What do you think?
Rate this book
Пол и характер
В ръцете си държите една епохална творба, която ще ви въведе дълбоко в диплите на необятния човешки разум. Ще разкрие характерните особености на двата биологично противположни пола - женския и мъжкия. Ще ви изправи пред аналитчната размисъл за вярата, за греха, завината, за красотата, завсички онези нравствени категории на обособената, консолидирана човешка индивидуалност, които определят, диктуват и стимулират нейното поведение и действие.
165 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 1903
104 people are currently reading
2401 people want to read
About the author
Otto Weininger
24 books98 followersOtto Weininger was an Austrian philosopher. In 1903, he published the book Geschlecht und Charakter (Sex & Character) which gained popularity after his suicide, aged 23. The book is generally viewed as misogynistic & antisemitic in academic circles; however, for some reasons it continues to be held up as a great work of lasting genius & spiritual wisdom by others like Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Otto was born in Vienna as a son of the Jewish goldsmith Leopold Weininger & his wife Adelheid. After attending primary school & graduating from 2ndary school in 7/1898, he registered at the University of Vienna in 10/1898. He studied philosophy & psychology, taking natural science & medicine courses as well. He learned Greek, Latin, French & English early, later also Spanish & Italian, & acquired passive knowledge of the language of Strindberg & Ibsen. In the autumn of 1901 he tried to find a publisher for his work Eros & the Psyche-which he submitted to his professors Jodl & Müllner as his thesis in 1902. He met Sigmund Freud who wouldn't recommend the text to a publisher. His professors accepted the thesis & he received a PhD. Shortly thereafter he became enthusiastically Protestant. In 1902 he went to Bayreuth where he witnessed a performance of Wagner’s Parsifal which impressed him. Via Dresden & Copenhagen he made his way to Christiania (Oslo) where he for the 1st time saw Henrik Ibsen’s liberation drama Peer Gynt. Upon his return to Vienna he suffered from fits of depression. The decision to take his own life gradually took shape; after a long discussion with his friend Artur Gerber, however, he realized that “it's not yet time”.
In 6/1903, after months of concentrated work, his book Sex & Character: A fundamental investigation-an attempt “to place sex relations in a new & decisive light”-was published by Braumüller & Co of Vienna. The book contained his thesis to which three vital chapters were added: (XII) The Nature of Woman & her Relation to the Universe, (XIII) Judaism, (XIV) Women & Humanity. While the book wasn't panned, it didn't create the expected stir. Weininger was attacked by Paul Julius Moebius, Leipzig professor & author of On the Physiological Deficiency of Women, & was accused of plagiarizing. Disappointed & tortured by doubts, he left for Italy.
Back in Vienna he spent his last five days with his parents. On 10/3, he took a room at Schwarzspanierstraße 15 where Ludwig van Beethoven died. He told the landlady that he wasn't to be disturbed before morning since he planned to work late. That night he wrote two letters, one to his father, the other to his brother Richard, telling them he was going to shoot himself. On 10/4, he was found mortally wounded, having shot himself thru the heart. He died in Wiener Allgemeines Krankenhaus at 10:30AM. He was buried in Matzleinsdorf Protestant Cemetery in Vienna. An epitaph by his father translates: "This stone closes the resting place of a young man whose mind never really found peace on earth. & after imparting revelations of his mind & soul he could not bear any longer to be among the living. He searched for the death realm of one of the greatest minds that dwelled in the house in Schwarzspanierstrasse & put an end to his bodily existence."
Otto was born in Vienna as a son of the Jewish goldsmith Leopold Weininger & his wife Adelheid. After attending primary school & graduating from 2ndary school in 7/1898, he registered at the University of Vienna in 10/1898. He studied philosophy & psychology, taking natural science & medicine courses as well. He learned Greek, Latin, French & English early, later also Spanish & Italian, & acquired passive knowledge of the language of Strindberg & Ibsen. In the autumn of 1901 he tried to find a publisher for his work Eros & the Psyche-which he submitted to his professors Jodl & Müllner as his thesis in 1902. He met Sigmund Freud who wouldn't recommend the text to a publisher. His professors accepted the thesis & he received a PhD. Shortly thereafter he became enthusiastically Protestant. In 1902 he went to Bayreuth where he witnessed a performance of Wagner’s Parsifal which impressed him. Via Dresden & Copenhagen he made his way to Christiania (Oslo) where he for the 1st time saw Henrik Ibsen’s liberation drama Peer Gynt. Upon his return to Vienna he suffered from fits of depression. The decision to take his own life gradually took shape; after a long discussion with his friend Artur Gerber, however, he realized that “it's not yet time”.
In 6/1903, after months of concentrated work, his book Sex & Character: A fundamental investigation-an attempt “to place sex relations in a new & decisive light”-was published by Braumüller & Co of Vienna. The book contained his thesis to which three vital chapters were added: (XII) The Nature of Woman & her Relation to the Universe, (XIII) Judaism, (XIV) Women & Humanity. While the book wasn't panned, it didn't create the expected stir. Weininger was attacked by Paul Julius Moebius, Leipzig professor & author of On the Physiological Deficiency of Women, & was accused of plagiarizing. Disappointed & tortured by doubts, he left for Italy.
