Weininger

[uncledote]

"The thesis the book Sex & Character advocates is little more than self-serving for it justifies Otto's misogynism and antisemitism. The story of Otto weininger is best characterized as "what could have been" for he blew his brains out at age 23. A life intentionally cut short, Otto's claim to fame is how he ended his life for both logical and ethical obligation to the tragic conclusion of his singular magnum opus, Sex & Character -- for he was both a Jew and a homosexual, and possibly a member of the psychologically female."

from:

http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/ ... .php?t=271

Anyone care to comment?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

It would be more interesting to discuss the opinion of Wittgenstein. But as for the suicide bit, I do believe there's enough in this work which might offer insight into a to us so desperate and hateful appearing act. Not to discount reports of severe depressive episodes and extreme mood swings. But in Weiniger's universe the thought of death might have had a different, difficult to grasp meaning, at least to himself. The following is from "On last things".

The fixed stars signify the angel in man. That is why man orients himself by them and that is why women have no appreciation for the starry sky; because they have no sense of the angel in man.

The starry heavens and the moral law are fundamentally one and the same. The universalism of the categorical imperative is the universalism of the universe. The infinity of the universe is only the “thought-picture” of the infinity of the moral volition

Schelling discusses the same phenomenon in his “Philosophical Letters upon Dogmatism and Criticism,” a little known early work, in which occurs the following beautiful words:
“In all of us there dwells a secret marvellous power of freeing ourselves from the changes of time, of withdrawing to our secret selves away from external things, and of so discovering to ourselves the eternal in us in the form of unchangeability. This presentation of ourselves to ourselves is the most truly personal experience upon which depends everything that we know of the supra-sensual world. This presentation shows us for the first time what real existence is, whilst all else only appears to be. It differs from every presentation of the sense in its perfect freedom, whilst all other presentations are bound, being overweighted by the burden of the object. Still there exists for those who have not this perfect freedom of the inner sense some approach to it, experiences approaching it from which they may gain some faint idea of it. . . . This intellectual presentation occurs when we cease to be our own object, when, withdrawing into ourselves, the perceiving self merges in the self-perceived. At that moment we annihilate time and duration of time; we are no longer in time, but time, or rather eternity itself, is in us. The external world is no longer an object for us, but is lost in us.”

The intelligible, hyperempirical existence of the male transcends matter, space, and time. He is certainly mortal, but he is immortal as well. And so he has the power to choose between the two, between the life which is lost with death and the life to which death is only a stepping- stone. The deepest will of man is towards this perfect, timeless existence; he is compact of the desire for immortality.

The honourable person goes by himself into death, if he feels that he is becoming ultimately evil; the base person must be forced into death by the sentence of a judge. To the honourable person, the sense of his immorality is equal to a death-sentence; he does not even recognize his right to the space he takes up, he slinks into a corner, makes himself smaller, doubles up, would like to pass away, to shrivel up to a point. Morality, on the contrary, recognizes as its right eternal life and the greatest space, i.e., spacelessness or omnipresence.

Because the mental creates the physical, the human being must die. Death finds its explanation thus: Either the person has become like the absolute, and has entered into eternal life – then he cannot exist in material form, limited in space and matter. He will, if psycho-physical parallelism obtains, receive a body that has become one with all of visible nature; he becomes the soul of nature, and nature becomes his body, just as the tree beneath which the Buddha died was said to have begun to bloom at his death – because a new life permeated the whole of nature. The other possibility is that the person falls into nothingness; he dissolves into nothing but material atoms: the absolute criminal. The preparations for this mental disintegration have already been made by the criminal in the course of his life. Hell is the good person's fear of evil, for fire is the agent for breaking up what has been formed, and turning it to dust. But there is no hell; the good person creates himself, the evil one destroys himself.

Psychologically, “time” is the time in which we live, and “the future” is the time which we are still to experience. Formal, transcendental time, however, does not cease with physical death, but extends beyond the individual. It is eternally posited precisely by those who have eternal life.

Only death can teach me the meaning of life. I stand in time and not above it; I still posit time, still long for non-being, still desire material life; and because I remain in this sin, I am not able to comprehend it. What I know, I already stand outside of. I cannot comprehend my sinfulness, because I am still sinful.

