Hey im new here

[jupiviv]

Both Jesus and Buddha were more than philosophers; Weininger, on the other hand, barely one.

I don't think Weininger was on the level of the Buddha, but close. And compared to ordinary people, he was practically a "Buddha." I think a part(perhaps the essential) of the reason why he committed suicide is that he understood his faults all too well. He realised how close he and other people were to the truth, and yet, how far from it.

Where do you get the idea that society did not accept the teachings of Jesus?

I don't know of any Christian who even remotely follows the teachings of Jesus, nor a Buddhist who follows the Buddha's philosophy. Those religions are nothing but glorified fairy tales, and the actual philosophies that they are supposedly based on are all but forgotten today.

Could his depression have worsened because he now doubted the intrinsic truth of SAC?

I don't think so. Rather, his estimation of the quality of his book led to depression when no one seemed to recognise it. It was the vanity of the artist about his work.

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.

Personally, I don't think questioning the motive for saying anything comes before than questioning its veracity. Just because a person is insane or a criminal doesn't mean that he cannot speak the truth, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Even a rock or a tree can "speak the truth", i.e, they may cause the appearance of a true thought in our minds.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Suicide an epidemic in OW's time? Nonsense.

I was referring to other work which made a reasonable case. Here's a link to the link. A pity you missed that post since you were in that discussion yourself. The link to the article seems dead but perhaps you can find "Schultz, William Todd (1998). The riddle that doesn't exist: Ludwig Wittgenstein's transmogrification of death. Psychoanalytic Review, 86, p. 1-23." yourself or just read a bit more Wittgenstein to improve your understanding of the context.

[cousinbasil]

I don't know of any Christian who even remotely follows the teachings of Jesus, nor a Buddhist who follows the Buddha's philosophy. Those religions are nothing but glorified fairy tales, and the actual philosophies that they are supposedly based on are all but forgotten today.

I am not surprised to hear you say this. I understand this viewpoint all too well, because it requires me constantly to reject it, as I do now. The reason is plain. It would be a glass half-empty, half-full question if the meniscus were indeed a the half-way mark. The truth is bleaker, I agree. But I prefer to think of the glass being not entirely empty as opposed to almost so. The real question is in which direction is the level heading? If I were to accept your claims here, I would be forced to conclude that the world is no better off now than it would have been has Christ and Buddha not existed. According to you, they were not wise enough to see that their efforts were in vain. I think if you literally don't even know of a person, Christian or otherwise, who does not remotely follow the teachings of Jesus, your own socialization may be lacking.

But I will grant you that intellectually it has become the thing to do to portray those who call themselves Christian as being ignorant of the true Christian message. It would be a tidy irony, I admit, and we all enjoy irony, especially when it is at someone else's expense.

But perhaps you are less error-prone than I in daily living, maybe that is why I feel more reluctant to pass judgment on all of humanity.

It was the vanity of the artist about his work.

This I agree with. But almost all artists acknowledge some failure of their art along the line. Again, in W's case, we don't have much to go on. It is difficult to view suicide as a dispassionate act; if one views it as an extreme expression of passion, almost anything may be imagined to have been the emotional trigger. An acute sense of failure is a common enough theme in suicide notes. In Weininger's case, I admit I am merely speculating.

Personally, I don't think questioning the motive for saying anything comes before than questioning its veracity.

I do not regard them as being mutually exclusive or contradictory, so I have no problem doing so. Perhaps I am more naturally suspicious. I just like to know whose truth I am considering before I consider it. I find it helps me understand it better. For instance, expert medical testimony in a civil court case concerning the health effects of tobacco may consist of weeks of sworn statements about all the harmful effects smoking doesn't produce. All that may be true. But if you know beforehand who is paying the experts to take the stand, you can effectively disregard the truth of the testimony.

[jupiviv]

If I were to accept your claims here, I would be forced to conclude that the world is no better off now than it would have been has Christ and Buddha not existed.