Back in Vienna he spent his last five days with his parents. On 10/3, he took a room at Schwarzspanierstraße 15 where Ludwig van Beethoven died. He told the landlady that he wasn't to be disturbed before morning since he planned to work late. That night he wrote two letters, one to his father, the other to his brother Richard, telling them he was going to shoot himself. On 10/4, he was found mortally wounded, having shot himself thru the heart. He died in Wiener Allgemeines Krankenhaus at 10:30AM. He was buried in Matzleinsdorf Protestant Cemetery in Vienna. An epitaph by his father translates: "This stone closes the resting place of a young man whose mind never really found peace on earth. & after imparting revelations of his mind & soul he could not bear any longer to be among the living. He searched for the death realm of one of the greatest minds that dwelled in the house in Schwarzspanierstrasse & put an end to his bodily existence."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 64 reviews
June 11, 2024
Otto Weininger's 'Sex and Character' appeared in the early years of the 20th century, conceived and written in an intellectually riled up Vienna. It was the atmosphere that gave birth to Freud, Wittgenstein, Kafka, and Jung, and the book in question profoundly influenced at least 2 of the mentioned luminaries.
On first glance, the book seems an unlikely candidate for having such a reputation. It is, without doubt, one of the most violent books that I have read ; I do not mind violence in the base sense of the word, but rather, I have in mind a kind of elemental corrosiveness that is ultimately philosophical, which pushes aside all comforting illusions and calls the masculine element firmly, urgently, and mercilessly to its task of being moral. It is violent in the sublime way that only untramelled profundity can be violent.
The reference to 'masculine' in the last few lines is sure to make more than a few modern readers cringe, and is probably the cause for a lot of the notoriety that the book has been considered with, ever since its publication. Before I can address that perception, we should, with the soundest philosophical etiquette, define our terms. For Weininger, the male and the female are not used with reference to any biology, but are used in the sense of Platonic Ideas. In other words, male and female refer to Forms, to super-empirical structures of which the worldly males and females are approximations. Thus, every human being is a mixture of the male and female element. For Weininger, the female is sexuality. The male is sexuality and something more. The female is unconsciousness. The male has the possibility of consciousness. The female is non-rational (not irrational). The male has the possibility of being rational. Consequently, (and Weininger here follows Kant's ethics), the female is non-moral (not immoral), while the male has the possibility of morality. The female is nothing. The male has the possibility of being something.
Once the modern reader bears in mind that Weininger is talking about things which are, in a sense, beyond our crude notions of gender, we realize that he is in fact talking about the sources of our subjectivity, the fundamentally dichotomous nature of our perception, and connecting this analysis with a investigation into the 'good life' ; this is based on the rejection of the lower and a progression to the higher, and as such, is it only possible for the masculine element, for morality is only possible with consciousness, and only the male element has the possibility of consciousness.
There are, thus, two things to be noted with regards to people who engage in knee-jerk criticism of this book. The first point is, simply tossing around words such as 'misogyny' and 'racism' does not constitute a valid critique. Weininger's book has serious problems, (which I will address at the end of this review), but he is not writing at such a simplistic level that similarly simplistic criticism can be hurled. To put it simply, he is not engaging in cheap propaganda, but is engaged in a sustained philosophical investigation. As the subtitle suggests, it is truly an investigation of fundamental principles. The second point I wish to make follows from the first, and which I have already addressed. Masculine and feminine refers to qualities. Not individuals. Once this is borne in mind, the simplistic taunt of misogyny should be easily dismissed.
Another tip for the modern reader, especially someone who has familiarity with evolutionary psychology, is to approach the text from the perspective of this modern science. Weininger quite amazingly anticipates many of the paradigms that have come to be associated with this field.
The last quarter of the text, where Weininger analyzes the nature of the Jewish race and draws parallels between them and the feminine psychology, has drawn criticism for its supposed anti-semitism. Read in the cold and clear light of modernity, this portion of the text does indeed strike one as uncomfortable and, in light of the ungainly resurgence of many old chauvinistic and racist attitudes in our still young century, as indefensible. But once again, I would urge the reader to approach the whole text with an open mind, and to once again realize that the author is not talking on the level of biology, but is investigating certain fundamental psychological frameworks that characterize the human species. 'Jewishness' does not refer, in Weininger's usage, to a quality of a particular group of people, but, is instead an archetype that can be inhabited by anyone.
Now for the conclusion.
What I liked : The book is literally overflowing with great quotes, subtle in their penetrating understanding of human psychology. Weininger seems to me to be spot on with his fundamental philosophical assertion regarding the division of human nature into masculine and feminine, and his analysis of the different modes of functioning peculiar to these two sensibilities seems to me to be largely correct as well. In addition, I think his characterization of the nature of genius (which he reserves for the masculine element), is uncompromising but spot on.
What I didn't like : There are no two ways about it. Weininger's vision of the universe is dark, dreary, absolute, and despairing. He is what Nietzsche would rudely but effectively characterize as a 'life-denier'. His profound nihilism seeps through the pores of every word in this book, and he seems to take as incontrovertibly true that disgust for existence is an absolutely natural state for any thinking man. This disgust for life, this 'resenntiment' (to borrow from Nietzsche once again) almost functions as his basic philosophical assumption, so to speak. It is a tricky situation for the reader, for if you do not share Weininger's assumption(more uncharitable reviewers have called it his 'pathology'), then the entire book does begin to seem like the seductively articulate ravings of a diseased soul. In addition, and this could be related to his essentially life-denying worldview, the book is surprisingly religious. There is no crude proselytizing ; Weininger is too subtle for that. But he is fanatically obsessive about his faith, and his philosophical framework leads almost inevitably to the tenets of his Christian faith ; i.e. man is born in sin, woman is bad, pleasure is immoral, this world is a vale of tears. His interpretation of his faith is harsh, and can almost make him seem like a fanatic at times. Last, but not least, there are a few pages in the middle and towards the end of the book in which Weininger takes on some of his contemporaries ; these sections are understandably dated and can comfortably be skipped.