[Carmel]

Weininger:
The honourable person goes by himself into death, if he feels that he is becoming ultimately evil.

Carmel:
...poetic justice; a foreshadowing of his own twisted, ironic fate...

[Dan Rowden]

Actually it's a natural step of his own philosophy. I fail to see any "irony" or "poetic justice" at all.

Ya know, Carmel, one day I'd love to see you quote something from him and then actually refute it in a proper argument.

Shall I hold my breath?

[Carmel]

Yeah, I tried that once with you. You didn't respond to the quote. If you want to pretend that you don't remember it, so be it.

but nevertheless, refuting Weininger's quotes, you know the bat shit crazy ones that never get posted here, would be quite an easy thing to do...

but if I choose to do that, I won't do it here. I'll do it at KIR. I don't really care to discuss Weininger with the yappy, misogynist dogs here, if you don't mind.

[David Quinn]

Weininger:
The honourable person goes by himself into death, if he feels that he is becoming ultimately evil.

Carmel:
...poetic justice; a foreshadowing of his own twisted, ironic fate...

The irony is that Weininger continues to live on, still stimulating others with the purity and greatness of his thought. Whereas when you die, Carmel, no one is going to remember you. Your existence will essentially come to an end.

So between the two of you, who is the one that is really devoted to suicide?

-

[Carmel]

David:

The irony is that Weininger continues to live on, still stimulating others with the purity and greatness of his thought.

Carmel:

He's more famous for his bigotry and impure thoughts, than his pure ones...and there were more of the former than the latter. Weininger himself knew that on some level. He sold out to evil, then by his own admission did the "honourable" thing.

David:

Whereas when you die, Carmel, no one is going to remember you. Your existence will essentially come to an end.

Carmel:

That's true of all of us. We're all just dust in the wind.

So what's your point here, really?

David:

So between the two of you, who is the one that is really devoted to suicide?

Carmel:

lol! wow, how melodramatic. I'm still alive, but thanks for the laugh.:)

[Dan Rowden]

Yeah, I tried that once with you. You didn't respond to the quote. If you want to pretend that you don't remember it, so be it.

but nevertheless, refuting Weininger's quotes, you know the bat shit crazy ones that never get posted here, would be quite an easy thing to do...

but if I choose to do that, I won't do it here. I'll do it at KIR. I don't really care to discuss Weininger with the yappy, misogynist dogs here, if you don't mind.

That's because you'll feel as though you have a support base over there - a bunch of people who've read far too little but think they know anyway. Honestly, if it's so easy just do it.

If you posted some quote at KIR I would not have responded to it because I refuse to discuss such things there.

[Dan Rowden]

He's more famous for his bigotry and impure thoughts, than his pure ones...and there were more of the former than the latter. Weininger himself knew that on some level. He sold out to evil, then by his own admission did the "honourable" thing.

This proves, definitively, that you have exactly zero idea of what he meant by morality or anything associated with it. Geez Louise.

[Carmel]

Right Dan, and I don't want to discuss Weininger here for the same reason. You only feel comfortable discussing him where you have a support base of yappy misogynists.

[Carmel]

Dan:

This proves, definitively, that you have exactly zero idea of what he meant by morality or anything associated with it. Geez Louise.[/quote]

Carmel:

It "proves" nothing of the sort. If you think yours is the only "valid" opinion of Weininger, then you're sadly mistaken.

[Dan Rowden]

You are applying conventional concepts - your concepts - of morality to him. That is obvious - and totally mistaken. One must understand a person's actions within the parameters of their own conceptual world. I don't see that happening with you at all.

[uncledote]

but if I choose to do that, I won't do it here. I'll do it at KIR. I don't really care to discuss Weininger with the yappy, misogynist dogs here, if you don't mind.

What's KIR?

[Carmel]

You are applying conventional concepts - your concepts - of morality to him. That is obvious - and totally mistaken. One must understand a person's actions within the parameters of their own conceptual world. I don't see that happening with you at all.

actually, I see quite a bit about Weininger that some people seem to miss entirely, but it's not like there's any bias here given the "masculine" nature of this forum(sarcasm), which ironically, relies far too heavily on the "soft" "girly" sciences, i.e. feminine "psychology" and rejects the hard, "masculine" empirical evidence of science.(neuroscience and cognitive testing) funny that.