I think they've both had a great impact on humanity. Without them, we would still be in total darkness. However, the vast majority of people aren't conscious of that impact. They do not understand them, or do so only vaguely, and that is why they worship them.

I think if you literally don't even know of a person, Christian or otherwise, who does not remotely follow the teachings of Jesus, your own socialization may be lacking.

Anyone who genuinely values truth and reason would be follower of Jesus or Buddha, so there do seem to be a few who "follow" them, but only a few.

[cousinbasil]

Suicide an epidemic in OW's time? Nonsense.

I was referring to other work which made a reasonable case. Here's a link to the link. A pity you missed that post since you were in that discussion yourself. The link to the article seems dead but perhaps you can find "Schultz, William Todd (1998). The riddle that doesn't exist: Ludwig Wittgenstein's transmogrification of death. Psychoanalytic Review, 86, p. 1-23." yourself or just read a bit more Wittgenstein to improve your understanding of the context.

I see I have to slow down as usual for your benefit. You said:

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.

The broken link you supply here reads:

Turn-of-the-century Austrians, of whom Wittgenstein was one, killed themselves at alarmingly high rates. One can speak of a virtual epidemic of suicide ideation.

I have put the relevant clauses in boldface to help you out. I assume you are not merely relying on this one source, since you have taken the liberty of altering its meaning from suicide ideation being a virtual epidemic to suicide itself being really epidemic.

Don't assume because I do not respond to your every post which ones I have read and whether or not I agree with them. The only thing you can be sure of is that if I comment one way or the other, then I have read it.

Also do not assume one has to read Wittgenstein (or psycho analyses of him) to understand Weininger or his lone work.

Having said this, I readily agree that fin de siècle Austria witnessed an alarmingly high rate of suicide, since in that period, Europe in general saw an unusual manifestation of aberrant behavior of many kinds, it is what characterizes the era. I would also suggest that when one contemplates any "rate" of suicide. it seems alarming.

Specifically, I objected to characterizing suicide as an epidemic. I think it is nonsense to call it that, as when the media calls school shootings an epidemic when several instances happen in a relatively short period of time, even if they are dramatically separated by location.

But I have to admit I can more readily accept viewing suicide as an epidemic when it appears to occur in a relative cluster, than I can accept regarding it as a "fashion statement," as you also suggested.

[Blair]

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

Spoken like the true low-riding gnat you are.

KIR, the soapbox for the philosophically mediocre.

[Philosophaster]

lol lol lol

[Diebert van Rhijn]

But I have to admit I can more readily accept viewing suicide as an epidemic when it appears to occur in a relative cluster, than I can accept regarding it as a "fashion statement," as you also suggested.

Yeah the term I used was just based on the analysis reading: "killed themselves at alarmingly high rates. One can speak of a virtual epidemic of suicide ideation". Of course the type of ideation which causes people actually to do it. There's more background to this though, Vienna is "the most suicidal city on earth" according to a 1930's figure. (source Time Magazine 1932). It's hard to find details on the decades before apart from economical despair. There are other sources I remember fleshing out a fascination with death in Vienna around the centuries changing. Ever saw the video clip of Ultravox called Vienna? Was hugely popular here early 80's. It provides some of the perception in a picture.

Rudolf, Crown Prince of Austria had a dramatic suicide by gun a few years before Weininger. This might have also added to the idealization element.

There are interesting theories about such sudden spikes in suicides at places. Some mention periods of severe class changes, when roles are questioned and increased uncertainty about norms and direction rises: "anomie". Not only Weiniger's work deals with these shifts and uncertainties, trying to respond to it, but the author is part of this scene, with a lot of artists, composers, poets, writers, all losing themselves in extreme idealization, which can take one far away from mundane life and can shock the organism in depression when the unpoetical, uncomposed, unreasonable parts of life suddenly dominate, "pulling one back in", into something where structures have become too uncertain to provide much help.

