GENIUS FORUMS

Unidian wrote:Nonetheless, it looks like Robert has discovered a passage from "Spiritual Genius" Weininger which dashes all of Sue's dreams of becoming a "spiritual man" or a "philosophical man" to pieces.

I wonder how Sue thinks of Otto the Spiritual Genius in light of this? Perhaps she should discuss it with Kevin Solway and David Quinn...

Dan Rowden wrote:In terms of the quote you posted he is wrong, though contingently, in terms of his emphasis. Part of his weakness was in expressing too emphatically, ideas that were based in empirical contingencies. The level of difficulty that exists in terms of a woman becoming psychologically masculine is yet undetermined, because it is yet unknown to what degree the feminine and masculine are biologically or socially determined. The jury on that particular nature-nurture debate is still out, for me at least.

Dan Rowden wrote:

Unidian wrote:Nonetheless, it looks like Robert has discovered a passage from "Spiritual Genius" Weininger which dashes all of Sue's dreams of becoming a "spiritual man" or a "philosophical man" to pieces.

It might if Weininger were, or held by Sue to be, infallible. Since neither thing is true your point is presumably on the babblier side of babble.

Dan Rowden wrote:I'm speaking in general terms about women's potential. In specific cases I've no doubt a woman can, albeit with difficulty, adopt a more masculine psychology. Those specific cases don't really provide enough data, of themselves, to make more generalised judgements (or give clear indications of how best to proceed). In the same sense extrapolating from the wisdom of a few figures in history that possessed it, to potential in all humanity, is a somewhat slippery enterprise. Since either case is shown to be at least possible, there's room for hope and effort in both cases.

Unidian wrote:

Dan: I read that exactly as Sue did: that because Sue is physiologically female, she must think like a female and therefore only be gesturing (that part is hers). The implication therefore is that women can only ever think like women (regardless of what that means in specific terms).

But that's not the way I intended it, as I explained. I was simply pointing out the irony of Sue, A WOMAN, making a post complaining about "gesturing" when she stated that it was WOMEN who engage in that behavior.

Nonetheless, it looks like Robert has discovered a passage from "Spiritual Genius" Weininger which dashes all of Sue's dreams of becoming a "spiritual man" or a "philosophical man" to pieces. Damn, that's got to sting. I wonder how Sue thinks of Otto the Spiritual Genius in light of this? Perhaps she should discuss it with Kevin Solway and David Quinn...

RobertGreenSky wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:

Unidian wrote:Nonetheless, it looks like Robert has discovered a passage from "Spiritual Genius" Weininger which dashes all of Sue's dreams of becoming a "spiritual man" or a "philosophical man" to pieces.

It might if Weininger were, or held by Sue to be, infallible. Since neither thing is true your point is presumably on the babblier side of babble.

It isn't babble at all, Dan. Sue's feelings on Weininger don't disprove Weininger after all. One question is, who is better evidence, Sue Hindmarsh or Otto Weininger?

Dan:I'm speaking in general terms about women's potential. In specific cases I've no doubt a woman can, albeit with difficulty, adopt a more masculine psychology. Those specific cases don't really provide enough data, of themselves, to make more generalised judgements (or give clear indications of how best to proceed). In the same sense extrapolating from the wisdom of a few figures in history that possessed it, to potential in all humanity, is a somewhat slippery enterprise. Since either case is shown to be at least possible, there's room for hope and effort in both cases.

While that is in a sense generous of you it unfortunately does not aid us in understanding whether Ms. Hindmarsh can have a sufficiently masculine psychology to speak here with an authority she might be presuming. My questions in that respect have gone unanswered; perhaps it arrived too late, but do note that for purposes of argument Otto Weininger could in fact trump Ms. Hindmarsh, certain ironies in my noting it notwithstanding.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:RobertGreenSky wrote:

Weininger wrote:

The woman, on the other hand, can never become a man. In this consists the most important limitation to the assertions in the first part of this work. Whilst I know of many men who are practically completely psychically female, not merely half so, and have seen a considerable number of women with masculine traits, I have never yet seen a single woman who was not fundamentally female, even when this femaleness has been concealed by various accessories from the person herself, not to speak of others. One must be (chap. i. part I.) either man or woman, however many peculiarities of both sexes one may have, and this ”being,” the problem of this work from the start, is determined by one's relation to ethics and logic; but whilst there are people who are anatomically men and psychically women, there is no such thing as a person who is physically female and psychically male, notwithstanding the extreme maleness of their outward appearance and the unwomanliness of their expression.

Wouldn't Weininger's view be that Ms. Hindmarsh cannot speak from the authority she is (or would be in his view) pretending?

Weininger acknowledges that psychology is the underlying influence for a person to be a woman or a man. And I agree with him that a person with the psychology of a 100% woman will find it impossible to become a man.

Like him, I too have never met a “woman who was not fundamentally female”: that is, to a high degree feminine-minded. Though, I've come across a few females that exhibited some masculine potential.

We may now give, with certainty, a conclusive answer to the question as to the giftedness of the sexes: there are women with undoubted traits of genius, but there is no female genius, and there never has been one (not even amongst those masculine
women of history which were dealt with in the first part), and there never can be one.