So, where do we end up? This is one of the few books that I've been profoundly affected by, which I enjoyed tremendously, which I've learnt a great deal from, but nonetheless, which I cannot recommend whole-heartedly. Why? Because while there are many passages that are so profoundly right as to be blindingly self-obvious, there are quite a few that are so appallingly, terribly, fantastically wrong. But Weininger is such a genius, his arguments so seductive, and his basic 'heart' seems to be right, that it is easy to get sucked into the whirlpool of his nihilistic, genius-affirming, frenzy. But that is not really my call to make. Read the book with an open mind, be impressed with the depth of one young man's blinding passion for truth, but take it with a huge grain of salt. With these provisos, I think one can learn a great deal from the product of poor Otto Weininger's tormented brain.
On first glance, the book seems an unlikely candidate for having such a reputation. It is, without doubt, one of the most violent books that I have read ; I do not mind violence in the base sense of the word, but rather, I have in mind a kind of elemental corrosiveness that is ultimately philosophical, which pushes aside all comforting illusions and calls the masculine element firmly, urgently, and mercilessly to its task of being moral. It is violent in the sublime way that only untramelled profundity can be violent.
The reference to 'masculine' in the last few lines is sure to make more than a few modern readers cringe, and is probably the cause for a lot of the notoriety that the book has been considered with, ever since its publication. Before I can address that perception, we should, with the soundest philosophical etiquette, define our terms. For Weininger, the male and the female are not used with reference to any biology, but are used in the sense of Platonic Ideas. In other words, male and female refer to Forms, to super-empirical structures of which the worldly males and females are approximations. Thus, every human being is a mixture of the male and female element. For Weininger, the female is sexuality. The male is sexuality and something more. The female is unconsciousness. The male has the possibility of consciousness. The female is non-rational (not irrational). The male has the possibility of being rational. Consequently, (and Weininger here follows Kant's ethics), the female is non-moral (not immoral), while the male has the possibility of morality. The female is nothing. The male has the possibility of being something.
Once the modern reader bears in mind that Weininger is talking about things which are, in a sense, beyond our crude notions of gender, we realize that he is in fact talking about the sources of our subjectivity, the fundamentally dichotomous nature of our perception, and connecting this analysis with a investigation into the 'good life' ; this is based on the rejection of the lower and a progression to the higher, and as such, is it only possible for the masculine element, for morality is only possible with consciousness, and only the male element has the possibility of consciousness.
There are, thus, two things to be noted with regards to people who engage in knee-jerk criticism of this book. The first point is, simply tossing around words such as 'misogyny' and 'racism' does not constitute a valid critique. Weininger's book has serious problems, (which I will address at the end of this review), but he is not writing at such a simplistic level that similarly simplistic criticism can be hurled. To put it simply, he is not engaging in cheap propaganda, but is engaged in a sustained philosophical investigation. As the subtitle suggests, it is truly an investigation of fundamental principles. The second point I wish to make follows from the first, and which I have already addressed. Masculine and feminine refers to qualities. Not individuals. Once this is borne in mind, the simplistic taunt of misogyny should be easily dismissed.
Another tip for the modern reader, especially someone who has familiarity with evolutionary psychology, is to approach the text from the perspective of this modern science. Weininger quite amazingly anticipates many of the paradigms that have come to be associated with this field.
The last quarter of the text, where Weininger analyzes the nature of the Jewish race and draws parallels between them and the feminine psychology, has drawn criticism for its supposed anti-semitism. Read in the cold and clear light of modernity, this portion of the text does indeed strike one as uncomfortable and, in light of the ungainly resurgence of many old chauvinistic and racist attitudes in our still young century, as indefensible. But once again, I would urge the reader to approach the whole text with an open mind, and to once again realize that the author is not talking on the level of biology, but is investigating certain fundamental psychological frameworks that characterize the human species. 'Jewishness' does not refer, in Weininger's usage, to a quality of a particular group of people, but, is instead an archetype that can be inhabited by anyone.
Now for the conclusion.
What I liked : The book is literally overflowing with great quotes, subtle in their penetrating understanding of human psychology. Weininger seems to me to be spot on with his fundamental philosophical assertion regarding the division of human nature into masculine and feminine, and his analysis of the different modes of functioning peculiar to these two sensibilities seems to me to be largely correct as well. In addition, I think his characterization of the nature of genius (which he reserves for the masculine element), is uncompromising but spot on.
What I didn't like : There are no two ways about it. Weininger's vision of the universe is dark, dreary, absolute, and despairing. He is what Nietzsche would rudely but effectively characterize as a 'life-denier'. His profound nihilism seeps through the pores of every word in this book, and he seems to take as incontrovertibly true that disgust for existence is an absolutely natural state for any thinking man. This disgust for life, this 'resenntiment' (to borrow from Nietzsche once again) almost functions as his basic philosophical assumption, so to speak. It is a tricky situation for the reader, for if you do not share Weininger's assumption(more uncharitable reviewers have called it his 'pathology'), then the entire book does begin to seem like the seductively articulate ravings of a diseased soul. In addition, and this could be related to his essentially life-denying worldview, the book is surprisingly religious. There is no crude proselytizing ; Weininger is too subtle for that. But he is fanatically obsessive about his faith, and his philosophical framework leads almost inevitably to the tenets of his Christian faith ; i.e. man is born in sin, woman is bad, pleasure is immoral, this world is a vale of tears. His interpretation of his faith is harsh, and can almost make him seem like a fanatic at times. Last, but not least, there are a few pages in the middle and towards the end of the book in which Weininger takes on some of his contemporaries ; these sections are understandably dated and can comfortably be skipped.
