GENIUS FORUMS

as a frequent visitor to the absolute.net I would like to know why.

Where else will you find a philosopher who cares so little about whether or not he's understood!

Doesn't Kevin Solway's own explanation answer that question adequately?:

If Otto Weininger continues to inspire genius through what he has left us then I will consider half my work already done. His book Sex and Character is one of the few masterpieces of modern times. In it, Weininger overflows with profound insight, deepest love, and awesome courage. To quote the eloquent author of an old book:

We have all come under the spell of Otto Weininger, even those of us who have never heard of him, for he was one of those geniuses whose ideas echo far beyond any sound that is made by their names. . .

Otto Weininger's extraordinary life culminated in the publication of his timeless work Sex and Character. Soon after the publication he went to Italy to await results. There appeared to be none, and during the next four months an intellectual malady, described by his friends as "a too grave sense of responsibility," became acute. On October 4, 1903, at the age of 23, he took his own life.

. . . "Sex & Character" began to sell. It ran through printing after printing. It was translated into innumerable languages, and in a few years his publishers could declare with no more than pardonable exaggeration that no scientific book in the whole history of books had ever a greater success.

Kevin Solway


"The man came as a meteor and disappeared as suddenly. It was only when he had passed that his ideas started to sparkle, electrifying the world. Some regarded him as a biologist, others as a psychologist, still others called him a mystic. Though generally considered a realist, he was at the same time strongly suspected of dealing in fantasies. He was praised for his invincible logic and attacked for his crusade against women. He was full of contradictions. His name became the signal for dispute and controversy in a thousand cities."

"Weininger's nature forced his mind on long expeditions into psychology, biology, literature, and philosophy, journeys from which he never returned. Dissatisfied with scientific research, discontent with his own restless nature, he went farther and farther along the paths of speculative thought until he was, at the end, quite alone."

"It would be hard to find another man who showed even in mild form the characteristics and the mental processes that Otto Weininger revealed in the extreme."

- Abrahamsen

It's also important to realise that of all his contemporaries he would be the least represented in books/media and so on. His major work Sex and Character was only released this year in a quality translation, despite being published more than a century earlier in 1903.

He's probably a little too "hot" for most people, which is why he was, and continues to be, ignored and scorned.

To put it concisely, I think it is because Weininger is an absolute bitch.

There is nothing endearing about him. Even Nietzsche and Kierkegaard are somwhat romantic.

Entirely fitting. There is nothing endearing about life. It's a minefield.

Life is pitted with delusion. Love, hate, woman-same as man; war, hunger.

How can you look upon the suffering in the world without seeing the obvious fallacy?

Faizi

mindcave wrote:as a frequent visitor to the absolute.net I would like to know why.

Why not? Would you like to discuss it?

mmmmmmmmmmmmm?

So, he is an idol of sorts.

Can't you men have an original thought? Oh, gee, sorry, it is only women who follow everyone like sheep, please excuse me.

whocares wrote:mmmmmmmmmmmmm?

So, he is an idol of sorts.

Can't you men have an original thought? Oh, gee, sorry, it is only women who follow everyone like sheep, please excuse me.

I think you should stop and consider whether or not you are embarrassing yourself needlessly.

Firstly, women do not follow like sheep; women are sheep. Secondly, it does not follow that a thinker of quality ought be regarded as an "idol" just because one states that he is a thinker of quality. You are watching far too much TV and engaging the world far too religiously in my opinion.

Oh, and what would you know of original thought? Had any lately? Name one. And, en passant, we (nominally QSR) have never asserted that our thoughts are original. That would indeed be arrogant. Emphasis and means of expression may differ but there's hardly any meaningful concept that hasn't already been dealt with by some thinker.

Do you intend to get a grip on your hysteria or are you going to be a self-parody during your stay here?


Dan Rowden

original thought?
im not necessarily defending Otto, this is the first i've come across him, but yea, there's no such thing as an "original thought"
flewp sheppdabop koo koo de deep de schyp!

is that original enough?

drowden said:

Firstly, women do not follow like sheep; women are sheep.

That is a pretty fucking biased and generalized statement.

Women aren't sheep. Women are human-beings with the same-same DNA make-up as the male of the species last I checked. Meaning, they are neither inferior or superior in the grand scheme. Men seem to be biologically advantaged at cutting trees and providing food, shelter, setting up government (although always faulty), inventing neat and useful technology, making scientific breathroughs that cure diseases, inventing cars, trains, boats, and planes. Men are physically stronger and faster too. Women have their thing too. They are sexier than any man alive. Even the ugliest chick is sexier than the handsomest man. They are so sexy that women are, on a certain level, attracted to each other (like "you look hot/cute/sexy in that skirt" or the million porn movies where women actually get it on with each other). That's how sexy they are. They are also beautiful. They can be elegant and seductive. And they can say the cutest and most adorable things. They also have the amazing power of CONTROL. They can manipulate quite effectively. They seem to have no moral or ethical limits when they find out a man has gotten the best of them. They will literally kill all his children, and hers if she had them with him, just to get back at the guy. But they are so incredibly sexy and beautiful. And, they have a way of filling a man with pride, joy, and contentment that no other thing can besides heroin or ecstacy which provides the same chemical effect in the brain that a woman can have on a man. Women are beautiful young, but not too young, they are beautiful when they are old, but not too old... Same as men I would guess.