- Ibid., p. 114, emphasis his this time.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Robert wrote:

Dan:I'm speaking in general terms about women's potential. In specific cases I've no doubt a woman can, albeit with difficulty, adopt a more masculine psychology. Those specific cases don't really provide enough data, of themselves, to make more generalised judgements (or give clear indications of how best to proceed). In the same sense extrapolating from the wisdom of a few figures in history that possessed it, to potential in all humanity, is a somewhat slippery enterprise. Since either case is shown to be at least possible, there's room for hope and effort in both cases.

While that is in a sense generous of you it unfortunately does not aid us in understanding whether Ms. Hindmarsh can have a sufficiently masculine psychology to speak here with an authority she might be presuming. My questions in that respect have gone unanswered; perhaps it arrived too late, but do note that for purposes of argument Otto Weininger could in fact trump Ms. Hindmarsh, certain ironies in my noting it notwithstanding.

So you, like Unidian, feel that females are incapable of independent thought. On what do you base this feeling?

So you, like Unidian, feel that females are incapable of independent thought.

Dan Rowden wrote:
Weininger's view could only be "dashing" to Sue's ideas if he was right and Sue held that he was right. Sue is proof that his view, as explicitly stated by him, was wrong, at least as an absolute statement. How true is was as a generalisation is as yet impossible to say, though what one can say is that he had no basis for stating it so emphatically (in an empirical sense).

David Quinn wrote:Unfortunately, Weininger's quoted remark above is undone by the first section of his own book, Sex and Character, where he demonstrates how the sharp physical differences between males and females is an illusion. He describes how everyone possesses "male" and "female" physical characteristics to varying degrees.

-

That only shows you have no knowledge of the philosophy that this board is dedicated to discussing. Having no understanding of the feminine and the masculine - all you can do is regurgitate the petty discriminations of the mindless.

Look at my response to Robert’s post and you’ll see that it is your “dreams of becoming a ‘spiritual man’ or a ‘philosophical man’” that have been dashed to pieces, for you, because of your petty-mindness, are the one exhibiting the "fundamental" mindset of 'woman'.

Unidian wrote:Oh, woe is me, never to be a spiritual man, alone on my island of mindless femininity...

RobertGreenSky wrote:

David Quinn wrote:Unfortunately, Weininger's quoted remark above is undone by the first section of his own book, Sex and Character, where he demonstrates how the sharp physical differences between males and females is an illusion. He describes how everyone possesses "male" and "female" physical characteristics to varying degrees.

-

See above, David, where Weininger argues there can never be a female genius. While everyone might possess some physical characteristics of 'male' and 'female', we are discussing psychology here.

RobertGreenSky wrote:According to Weininger you won't be alone; Sue Hindmarsh will be there with you. The best answer they've come up with amounts to 'believe that Weininger is wrong', a curious state of affairs on a message board where Otto Weininger is presumptively a Spiritual Genius.

RobertGreenSky wrote:

Unidian wrote:Oh, woe is me, never to be a spiritual man, alone on my island of mindless femininity...

According to Weininger you won't be alone; Sue Hindmarsh will be there with you. The best answer they've come up with amounts to 'believe that Weininger is wrong', a curious state of affairs on a message board where Otto Weininger is presumptively a Spiritual Genius.

David Quinn wrote:

RobertGreenSky wrote:

David Quinn wrote:Unfortunately, Weininger's quoted remark above is undone by the first section of his own book, Sex and Character, where he demonstrates how the sharp physical differences between males and females is an illusion. He describes how everyone possesses "male" and "female" physical characteristics to varying degrees.

-

See above, David, where Weininger argues there can never be a female genius. While everyone might possess some physical characteristics of 'male' and 'female', we are discussing psychology here.

I agree with him if he means "female" in a psychological sense. For me, it doesn't make much sense to judge people on their gender or physical characteristics, at least not in the context of wisdom. It is always the quality of their minds which counts.

If Weininger meant "female" in a physical sense, then he was surely deluded, since, not having encountered every physical female that has ever lived, he would have no basis for coming to such a conclusion.

He could extrapolate from his meetings with physical women and conclude that it is highly unlikely that a woman could ever become enlightened, but at best that would only be a generalization - albeit, from my experience, a pretty good one.

-

Although I am not part of any religion, I consider the great wise men of the past to be my spiritual brothers and colleagues - Socrates, Diogenes, Buddha, Lao Tzu, Jesus, Nagarjuna, Huang Po, Chuang Tzu, Hakuin, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Eckhart, and Weininger. If it were not for these fearless men, and those like them, the human race would be in total darkness.

- David Quinn, A follower of the Infinite

According to Weininger you won't be alone; Sue Hindmarsh will be there with you.

Unidian wrote:

According to Weininger you won't be alone; Sue Hindmarsh will be there with you.

Dear lord Robert, don't make it worse. Have mercy! I defy Dante to create a darker circle of hell than being condemned to femininity in the company of Sue Hindmarsh. It would be like being a Jewish person living on an island with Alan Dershowitz, if Alan Dershowitz were a Nazi.

But gee, wait a minute... why make up a fictional self-loathing Jew when we have a certain Spiritual Genius handy?

The craziness of all of this is exceeding my brain's computational capacity, thus the above joke probably fails, but I LOLed anyway.

David Quinn wrote: I don't consider him to be a spiritual genius. Never have done. I think he was an exceptional young man, who experimented with philosophy fearlessly, but who died before his genius was fully realized and able to reach maturity. From all appearances, it was his philosophical experimentation, undertaken far too intensely for his body and mind to handle, which killed him.

-