So, where do we end up? This is one of the few books that I've been profoundly affected by, which I enjoyed tremendously, which I've learnt a great deal from, but nonetheless, which I cannot recommend whole-heartedly. Why? Because while there are many passages that are so profoundly right as to be blindingly self-obvious, there are quite a few that are so appallingly, terribly, fantastically wrong. But Weininger is such a genius, his arguments so seductive, and his basic 'heart' seems to be right, that it is easy to get sucked into the whirlpool of his nihilistic, genius-affirming, frenzy. But that is not really my call to make. Read the book with an open mind, be impressed with the depth of one young man's blinding passion for truth, but take it with a huge grain of salt. With these provisos, I think one can learn a great deal from the product of poor Otto Weininger's tormented brain.
April 27, 2009
I can't believe I never really reviewed this book, only gave some really long quotes from it. Possibly one of the more interesting cultural phenomenas of the 20th century. The book is at times idiotic on its misogyny, but yet its also erudite on the anxiety of living a life amongst decadence and the need for genius amongst the general depravity of society (kind of in the way we as an American Idol voting, Joel Olsteen and The Shack reading, text messaging at all times society are decadent and deprave). This book is kind of an attempt to justify the authors reason to go on in a scientific manner, to go on though he needs to make very many wild and outlandish statements of opinion and call them facts. The guy was a walking cesspool of hatred in all likelihood, and most of it was probably inner conflicts and self-loathing that he tried to vent out on to the world. An anti-semitic Jew and a homophobic Homosexual who lived out of step with the world around him he was really quite something. Fortunately for the world he produced this book, which ranks up there with Klaus Kinski's memoirs as possibly the most enjoyably absurd literature of all time (I hope to dethrone them eventually with finding something equally or even more absurd than these two cracked Germans, suggestions are welcome), before deciding to shoot himself at the age of 23, an act that ironically he bungled, so instead of dying a heroic death his death sort of dragged on like the whining Werther, probably a character he held in disdain.
And now for the original collection of quotes:
Before reading this book I had no idea of what depraved creatures women are. I'm glad I didn't have to go through more of my life without knowing what I now know. For your enlightenment:
"People have either not seen or not wanted to say, or indeed not pictured quite correctly, what Man's penis psychologically means to Woman, whether as an adult or even a young virgin, and how it dominates her whole life, although she is often totally unconscious of this. I do not mean to say that a woman thinks a man's penis beautiful, or even just pretty. Rather, it has the same effect on her as the head of Medusa on human beings, or a snake on a bird: it hypnotizes, entrances, fascinates her. She perceives it as the thing for which she does not even have a name: it is her destiny, it is what she cannot escape from. The reason why she is so afraid to see Man in the nude, and why she never shows him any desire to do so, is because she feels that she would be lost straightaway. The phallus is what enslaves Woman absolutely and forever.
"Thus it is the very part which thoroughly spoils the look of a man's body, which alone makes a naked man ugly--and which sculptors therefore often cover with an acanthus or fig leaf--that excites women most profoundly and rouses them most powerfully, in particular when it represents the most unpleasant thing of all, in its erect state."
"Only women are happy. No man feels happy, because every man has a relationship with freedom and yet is always to some extent in bondage while on earth."
"There has never been a moment when I have not longed, among other things, for non-existence"
"...whether seen in this light, women are in fact human beings, or whether, according to the author's theory, the author's theory, they would not really have to be classified as animals or plants."
"Woman is not a microcosm, she was not created in the image of God. Is she, then, still a human being? Or is she an animal? Or a plant?"
And now for the original collection of quotes:
Before reading this book I had no idea of what depraved creatures women are. I'm glad I didn't have to go through more of my life without knowing what I now know. For your enlightenment:
"People have either not seen or not wanted to say, or indeed not pictured quite correctly, what Man's penis psychologically means to Woman, whether as an adult or even a young virgin, and how it dominates her whole life, although she is often totally unconscious of this. I do not mean to say that a woman thinks a man's penis beautiful, or even just pretty. Rather, it has the same effect on her as the head of Medusa on human beings, or a snake on a bird: it hypnotizes, entrances, fascinates her. She perceives it as the thing for which she does not even have a name: it is her destiny, it is what she cannot escape from. The reason why she is so afraid to see Man in the nude, and why she never shows him any desire to do so, is because she feels that she would be lost straightaway. The phallus is what enslaves Woman absolutely and forever.
"Thus it is the very part which thoroughly spoils the look of a man's body, which alone makes a naked man ugly--and which sculptors therefore often cover with an acanthus or fig leaf--that excites women most profoundly and rouses them most powerfully, in particular when it represents the most unpleasant thing of all, in its erect state."
"Only women are happy. No man feels happy, because every man has a relationship with freedom and yet is always to some extent in bondage while on earth."
"There has never been a moment when I have not longed, among other things, for non-existence"
"...whether seen in this light, women are in fact human beings, or whether, according to the author's theory, the author's theory, they would not really have to be classified as animals or plants."
