If such things would matter to someone reading Buddhist scripture, all is already lost.

Suicide an epidemic in OW's time? Maybe if you hand-picked a different era and compared it to that. Has it ever been as wide scale an "epidemic" cause of death, as say the flu, or syphilis, or AIDS, or any one of a hundred communicable diseases? Nonsense. And no matter how "fashionable" it may have been. has it ever reached the widespread practice as say wearing powdered wigs? Poor analysis, Diebert. Suicide has never been an epidemic or a fashion statement. And if it were the latter, would that be any kind of mitigating factor when assessing the practioner's mental fitness? "He killed himself---no big deal, everyone was doing it." Suicide is always a significant factor in the legacy of a person who resorts to it. To say otherwise is merely being contentious. And it doesn't matter if Buddha died because an anvil fell on his fucking head - the point is, he didn't die by his own hand. He lived to be an old man. He did not philosophize on life, then fuck the pigs in order to die at a young age. You really can't see the difference?

If you are going to propose a straw-man kind of argument, at least the effigy should bear some resemblance. Of course, there are those at GF who regard Weininger as a philosopher of some sort, and do not blink when someone hoists Buddha up along side of him.

[cousinbasil]

BTW, I should point out that I am not suggesting that Weininger's suicide represents the entirety of his legacy, brief as that legacy is. But it should raise all kinds of flags when one goes to ingest his theses. The fact that he chose to end his own life colors all of his thinking - it is the maggots in the rotten meat, not the rotten meat. But go ahead and eat it, if you can stand the stench---it's not the maggots that will do you in, it's the rotten meant itself. Hey Diebert, aren't you the one that insists on choking down your philosophy? You mean to tell me Weininger, passing around photographs of people to his friends to find out who they thought was attractive and unattractive, doesn't make you even a little queasy...?

[jupiviv]

Just because someone disagrees with you over a book (that she has read) doesn't mean she understands it less than you do.

In this case, she does understand it less than I do. In fact, I don't think she understands it at all.

But I have noticed that its champions seem to harbor an emotional attachment to it and its author, out of all keeping with the views on such emotional attachment those same readers profess to hold.

No emotional attachment on my part. If there is emotion, it's anger at seeing how people view him without understanding his ideas. So you could say it's an emotional attachment to reason and a lack of it in other people.

But he was clearly not wise beyond his years.

I think he was extremely wise for his age. How many other 23 year old men can produce works as truthful and courageous as S&C?

In other words, both Weininger and Freud desired to be accepted in elite society.

If that were so, then Weininger would have used his prodigious intellect to tackle and solve issues of no importance at all, thereby gaining high status in the academia.

Weininger's theses are unpalatable as maggot-ridden, moldy meat. It tastes bad because it is bad.

You know, if you just wrote this line, you could have spared yourself that long post, and me this long response. I know this would probably be useless, but what is the basis for you to be making this accusation? Name any one idea of his that you consider "bad".

[jupiviv]

The fact that he chose to end his own life colors all of his thinking - it is the maggots in the rotten meat, not the rotten meat.

How so? His suicide was the result of his faults, and his brilliant philosophising was the result of his genius. You are the one who's coloring his thinking. And I might add - it doesn't speak too well of you and RobertGreenSky to use the event of a person's suicide as somehow an argument against his ideas and thereby add to his image as a horrible monster. It's not only meaningless but really quite vulgar.

Weininger's suicide was a fault - no one would deny that, not even Weininger himself. What is wrong is to use it completely out of context in order to try to justify one's own blind anger against him.

You mean to tell me Weininger, passing around photographs of people to his friends to find out who they thought was attractive and unattractive, doesn't make you even a little queasy...?

Again, this is totally meaningless. I thought you were better than this.

[jupiviv]

The challenge put to you was in a very typical form and your quibbling won't change the fact.

What is this, a need for speed game? If you want to debate about Weininger then you can do it right here. The content of our posts will be the same no matter which forum we are in. I'm sure the moderators can create a thread where only people participating in the debate are allowed to post.

[RobertGreenSky]

The challenge put to you was in a very typical form and your quibbling won't change the fact.

What is this, a need for speed game? If you want to debate about Weininger then you can do it right here. The content of our posts will be the same no matter which forum we are in. I'm sure the moderators can create a thread where only people participating in the debate are allowed to post.

My purpose here has been to issue a general invitation to KIR. Why would I then involve myself here? These days I know of no neutral ground, unlike when I got Quinn off Genius Forum (then at ezboards) and thoroughly debunked his enlightenment at The Ponderers' Guild, including for his support of Weininger. I guess I'll have to make do with that - you're not big enough fish.

RL

[cousinbasil]

How so? His suicide was the result of his faults, and his brilliant philosophising was the result of his genius. You are the one who's coloring his thinking. And I might add - it doesn't speak too well of you and RobertGreenSky to use the event of a person's suicide as somehow an argument against his ideas and thereby add to his image as a horrible monster. It's not only meaningless but really quite vulgar.

Who has an image of him as a monster? I know I don't. He was simply a troubled youth, quite brilliant, and swimming in hormones at the age of twenty-three. He then attempts to quantify sexuality and proposes a rudimentary calculus to describe it. This is is his genius. This is what sets him apart from everybody else at that exciting time. What he and his colleagues were experiencing - he dared to analyze and express. It's not as if what he was talking about had never been noticed before.

Ultimately, Weininger could not live with his own ideas. The world was not going to adjust to him, by his own admission. He was all of twenty-three.

Ultimately, he knew he could not withstand the criticism which would have assailed him had his work been widely read.