I guess I just can't get passed seeing a woman as a mere sex object... I am sure there are better qualities to a woman than just sex, though.

Ah, yes... If you can find a woman who is pretty and can be easily manipulated and gullible.. You can make her believe pretty much anything. Up to and including that you are god. And being a god in someones eyes can be very fulfilling... I know from personal experience.

Yes, women are our mothers, our sisters, our companions. They definitely aren't sheep, though.

Ras

Hi Ras,

Ras866 wrote: Women aren't sheep.

But sheep are definitely women, wouldn't you agree? Not sure how far your experience with sheep goes.

They seem to have no moral or ethical limits when they find out a man has gotten the best of them

That would mean they wouldn't really possess those limits at all, if they disappear so readily. In other words, you're saying here that there's no depth to them.

Women are human-beings with the same-same DNA make-up as the male of the species last I checked.

Apart from the odd chromosome you mean. One could as well say this means there's only man while 'woman' is made up, only existing in some psychological world, embodying 'being lost' and mistaken identity.

When women are said to be everything what is sheeplike in human nature, it means that just like any man they are welcome to escape it. There's no reason to sugargoat it.

I guess I just can't get passed seeing a woman as a mere sex object... I am sure there are better qualities to a woman than just sex, though.

To be sure, many women would prefer to hear Dan's statement that they are sheep :)

Diebert said:

One could as well say this means there's only man while 'woman' is made up

Or there is only woman and 'man' is made up. Either way. What makes a man a man is a pair of testicles and what makes a woman is a vagina.

When women are said to be everything what is sheeplike in human nature, it means that just like any man they are welcome to escape it. There's no reason to sugargoat it.

They are welcome to, yes. Being 'sheeplike' is a human trait, for humans (man and woman) are animals with animal instincts, social beings who find security in numbers (the herd). In this way humans are sheep-like (both man and woman). Sure, why not.

RAS:I guess I just can't get passed seeing a woman as a mere sex object... I am sure there are better qualities to a woman than just sex, though.

DIEBERT:To be sure, many women would prefer to hear Dan's statement that they are sheep :)

Yes, you are probably right.

Ras866 wrote:

Diebert wrote:One could as well say this means there's only man while 'woman' is made up

Or there is only woman and 'man' is made up. Either way. What makes a man a man is a pair of testicles and what makes a woman is a vagina.

Fair enough, so many men use make up as well. But the question should be: would it be really helpful to talk about woman as ideal and man as 'made up', or both as 'equal'? You'll have to broaden your understanding of the differences apart from the obvious. The whole physical and social functioning puts women as type in the role of herd animal, going for safety and security, friendship and peace. The man has the disposition to go outwards, to explore, to uproot the peace, to initiate change, to aggressively penetrate the secret and to destroy that what is blocking change. The fact that he's not ending up doing this, or at least not for the highest possible purpose, doesn't undo the difference. One might wonder how (the phenomenon of) women could influence this. Your already gave some possibilities:

Ras866 wrote:They also have the amazing power of CONTROL. They can manipulate quite effectively. They seem to have no moral or ethical limits (...) But they are so incredibly sexy and beautiful. And, they have a way of filling a man with pride, joy, and contentment

Ras866 wrote:

drowden: Firstly, women do not follow like sheep; women are sheep.

Ras: That is a pretty fucking biased and generalized statement.

Women are a flock, and fashion is its shepherd.

The moment the fashion swing announces its arrival, the ears of every woman prick up and their heads become still.

Women aren't sheep. Women are human-beings with the same-same DNA make-up as the male of the species last I checked. Meaning, they are neither inferior or superior in the grand scheme. Men seem to be biologically advantaged at cutting trees and providing food, shelter, setting up government (although always faulty), inventing neat and useful technology, making scientific breathroughs that cure diseases, inventing cars, trains, boats, and planes. Men are physically stronger and faster too. Women have their thing too. They are sexier than any man alive. Even the ugliest chick is sexier than the handsomest man. They are so sexy that women are, on a certain level, attracted to each other (like "you look hot/cute/sexy in that skirt" or the million porn movies where women actually get it on with each other). That's how sexy they are. They are also beautiful. They can be elegant and seductive. And they can say the cutest and most adorable things. They also have the amazing power of CONTROL. They can manipulate quite effectively. They seem to have no moral or ethical limits when they find out a man has gotten the best of them. They will literally kill all his children, and hers if she had them with him, just to get back at the guy. But they are so incredibly sexy and beautiful. And, they have a way of filling a man with pride, joy, and contentment that no other thing can besides heroin or ecstacy which provides the same chemical effect in the brain that a woman can have on a man.