[Russell Parr]

You are applying conventional concepts - your concepts - of morality to him. That is obvious - and totally mistaken. One must understand a person's actions within the parameters of their own conceptual world. I don't see that happening with you at all.

actually, I see quite a bit about Weininger that some people seem to miss entirely, but it's not like there's any bias here given the "masculine" nature of this forum, which ironically, relies far too heavily on the "soft" "girly" sciences, i.e. feminine "psychology" and rejects the hard, "masculine" empirical evidence of science.(neuroscience and cognitive testing) funny that.

It's quite funny that when I posted that article about the differing amounts of grey and white matter in men and women's brains, suggesting biological influences towards certain behavioral differences in the sexes (that happened to favor males in some aspects), all you came in to do was espouse equality as much as possible. I question that you even have the ability to recognize the irrationality in your behavior, and therefore, why anyone even bothers responding to you.

[Carmel]

It's funny that you blatantly tried to spin objective evidence that men and women have equal neurocognitive capacities. It's funny when you did it and it's funny when others here try to do it...

Sorry, but that article didn't favor men at all. I already pointed this out to you, but you can bury your head in the sand and pretend that I didn't.

keep spinning and I'll keep unspinning...and so it goes...

I know why people keep responding to me, in a word: ego

[Russell Parr]

It's funny that you blatantly tried to spin objective evidence that men and women have equal neurocognitive capacities. It's funny when you did it and it's funny when others here try to do it...

keep spinning and I'll keep unspinning...and so it goes...

I'll post an example of your poor ability to "unspin.."

My analysis in my post linked above suggests a probable reason as to why there are more male inventors than women. Your reply was "but not all men are inventors"...

I shouldn't need to point out how that obviously isn't a counter point at all, but I will for your sake: The fact that the vast majority of men never invent anything does not negate or explain the fact that the vast majority of inventors are male.

I bet your next explanation in queue would probably be "women were held down all those years by a patriarchal society."

[Carmel]

not interested, blue.

Most men are average and ordinary.

any inventors in the house here? any nobel prize winners? ...I'd venture to guess there's not even a man here who is a physics or chemistry major...

Bueller...

Bueller...

Bueller...

The unaccomplished men here are trying to leech of other men's successes in some feeble effort to boost their own ego. It's beyond pathetic. Pointing to a great man has never and will never make an ordinary Joe anything other than ordinary.

[David Quinn]

David:

The irony is that Weininger continues to live on, still stimulating others with the purity and greatness of his thought.

Carmel:

He's more famous for his bigotry and impure thoughts, than his pure ones...and there were more of the former than the latter.

Have a look at the quotes above. There is more substance, purity and love in each of those quotes by Weininger than all of your posts and all of your thoughts put together.

And look at the tone of his writing - calm, well-ordered, smiling, good-natured, full of vision. In contrast, your writing sounds dark, defensive, petty, full of resentment. The contrast couldn't be any more stark. He is superior to you in every department - intellectually, ethically, and spiritually. He sounds like a man steeped in the light of God, while you sound like someone who is rotting in hell.

And there you are, oblivious to all this, snarling away at him.

Weininger himself knew that on some level. He sold out to evil, then by his own admission did the "honourable" thing.

You're commenting on things you know nothing about. The evil that he feared is the very same evil you personally have entered into very deeply - so deeply, in fact, and so long ago, that you no longer know of anything else.

David:

So between the two of you, who is the one that is really devoted to suicide?

Carmel:

lol! wow, how melodramatic. I'm still alive, but thanks for the laugh.:)

In a 100 years time, Weininger will still be alive with people avidly discussing his thought. By then you'll be long gone and totally forgotten. Such is your suicidal nature.

-

[Carmel]

What a load of crap, David.

You're the one here who is snarling, well you and your yappy lap dogs who constantly rely on childish name calling, calling women rocks and dogs among other choice phrasing...and this is part of your legacy. ugly misogyny. Funny that you don't seem to care that you're instilling this repulsive behaviour into other people.

[Pam Seeback]

Weininger's wisdom that people are both of male and female substance relates well to the wisdom story of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2. Adam was objective material form, Eve his projection into subjective feelings, or attachment to his material thoughts/ideas. Their children, Cain and Abel, were manifestations of these subjective-objective good and evil projections, giving rise to the many generations of such manifestations of logic and emotion, logic vs. emotion, until the arrival of the Christ principle in the consciousness of men.