Anyway, the point of all this was that there's doesn't seem to be reason to assume the suicide was related much to the writings. Although it's certainly not an advertisement either. Neither is this writing from a recently suiciding Jew, who also claimed "this belief that life is inherently preferable to death is one of the most widespread superstitions".

[Sphere70]

An amazing movie dealing with these issues in a most sublime and haunting way is the (almost) always-great Austrian Michael Haneke in his first movie "The Seventh Continent". Just a heads up - if you plan to watch it, try not to read to much about it beforehand.
It's one of my favorite movies.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098327/

Have anyone here seen it? Anyway, it ties in greatly with the discussion about suicide and the problems of “unconscious” nihilism , -).

[cousinbasil]

Anyway, the point of all this was that there's doesn't seem to be reason to assume the suicide was related much to the writings.

Other than that they were done by the same hand.

[jupiviv]

To the degree that Weininger's thought was flawed, it was connected with his suicide. Consequently, deluded people can be said to kill themselves every moment of their lives!

[cousinbasil]

I agree, jupiviv. Yet most people are deluded to some degree and very few kill literally themselves.

To suggest, though, that his suicide was caused by some fascination with death permeating Vienna and had nothing to do with the events in is own life is preposterous. It's funny how some geniuses here see this interrelated web of cosmic causality in which all things are causally related, except in certain circumstances. I am simply asking what caused Weininger's despondency and what made him finally succumb to despair? It is ludicrous to think a prevailing suicidal ambiance was the trigger. Granted, if the royal prince had hung himself, perhaps Weininger might have scared up a length of rope and found a rafter in Beethoven's attic. But one logically cannot believe there is no reason to connect his suicide with the recent publication of his treatise and the apparent lack of interest which followed in its wake.

I doubt my German would be up to the task of reading SAC in the original. But from the English translation I have perused, Weininger writes as one caught up in the correctness of his ideas. There is every bit the feel of daring youth, and not a hint, to my mind, of the turn his life would soon take.

It is often the case with very young mothers that their first pregnancy results in stillbirth. It is like a new factory producing its first few batches which are all bad. Likewise with Weininger: he gave SAC his all, and it was dead on delivery. His bolt had been shot. He had no way of knowing if he would get another.

Jupiviv, you have said that you do not think OW in the end doubted the content of his work. I cannot know this, but I can accept this estimation because of the certainty one can hear in the writing. Also, he did adopt a defensive stance in many places, saying he knew that people would react negatively to his ideas. He seemed ready for that. He did not seem prepared for apathy, for no response.

If I am not mistaken, he was rebuffed by Freud at some point. This must have been a major blow, since Freud was in his mid-forties just entering his prime and gaining followers in Vienna. Freud was the big fish in the pond at the time; if admitted into his circle, Weininger would have been assured of the exposure his thesis needed. What he lacked was critical collaboration, peers to help him refine and develop his expansive ideas, which obviously touched on many fields of study.

From Wikipedia on OW, his "admirer" Wittgenstein writes about him: "It isn't necessary or rather not possible to agree with him but the greatness lies in that with which we disagree. It is his enormous mistake which is great."

This same article on Weininger states: "While the book was not received negatively, it did not create the expected stir. Weininger was attacked by Paul Julius Moebius, professor in Leipzig and author of the book On the Physiological Deficiency of Women, and was accused of plagiarizing. Deeply disappointed and tortured by doubts, Weininger left for Italy."

No I do not think Wikipedia is the final word on very much, but this excerpt is quite telling.

Has anyone read Otto Weininger: Sex, Science, and Self in Imperial Vienna (The Chicago Series on Sexuality, History, and Society) by Chandak Sengoopta? Can't find it in any of my local libraries, but then they are somewhat provincial. A link on an online PDF or DJVU copy would be appreciated, as I do not intend to shell out 25 USD for it!

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

I agree, jupiviv. Yet most people are deluded to some degree and very few kill literally themselves.