"Women are on a par with men when it comes to philosophical and intellectual genius because they are sexy and cute and make an effective substitute for heroin."

I like your style. Good satire.

I guess I just can't get passed seeing a woman as a mere sex object... I am sure there are better qualities to a woman than just sex, though.

There must be more to a woman than her wrapping paper? Surely, there can't be nothing at all. If only the wrapping paper wouldn't glitter so much, I might be able to see.....

The souls of women are so small, that some believe they've none at all. (Anonymous saying)

-

DavidQuinn000 wrote:The souls of women are so small, that some believe they've none at all. (Anonymous saying)

The souls of women are so small,
That some believe they've none at all;
Or if they have, like cripples, still
They've but one faculty, the will.

-- Samuel Butler. Miscellaneous Thoughts.

Will is the manner of men; willingness that of women. That is the law of the sexes - truly, a hard law for women. - Nietzsche

I'm not sure what Butler is thinking of here.

-

Ras866 wrote:drowden said:

Firstly, women do not follow like sheep; women are sheep.

That is a pretty fucking biased and generalized statement.

Women aren't sheep. Women are human-beings with the same-same DNA make-up as the male of the species last I checked. Meaning, they are neither inferior or superior in the grand scheme. Men seem to be biologically advantaged (snip)

Let's not miss the point. No-one was speaking about "pretty fucking" biology here. You should have checked as well that we speak about reason as it defines man adequately. Biological outlook is no more than secondary as nowadays the majority of biological men (i.e. "human beings with penises", if you will) also lack reason and act like sheep.

avidaloca wrote:It's also important to realise that of all his contemporaries he would be the least represented in books/media and so on. His major work Sex and Character was only released this year in a quality translation, despite being published more than a century earlier in 1903.

He's probably a little too "hot" for most people, which is why he was, and continues to be, ignored and scorned.

There's a more prosaic reason: the last chapter of the book is about Jews, that's why the book became almost "forgotten" in the last fifty years or so.

DavidQuinn000 wrote:Will is the manner of men; willingness that of women. That is the law of the sexes - truly, a hard law for women. - Nietzsche

I'm not sure what Butler is thinking of here.

He just means that women are "willful" in the sense that they have demands and opinions, and not much else. For example, demand for fashion items, furniture, and for a man with financial prospects to pay for it all.

Kevin Solway wrote:He just means that women are "willful" in the sense that they have demands and opinions, and not much else. For example, demand for fashion items, furniture, and for a man with financial prospects to pay for it all.

It just could be where I'm at at the moment, but lately this seems to me to manifest itslef as an endless series of complaints. There is always something that could be better.

I think Weininger is a genius just from this excerpt of Sex And Character, where he summarizes what it means to have a clear mind:

...the judgment of identity...relates certainly always to concepts, never to sensations or complexes of such, and concepts are, as logical concepts, timeless, they retain their constancy whether I, as psychological subject, constantly think them or not. However a person yet never thinks a concept purely as a logical concept because he is no purely logical being, but rather also a psychological one, "affected by the conditions of sensuality", he can, in lieu of that, only always think a general ideation arising from his individual experiences through mutual erasure of differences and amplification of similarities (a "typical", "connotative", "representative" ideation), which yet can contain the abstract aspect of conceptuality and, in a wonderful way, can be utilized in this sense. He must therefore have the potential to preserve, to conserve, the ideation in which he explicitly thinks the de facto inexplicit concept; this possibility, once again, is only guaranteed to him through memory. Thus if he lacks memory, so also would the possibility be gone for him to think logically, that possibility which, so to say, incarnates itself always only on a psychological medium.

That's at the bottom of page 189 in the original and the top of page 171 in the Robert Willis.

It takes real genius to put something like that into words in my opinion.

mindcave wrote:as a frequent visitor to the absolute.net I would like to know why.

because they all LOVE his thoughts expressed in sex & character.

Brilliant book!

Get over it. You need to stop thinking with your prick. You are so busy defending cunt, that you are making a cunt of yourself.

Get past the sex thing.

It's not the genitals, stupid.

Faizi

He just means that women are "willful" in the sense that they have demands and opinions, and not much else. For example, demand for fashion items, furniture, and for a man with financial prospects to pay for it all.

...how do you make a statement like this one valid? From a survey?

mindcave wrote:

He just means that women are "willful" in the sense that they have demands and opinions, and not much else. For example, demand for fashion items, furniture, and for a man with financial prospects to pay for it all.

...how do you make a statement like this one valid? From a survey?

If I may venture a guess, experience and careful observation.