"Woman is not a microcosm, she was not created in the image of God. Is she, then, still a human being? Or is she an animal? Or a plant?"
June 4, 2013
One of the most controversial, most influental (although very few thinkers had the courage to pay their due) and most insightful works of the early 20th century.
An indisputable genius, perhaps the last of his kind, captures the zeitgeist of the declining European civilization through the lens of his own psychosexual pathology. Rejecting both plebeian empiricism and lotsofbigwords(tm) approach of modern quasi-philosophy, Weininger may be the last representative of the classical Western thought, which held the Truth, not reason, above all else.
The saddening dismissing and hostile attitude of other reviewers reveals both extreme spritiual shallowness and high levels of anti-intellectualism of our age.
Call him wrong all you want, he was more wrong than you'll ever be.
An indisputable genius, perhaps the last of his kind, captures the zeitgeist of the declining European civilization through the lens of his own psychosexual pathology. Rejecting both plebeian empiricism and lotsofbigwords(tm) approach of modern quasi-philosophy, Weininger may be the last representative of the classical Western thought, which held the Truth, not reason, above all else.
The saddening dismissing and hostile attitude of other reviewers reveals both extreme spritiual shallowness and high levels of anti-intellectualism of our age.
Call him wrong all you want, he was more wrong than you'll ever be.
March 12, 2016
This book is really terrible, just unimaginably trashy, but it does have an intriguing backstory, and there's the odd fact that Wittgenstein apparently counted Weininger as one of his influences. I'm slightly annoyed by some of the reviews here that say things along the lines, Whether or not you agree with him, you must admit he was brilliant... Because no actually this book is an embarrassing morass of mysogny, racism, bad science, romantic cliches, and it's all very badly written. I once made a good faith effort to read it but couldn't do more than a few chapters.
July 15, 2016
Possibly, my most hated book in my library that has had some significant influence on my own belief system. Otto Weininger was a brilliant, depressed, cult figure who committed suicide at the young age of 23 in the previous household of the German composer Ludwig van Beethoven. Disregard his brief life span. There has been an immense amount of literary acknowledgements of influence from different artists, writers and philosophers. According to one source some of these people are said to be, "Ford Madox Ford, James Joyce, Franz Kafka, Karl Kraus, Charlotte Perkins-Gilman, Gertrude Stein, and August Strindberg" (source: http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/24270/?id=1861). It can be projected that for a lot of people here, myself included, would have discovered Weininger through at least one of these persons. My own discovery has been through the Viennese philosopher, Ludwig Wittgenstein.
His influence is more noticeable in the writings of some authors than others. However, a lot of those who were mentioned above are also Jewish. Weininger, Wittgenstein and myself as well, all come from a Jewish heritage. It can be favoured that we are all in fact extremely passive and maybe have some philosophical derivative of Stockholm syndrome, due to our rather long history of persecution. That we garnered this natural intuition to conceal our 'true' self. Even according to Wittgenstein, Jews tend to conceal their psychological nature, which according to him as being both, "secretive and cunning." Manifested in history as the Jew's practical intellect, spiritual flexibility and concealing nature that allowed them to persevere their malignant historical background. Weininger argued that the Jews are effeminate and in his (mis)attempt to solve the 'woman question,' on the basis that all women and Jews are in fact inferior, both morally and intellectually to men. Men tend to think on a higher rational level, whereas women rely heavily on their lower emotions and sexual organs. Weininger put fourth in his book two Platonic essentialist forms, the male and female, and the infinite gradient between them. Would it be that in this book that I coincide to believe? Is it that what makes this book so influential to me? No. Wittgenstein routinely recommend this book to his colleagues and, despite this great influence it's doubted that those that the book impacted wholly agreed with his conclusions. Metaphorically, Weininger's ladder has been thrown away to transcend his thought.
In a letter to G.E. Moore, Wittgenstein wrote, "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." Moreover, Wittgenstein said that if a negation sign (~) had been placed before the entirety of the book, it would be correct in every aspect. To be frank, I couldn't care less about the actual content of the book, so disregard the blatant sexism and antisemitism. It is not what the book is about that makes it so wrong and influential. Therefore, if it is not what is wrong and certainly not why it is wrong, it is how it is wrong.
Throughout the book it is how the book presents its arguments and how it misappropriates 20th c. empiricism and Neo-Kantian metaphysics to facade the appearance of a logical argument, that makes it wrong. Many of his ideas hint a Schopenhauerian influence, the idea of the microcosm/macrocosm, misogyny, differences, the ideal character and so on. Schopenhauer influenced Weininger, alongside him he influenced Wittgenstein as well. While arguing against the inductive means of the sciences as being insufficient in attempting to solve deductive goals it aims to examine. His arguments are resided in airy conjectures rather than empirical data. An attempt at applying Neo-Kantian intuition to something that includes obvious worldly presuppositions, that being the actual Jewish people and Women themselves that he wishes to examine. Moreover, the 'scientific' arguments made before are made to serve as a basis for further examination of the essentialist forms of the ideal Platonic man and woman. His 'science' was a shaky foundation of scientific positivism that relied heavily misconstrued Neo-Kantian a priori propositions for his following ontology on Platonic ideals.