And in this, Weininger was truly unique. First he literarily killed himself, then he literally killed himself - in part because he literarily killed himself.

[jupiviv]

He did not seem prepared for apathy, for no response.

Well, if he wrote a book, then it's pretty clear that he wanted people to read it. But I wouldn't say he wasn't "prepared" for a lack of response, if that means that he didn't even entertain the thought that it may not become well known.

If I am not mistaken, he was rebuffed by Freud at some point. This must have been a major blow, since Freud was in his mid-forties just entering his prime and gaining followers in Vienna.

I don't think it was a major blow to his state of mind, but it was definitely a blow to his reputation.

From Wikipedia on OW, his "admirer" Wittgenstein writes about him: "It isn't necessary or rather not possible to agree with him but the greatness lies in that with which we disagree. It is his enormous mistake which is great."

That statement makes no sense. If his greatness lies in his "mistake" then his mediocrity must lie in the places where he is correct.

I think Wittgenstein had a strong attachment to Weininger because he had lost 3 of his own brothers to suicide - it was more or less an emotional attachment, rather than an intellectual one.

He perceived a kind of thought in Weininger - an extreme and ruthless kind of thought that does not stop until it bores through the problems it faces - and that's what he called the "enormous mistake". Weininger's great sin was that he said what he thought was true.

[Tomas]

I agree, jupiviv. Yet most people are deluded to some degree and very few kill literally themselves.

And in this, Weininger was truly unique. First he literarily killed himself, then he literally killed himself - in part because he literarily killed himself.

Goodness you all go on about a fucking loser. So the idiot had personal problems. Even Hitler admired the deadbeat.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Even Hitler admired the deadbeat.

I think that was actually Dietrich Eckart, quite close to Hitler and quoted by him, and who admired Christ even more as the embodiment of all manliness.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Only for the last one or two years I've been reading on and off more seriously Weininger and his context. Here's a list of literature I found recently for those interested what others have to say:

Essays on Wittgenstein and Weininger Allan Janik - Professor Philosophy University Vienna
Otto Weininger: sex, science, and self in imperial Vienna, by Prof. Chandak Sengoopta, University London
Jews & gender: responses to Otto Weininger Prof. Nancy Anne Harrowitz & Ass. Prof. Barbara Hyams

Keeping in mind of course that according to Janik: "paradoxically, the Jew for Weininger is that man who mindlessly accepts social conventions including those relating to this sexual role as 'satisfying' women". Ultimately one has to make ones own analysis undisturbed by any attachment to social or moral convention by reading the author oneself or otherwise just sanely skip the subject and not rely on secondhand readings.

[jupiviv]

Essays on Wittgenstein and Weininger Allan Janik - Professor Philosophy University Vienna
Otto Weininger: sex, science, and self in imperial Vienna, by Prof. Chandak Sengoopta, University London
Jews & gender: responses to Otto Weininger Prof. Nancy Anne Harrowitz & Ass. Prof. Barbara Hyams

Like all the truthful and great books ever written, the only reading on "Sex and character" that is required to understand it is "Sex and character" itself.

I read a part of the gigantic essay by Janik, and it seems that what he is trying to say is that Weininger and Wittgenstein both had a different view of things than other people. Apart from that - nothing else. I'm pretty sure the other books have a similar nature, as does almost all of the academic literature on Weininger.

[cousinbasil]

Only for the last one or two years I've been reading on and off more seriously Weininger and his context. Here's a list of literature I found recently for those interested what others have to say:

Essays on Wittgenstein and Weininger Allan Janik - Professor Philosophy University Vienna
Otto Weininger: sex, science, and self in imperial Vienna, by Prof. Chandak Sengoopta, University London
Jews & gender: responses to Otto Weininger Prof. Nancy Anne Harrowitz & Ass. Prof. Barbara Hyams

.

Hey Diebert, thanks for the links. The middle one was the online version I was looking for.

Like all the truthful and great books ever written, the only reading on "Sex and character" that is required to understand it is "Sex and character" itself.