The arrival of the Christ principle in Adam/Eve's consciousness is the 'bringing home of Eve' unto Adam, the female unto the male. The Christ principle is not the principle of logic or of morals of good and evil knowledge, however, of its pure [infinite] awakening in the Adam/Eve consciousness, a logically and morally transformed Adamic nature is a prerequisite for going beyond the logical-moral-good and evil pattern of thinking.

Leaving the misogynist argument behind, Weininger was on the right track in identifying that the female/Eve (changing-subjectivity aspect of consciousness) had to be stilled before there could be

a withdrawing to our secret selves away from external things, and of so discovering to ourselves the eternal in us in the form of unchangeability.

And then, when the subjectivity of Eve is stilled, the objectivity of Adam is also stilled. Weininger says this very well when he says:

This presentation of ourselves to ourselves is the most truly personal experience upon which depends everything that we know of the supra-sensual world. This presentation shows us for the first time what real existence is, whilst all else only appears to be. It differs from every presentation of the sense in its perfect freedom, whilst all other presentations are bound, being overweighted by the burden of the object. Still there exists for those who have not this perfect freedom of the inner sense some approach to it, experiences approaching it from which they may gain some faint idea of it. . . . This intellectual presentation occurs when we cease to be our own object, when, withdrawing into ourselves, the perceiving self merges in the self-perceived.

It is this stilling both of the emotional, wandering female, Eve, and the logical, self-disciplined male, Adam, that the time-space interpreting aspect of man is silenced, and the Christ principle of the conscience of the wholeness, the perfection and the purity of the absolute is realized. Realized not by the intellect of the moral will, but of the awakened spark of the infinite spirit of life itself.

Weininger addresses this Christ principle of being awakened of the spirit of life of ourselves, that which is beyond our Eve and beyond our Adam with his words below:

At that moment we annihilate time and duration of time; we are no longer in time, but time, or rather eternity itself, is in us. The external world is no longer an object for us, but is lost in us.

In other words, what was the moral and logical Adam of his stilled lusting Eve, is now the Christ principle of no subject, no object - pure conscience union that

differs from every presentation of the sense in its perfect freedom

[Kelly Jones]

Thanks for posting those quotes, Diebert.

Pam, I don't agree that the feminine is the subjective, and the masculine is the objective. The externalised self (feminine mode of mind) that believes the physical is more real than the mental, is not the subjective. It would be better to call it the delusion of objective reality. Nor does cancelling out the feminine mode occur simultaneously with a cancelling-out of the masculine mode. The quote showed that the true, ideal mode (the masculine) was present but the feminine was not.


.

[Kelly Jones]

And there you are, snarling at him.

I found the quote below pertinent to Carmel's romp through the forum.



The Collision of Human Existence

There is a complete, qualitative difference between being spirit-man and merely animal-man.

But physically there is nothing to see in this distinction.

The collision resides in the fact that animal-man rushes in upon spirit-man or is set upon him. If I were to talk in Greek fashion about it, I would have to say that this spectacle amuses the gods in the same way hunting with hounds amuses men. Basically it is also more amusing because that around which everything revolves is physically a nothing. Viewed as hunting with hounds, this battle is also more ambitious than such a hunt usually is, for of what avail are a few hundred hounds compared to legions of animal-men.

Christianly the matter has to be viewed differently. Christianly this collision is the education of the spirit-man, his examination, also his mission, inasmuch as he has the additional task to witness that man is spirit, all of which becomes more and more necessary and also more and more strenuous because of the mounting refined bestiality during the course of hundreds of years.


— Kierkegaard.

[David Quinn]

What a load of crap, David.

You're the one here who is snarling, well you and your yappy lap dogs who constantly rely on childish name calling, calling women rocks and dogs among other choice phrasing...and this is part of your legacy. ugly misogyny. Funny that you don't seem to care that you're instilling this repulsive behaviour into other people.

Shouldn't you have posted this in the blind spot thread? :)

More seriously, though, you should think about taking a break from the forum, Carmel. All that bile can't be much good for you in the long run.

-

[Carmel]

meh. You'd best worry about your own soul Mr. misogyny unlimited, but hey thanks for your generous concern. :)