Throughout the book, when Weininger speaks about 'man' or of 'woman,' he does not particularly speak about any specific woman or man, nor does he speak about a general conception of neither man or woman. He speaks about the Platonic ideal man and woman. The ideal Platonic woman that includes every aspect of femininity in that woman, which could not be included in the instant representation of any specific woman let alone every woman. Hence following, Weininger is not entirely sexist, only meagerly sexist. Women and Jews therein having a greater amount of femininity than men is what makes them inferior. It is in that argument, that makes this book so wrong. From proposition to conclusion, that from misconstrued Neo-Kantian intuitions as replacements for actual data, makes his arguments being misappropriated and wrong. Wittgenstein throughout his Philosophical Investigations argues the importance of differences in philosophy, however. Unlike Weininger, he merely argues just differences, not the differences between good or bad, better or worse. These differences being such as family likeness and graduations. Philosophy henceforth does not prescribe, but describe, "only describe don't explain." Therein there does not exist a moral-philosophical graduation between sexes or races, and whose essences are neither prescribed as being essentially higher or lower than another. In reference back to Wittgenstein's letter to Moore, his 'enormous mistake' is not his apparently bigoted conclusions but as to how he came about to said conclusions.
His influence is more noticeable in the writings of some authors than others. However, a lot of those who were mentioned above are also Jewish. Weininger, Wittgenstein and myself as well, all come from a Jewish heritage. It can be favoured that we are all in fact extremely passive and maybe have some philosophical derivative of Stockholm syndrome, due to our rather long history of persecution. That we garnered this natural intuition to conceal our 'true' self. Even according to Wittgenstein, Jews tend to conceal their psychological nature, which according to him as being both, "secretive and cunning." Manifested in history as the Jew's practical intellect, spiritual flexibility and concealing nature that allowed them to persevere their malignant historical background. Weininger argued that the Jews are effeminate and in his (mis)attempt to solve the 'woman question,' on the basis that all women and Jews are in fact inferior, both morally and intellectually to men. Men tend to think on a higher rational level, whereas women rely heavily on their lower emotions and sexual organs. Weininger put fourth in his book two Platonic essentialist forms, the male and female, and the infinite gradient between them. Would it be that in this book that I coincide to believe? Is it that what makes this book so influential to me? No. Wittgenstein routinely recommend this book to his colleagues and, despite this great influence it's doubted that those that the book impacted wholly agreed with his conclusions. Metaphorically, Weininger's ladder has been thrown away to transcend his thought.
In a letter to G.E. Moore, Wittgenstein wrote, "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." Moreover, Wittgenstein said that if a negation sign (~) had been placed before the entirety of the book, it would be correct in every aspect. To be frank, I couldn't care less about the actual content of the book, so disregard the blatant sexism and antisemitism. It is not what the book is about that makes it so wrong and influential. Therefore, if it is not what is wrong and certainly not why it is wrong, it is how it is wrong.
Throughout the book it is how the book presents its arguments and how it misappropriates 20th c. empiricism and Neo-Kantian metaphysics to facade the appearance of a logical argument, that makes it wrong. Many of his ideas hint a Schopenhauerian influence, the idea of the microcosm/macrocosm, misogyny, differences, the ideal character and so on. Schopenhauer influenced Weininger, alongside him he influenced Wittgenstein as well. While arguing against the inductive means of the sciences as being insufficient in attempting to solve deductive goals it aims to examine. His arguments are resided in airy conjectures rather than empirical data. An attempt at applying Neo-Kantian intuition to something that includes obvious worldly presuppositions, that being the actual Jewish people and Women themselves that he wishes to examine. Moreover, the 'scientific' arguments made before are made to serve as a basis for further examination of the essentialist forms of the ideal Platonic man and woman. His 'science' was a shaky foundation of scientific positivism that relied heavily misconstrued Neo-Kantian a priori propositions for his following ontology on Platonic ideals.
Throughout the book, when Weininger speaks about 'man' or of 'woman,' he does not particularly speak about any specific woman or man, nor does he speak about a general conception of neither man or woman. He speaks about the Platonic ideal man and woman. The ideal Platonic woman that includes every aspect of femininity in that woman, which could not be included in the instant representation of any specific woman let alone every woman. Hence following, Weininger is not entirely sexist, only meagerly sexist. Women and Jews therein having a greater amount of femininity than men is what makes them inferior. It is in that argument, that makes this book so wrong. From proposition to conclusion, that from misconstrued Neo-Kantian intuitions as replacements for actual data, makes his arguments being misappropriated and wrong. Wittgenstein throughout his Philosophical Investigations argues the importance of differences in philosophy, however. Unlike Weininger, he merely argues just differences, not the differences between good or bad, better or worse. These differences being such as family likeness and graduations. Philosophy henceforth does not prescribe, but describe, "only describe don't explain." Therein there does not exist a moral-philosophical graduation between sexes or races, and whose essences are neither prescribed as being essentially higher or lower than another. In reference back to Wittgenstein's letter to Moore, his 'enormous mistake' is not his apparently bigoted conclusions but as to how he came about to said conclusions.
January 8, 2008
Give early 20th century Austrian Jew Otto Weininger credit for intellectual consistency. After penning the anti-Semitic, violently misogynistic, proto-Nazi screed "Geschlecht und Charakter" he followed his own theories to their logical conclusion and killed himself at age 23. The book, published after his death, was something of a hit throughout Europe.
We wizened postmodernists want to dismiss Weininger out of hand, but what's so cringe-worthy about his text is once you spend ten pages on it you cannot dismiss its genius, even as you shrivel from its monstrous conclusions. Namely: That only the male of the species is truly sentient, capable of good, evil, or art. Women are empty vessels which exist purely to perpetuate the species. Jews (by which Weininger means "the Platonic ideal of Jews" and not Jews themselves, only to repeatedly contradict himself by employing the logic of racial/bloodline anti-Semitism) are effete subhumans doomed to an existence of stunted obsequious passivity before Aryan supermen. And the worst of the worst are the damnable double-whammy: Jewesses, who he goes off on at some length.