Naturally, you are right to a large degree, reading the actual treatise is fundamental - true understanding, or something approaching it, cannot be had without doing that.

On the other hand, we do read each other's thoughts about SAC and other works here at GF. If you were to be taken literally, this entire forum is superfluous. Well, sometimes it does seem that way, I'll admit. But your sentiment above, if it is to be believed, would render every university department sterile as well.

Discussion is how ideas germinate and their inner potential made real! Think of reading as a form of discussion, an adjunct to comprehension.

[jupiviv]

@cousinbasil, I think you are taking my point wholly out of context. I was speaking about books which are genuinely truthful and honest. If the reader is determined enough to understand what is in them, he can understand it by reading only those books. The same can also be said of anything else(other than books, that is.)

And yes, discussion can of course be fruitful....but only if it is based on at least some understanding of the subject at hand, and more importantly, if the purpose of that discussion is honest. The academic literature about Weininger is neither honest about their purpose and nor do they produce any impression of any actual understanding of him.

It almost seems like the academics have written those books based on other academic books about Weininger that they've read, and not his book itself.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

thanks for the links. The middle one was the online version I was looking for.

You're' welcome. Although the middle one seems one of the least useful especially because it's written by a historian. Nothing kills philosophy more than historical analysis! The bean counters of the soul. The chapter Writing about Weininger by Janik, at least a philosopher of trade displays a better although hesitating and understandably modest understanding of what's at stake. The Jews and Gender book looks more like more comic relief - late 20th century deformities criticizing a late 19th century deformity for being deformed. Alltogether these books do provide a good overview of the diverse responses and attempts to deal with this "enfant terrible".

Anyway, I've to agree with Jup but it would mean Weiniger's work was that of a mystic foremost who understood everything profoundly, all but his own existence, or his own mistakes.

[cousinbasil]

You're' welcome. Although the middle one seems one of the least useful especially because it's written by a historian.

You're the one who introduced Vienna's Zeitgeist into our little discussion. Sengoopta, it seems, is a professor of the history of medicine, and "medicine" as a field of study has come to imply reliance upon the scientic method, certainly in Vienna at this historical juncture this was the case. Which is suitable, I think, since OW is rather the polyglot. Modern medical science assimilates what is useful from the other "harder" sciences, which is precisely what Weininger sought to do, in part.

Anyway, I've to agree with Jup but it would mean Weiniger's work was that of a mystic foremost who understood everything profoundly, all but his own existence, or his own mistakes.

Can't agree with you there, I see nothing of the mystic about OW, and I daresay he'd likely go along with that assessment sooner than he would with yours.

[jupiviv]

Anyway, I've to agree with Jup but it would mean Weiniger's work was that of a mystic foremost who understood everything profoundly, all but his own existence, or his own mistakes.

On the contrary - he understood his faults all too well! He couldn't bear the pain that came from knowing his own faults.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

You're the one who introduced Vienna's Zeitgeist into our little discussion.

Fair enough, but in the context of suicide it seemed to have merit in light of the speculations over the cause. What Sengoopta is doing seems for the most part superfluous to me. But don't let that stop you!

I see nothing of the mystic about OW, and I daresay he'd likely go along with that assessment sooner than he would with yours.

Otto (can I call him by his first name?) listed mystic as one of the characteristics of the man of genius. Also a man of philosophy, science, art, history, civilisation, nature, or at times just "simplicity" itself. The range is rather large. For example Oswald Spengler wrote in his "Decline Of The West" (1917) about a surviving line of "mysticism of Jewry", a pure Sufism, and lists "three more saints" in the last few centuries: Spinoza, Baal Shem (the Hasidim) and Otto Weininger. In his context he might have a point indeed.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

he [Weininger] understood his faults all too well! He couldn't bear the pain that came from knowing his own faults.

Which might have been exactly his main fault or limitation, this incapacity to bear truth. Others would call that another word for ignorance.