I don't see him as monstrous at all. In fact, I see him as tragic. Had he lived, his ideas may have been refined. I know I have gotten better and wiser as I have aged, and I'm no genius. That is why I find Weininger's suicide so troubling. He is not Diane Arbus, for eaxmple, who left behind a mature body of work.


Jupiviv, I could easily copy and paste here excerpts from SAC here. But what would that show? You would accuse me of coloring his thinking. How BTW can one color a dead person's thinking?

[Dennis Mahar]

All events in the appearance are valid.
How could they not be?
Suicide is as valid as anything else.
Stories about it being weak and flawed are meaningless.

What made you think Weininger had free will anyway?

[jupiviv]

He was simply a troubled youth, quite brilliant, and swimming in hormones at the age of twenty-three.

If he was "simply" a troubled youth and swimming in hormones, then he wouldn't have gone through the effort of writing a rigorous philosophical work, and devoted that work to the difference between the sexes of all things. He'd probably have just become a mass murderer or an arsonist, in order to strike out at the things that troubled him and made him angry.

Ultimately, Weininger could not live with his own ideas. The world was not going to adjust to him, by his own admission. He was all of twenty-three.

This I agree with. His worldview was never going to be accepted by society in general, and he wasn't capable of dealing with it - which was a shortcoming. But does that mean that his ideas themselves are wrong thereof? Society also did not accept the Buddha's teachings or Jesus' teachings, a fact evident in the religions of Buddhism and Christianity. Do we then disregard what they said?

Ultimately, he knew he could not withstand the criticism which would have assailed him had his work been widely read.

In the preface, Weininger says this:

...there is of necessity something pretentious about all theory, and thus the same content that appears like nature in a work of art may appear much harsher and indeed offensive when it is put forward within a philosophical system as a condensed generalization, as a thesis that is subject to the principle of sufficient reason and that sets out to provide proofs. Where my account is antifeminist— which it is almost everywhere—men will also be reluctant to agree readily and whole-heartedly: their sexual egotism always makes them prefer to see Woman as they want her to be and as they want to love her.

How could I then be unprepared for the reply women will have to my judgment of their sex?

So now you are accusing him of being dishonest? If Weininger thought that he couldn't withstand criticism, we all know perfectly well what kind of criticism that would have been. It was the kind of criticism that RobertGreenSky and countless other bigots like him who can't deal with Weininger's ideas, are fond of - i.e, slinging their own feces at him and then hoping that other people will do the same. His fear of this kind of violence is quite understandable, although this, too, is a shortcoming from the point of view of truth.

Jupiviv, I could easily copy and paste here excerpts from SAC here. But what would that show?

For one thing, it would show why you disagree with him. Ultimately, I wouldn't be bothered if Weininger was a rapist, if he also spoke the truth. The fact of his being a rapist would not affect the truth that he spoke in the slightest.

[cousinbasil]

If he was "simply" a troubled youth...

As opposed to a "horrible monster." Just going from what you can discover about him online, "troubled youth" seems to be an apt description. Most troubled youths do not strike out violently against the things that make them angry. This is true because the majority of people are probably "troubled" to some extent at that age, and about the very same things. But it is interesting that you have chosen arson and mass murder as examples of what he would have been engaged in if he were "simply" troubled.

But does that mean that his ideas themselves are wrong thereof? Society also did not accept the Buddha's teachings or Jesus' teachings, a fact evident in the religions of Buddhism and Christianity. Do we then disregard what they said?

The implication naturally being that he is on their level somehow. Both Jesus and Buddha were more than philosophers; Weininger, on the other hand, barely one.

Where do you get the idea that society did not accept the teachings of Jesus? It was precisely because society was starting to accept the ideas that made him dangerous to those who would control society.

It is my contention that Weininger would have outgrown those ideas that tortured him. The self can be reborn within the same physical vessel. He tragically did not know this.

So now you are accusing him of being dishonest?

And where do you get that? If anything, it was his honesty that killed him. You quoted him as writing: "How could I then be unprepared for the reply women will have to my judgment of their sex?" He may very well have been prepared for that reply - in fact one could argue he seemed to be seeking it. I was speaking rather of the response he would have received from his male peers and colleagues had he been more widely read, as you go on to observe.

But consider this. Does the voice in SAC sound like it is about to commit suicide? I say no. That voice was OW's own . I believe he fully intended to live to defend his work, and that he believed the intrinsic truth of it would sustain him despite his clearly anticipated public reaction. But we know he was not thusly sustained. Was it the magnitude of the response? From what I have read, there wasn't much response at all. One gets the picture of a nearly complete absence of positive response, however. Now what does he do? He has just poured his heart and soul into this treatise, and it failed to deliver even the negative attention for which he believed himself prepared as he authored it. He either has to start all over, or develop his ideas further and somehow try again. Could his depression have worsened because he now doubted the intrinsic truth of SAC? Too horrible to contemplate - it was out there with his name on it. Let's not forget how limited the options available to someone with ambitions in that period of history would have been. Speculation on the nature of these options is pointless, since he ended up rejecting all options but the Big One.

I wouldn't be bothered if Weininger was a rapist, if he also spoke the truth. The fact of his being a rapist would not affect the truth that he spoke in the slightest.

I know you are saying this to make a point, jupiviv. IMO, if I knew for a fact that someone was a rapist, I would question his motive for saying anything, even before I considered its veracity. Luckily, Weininger shouldered no such burden. About the worst thing you could say about him is that he was a bad Jew, but who cares about that?

It's nearly 3AM where I am and I have to get up for work tomorrow (today), so I have to stop the verbal diarrhea right now.