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!