I blame his mother.
A train wreck of a treatise, god-awful yet perversely mesmerizing. A worthwhile read for any scholar of the Hapsburg Empire or the intellectual foundations of the Holocaust.
We wizened postmodernists want to dismiss Weininger out of hand, but what's so cringe-worthy about his text is once you spend ten pages on it you cannot dismiss its genius, even as you shrivel from its monstrous conclusions. Namely: That only the male of the species is truly sentient, capable of good, evil, or art. Women are empty vessels which exist purely to perpetuate the species. Jews (by which Weininger means "the Platonic ideal of Jews" and not Jews themselves, only to repeatedly contradict himself by employing the logic of racial/bloodline anti-Semitism) are effete subhumans doomed to an existence of stunted obsequious passivity before Aryan supermen. And the worst of the worst are the damnable double-whammy: Jewesses, who he goes off on at some length.
I blame his mother.
A train wreck of a treatise, god-awful yet perversely mesmerizing. A worthwhile read for any scholar of the Hapsburg Empire or the intellectual foundations of the Holocaust.
January 16, 2013
If you like books that are bat-shit crazy, and I certainly do, then this one should be at the top of your list. It rivals Martin Luther's On the Jews and their Lies, Houston Stewart Chamberlain's The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century, Charles Carroll's The Negro as Beast, and Hitler's Mein Kampf for its bizarre twists and turns in logic and for the absurdity of its content. More significant is its popularity: published in 1903, it went into its seventeen printing by 1918, which tells you something about the way people were thinking in Austria and Germany in the early part of the twentieth century. For those who want to understand what made Hitler and the Nazis possible, this book is a must read. But if you also want to understand the gnarled inner life of the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, then you should also read this book, for Wittgenstein loved it and was heavily influenced by it--and somehow, this doesn't surprise me.
September 10, 2012
A brilliant work at a very tender age of life. Analyses the characteristics of Human sexes like none before or after. You may not agree with all that Otto says but he definitely helps you see things in a very different perspective.
February 11, 2018
This book really made an impression on me. More than I thought it would. It is difficult to rate this book, since there are so many interesting ideas and new angles of looking at the psyche of Man (and Woman) and at the same time it contains quite a few, almost vulgar, statements that one struggles to take seriously. Some parts of this book also seemed unfinished. I really wished he wrote this book when he was a older, since this book is the ground work of something really great. This book should probably be read more than once to grasp his ideas fully. I will read it again in a couple of years for sure.
March 27, 2017
In attempting to demonstrate the metaphysical connection between genius, masculinity, logic, memory and ethics, he sought to solve the "woman question".
He showed a proposed relation between genius and masculinity and the moral and intellectual inferiority of women and Jews and other minorities. Additionally, his writings on the subject of Protestantism and Judaism have been seen as reflective of both his own personal self loathing of his Jewish identity and his rebellion against the Catholic culture of Vienna. It should be read as an autobiography of a deeply insecure, anti-semitic Jew a homophobic Homosexual, student with many inner conflicts and much self-loathing who would shortly thereafter tragically take his own life.
Wittgenstein wrote to G.E. Moore to explain his views on this book saying: "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. I.e. roughly speaking if you just add a “~” to the whole book it says an important truth".
He showed a proposed relation between genius and masculinity and the moral and intellectual inferiority of women and Jews and other minorities. Additionally, his writings on the subject of Protestantism and Judaism have been seen as reflective of both his own personal self loathing of his Jewish identity and his rebellion against the Catholic culture of Vienna. It should be read as an autobiography of a deeply insecure, anti-semitic Jew a homophobic Homosexual, student with many inner conflicts and much self-loathing who would shortly thereafter tragically take his own life.
Wittgenstein wrote to G.E. Moore to explain his views on this book saying: "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. I.e. roughly speaking if you just add a “~” to the whole book it says an important truth".
November 24, 2015
este es un libro extremadamente polémico por su "antisemitismo" y "misoginia". Me parece que puedes reclamarle a Weininger, en todo caso (que no es mi opinión) de tener opiniones erradas, de hacer malas observaciones de la realidad y generalizarlas, de idolatrar valores insípidos, en general de ser un imbécil. Sin embargo, lo que no encontré en este libro fue una pizca de odio, por el contrario, me pareció un autor extremadamente ético y consistente al menos en su lógica interna, libre de cualquier arrebato pasional que lo pudiese llevar a formar conclusiones arbitrarias. Todo lo que nos dice sigue a sus observaciones, y a una lógica. De nuevo, ya podrá estar en desacuerdo con él quien así lo pondere (yo mismo no estoy de acuerdo con él al 100%), pero calificarlo de un antisemista y misógino para descalificar su trabajo sin seguir su linea de pensamiento y refutarla directamente, se me hace sencillamente infantil.
December 2, 2012
Издоброволствах да прочета "Пол и характер" за семинар в университета относно маргиналното в българската култура в началото на XX в. и междувоенния период, когато тя е била забележително популярна. В книгата присъстват впечатляващо много от идеите, четенето на които ме ядосва - като се започне с джендър бинаризъм, есенциализъм и хетеронормативност; мине се през фамфобия, сексизъм и мизогиния и се стигне до антисемитизъм.
Вайнингер има един що-годе картезиански стремеж да аргументира позицията "жените са подчовеци", започвайки от неоспорими предпоставки и изграждайки последователно твърдение на тяхната основа. Например: обяснявайки защо мъжете са в състояние да опишат женската психика по-добре, авторът казва, че за да бъде обратното твърдение валидно, то трябва да са изпълнени условия като 1. жената може да опише сама себе си с точност; 2. за жената това е от интерес; 3. жената иска да говори за самата себе си, а тези три предпоставки очевидно са погрешни. QED.
Или друга такава самоочевидност: "Достатъчно е само да се свърже подлогът "жена" с прилагателното "дълбока", за да може всеки да почувства в това известно противоречие." (с. 65)
Иначе има пространни глави за природата на гения, на паметта, на логиката и прочее, всяка от които кулминира в конкретни доводи защо жената е съвършено негениална, алогична, аморална и т.н. Жената няма чувство за времева непрекъснатост => тя няма памет => тя няма личност => на нея ѝ липсва логика => тя не притежава Аз => тя няма душа => тя не притежава идея за морал.
По-интересен беше очарователният секс негативизъм. Авторът е привърженик на разделението между хладната рационална логичност и долната плътска сексуалност, като в неговата теория жените са носителите на гнусната поквара и с цялото си същество се стремят към секс (затова и имат повече еро��енни зони), а мъжете са устремените към светлото познание индивиди, на които сексът им пречи (показателно е, че пенисът на мъжа е морфологически отделен). В тази глава е и любимото ми изречение в книгата: "Грубо казано: мъжът владее своя пенис, жената е робиня на своята вагина." (с. 17)
Други неща, които трябва да спомена, но ме мързи да изписвам в свързан текст:
* Всичко, което жените правят, е винаги обвързано с мъжете: те не искат наистина да научат нов език, а искат да привлекат вниманието на мъж, който цени знаенето на чужди езици; те не се интересуват от математика истински, а се опитват да научат някакви неща колкото да помогнат за домашното на сина си.
* Понеже все пак в "Пол и характер" се говори повече за психология, отколкото за биология, проблемът не е в биологичната жена, а в психологическата женственост. Йерархията е (от най-висше към най-нисше): мъжествени мъже, женствени мъже (като художниците и, ъм, евреите), мъжествени жени, истински жени.
* Ако в книгата, в която четеш, се говори за Жената и за Мъжа като за Същностти и в единствено число, положението е лошо.
Вайнингер има един що-годе картезиански стремеж да аргументира позицията "жените са подчовеци", започвайки от неоспорими предпоставки и изграждайки последователно твърдение на тяхната основа. Например: обяснявайки защо мъжете са в състояние да опишат женската психика по-добре, авторът казва, че за да бъде обратното твърдение валидно, то трябва да са изпълнени условия като 1. жената може да опише сама себе си с точност; 2. за жената това е от интерес; 3. жената иска да говори за самата себе си, а тези три предпоставки очевидно са погрешни. QED.
Или друга такава самоочевидност: "Достатъчно е само да се свърже подлогът "жена" с прилагателното "дълбока", за да може всеки да почувства в това известно противоречие." (с. 65)
Иначе има пространни глави за природата на гения, на паметта, на логиката и прочее, всяка от които кулминира в конкретни доводи защо жената е съвършено негениална, алогична, аморална и т.н. Жената няма чувство за времева непрекъснатост => тя няма памет => тя няма личност => на нея ѝ липсва логика => тя не притежава Аз => тя няма душа => тя не притежава идея за морал.
По-интересен беше очарователният секс негативизъм. Авторът е привърженик на разделението между хладната рационална логичност и долната плътска сексуалност, като в неговата теория жените са носителите на гнусната поквара и с цялото си същество се стремят към секс (затова и имат повече еро��енни зони), а мъжете са устремените към светлото познание индивиди, на които сексът им пречи (показателно е, че пенисът на мъжа е морфологически отделен). В тази глава е и любимото ми изречение в книгата: "Грубо казано: мъжът владее своя пенис, жената е робиня на своята вагина." (с. 17)
Други неща, които трябва да спомена, но ме мързи да изписвам в свързан текст:
* Всичко, което жените правят, е винаги обвързано с мъжете: те не искат наистина да научат нов език, а искат да привлекат вниманието на мъж, който цени знаенето на чужди езици; те не се интересуват от математика истински, а се опитват да научат някакви неща колкото да помогнат за домашното на сина си.
* Понеже все пак в "Пол и характер" се говори повече за психология, отколкото за биология, проблемът не е в биологичната жена, а в психологическата женственост. Йерархията е (от най-висше към най-нисше): мъжествени мъже, женствени мъже (като художниците и, ъм, евреите), мъжествени жени, истински жени.
* Ако в книгата, в която четеш, се говори за Жената и за Мъжа като за Същностти и в единствено число, положението е лошо.
review-shelf
April 9, 2019Full disclosure: I didn't read this book. I read Ludwig Wittgenstein: The Duty of Genius, in which Ray Monk mentions Sex and Character repeatedly as an influence on Ludwig Wittgenstein's thinking. One particular aspect of what Monk says stuck with me, which resulted in this little essay:
In this book, Otto Weiniger argues for anti-semitic, sexist and misanthropic opinions. Pretty much all of it can be written off as nonsense, but somehow it still managed to capture the interest of young Ludwig Wittgenstein, and it seems to have continued to do so for pretty much the rest of his life.
According to Weiniger, man has a choice between masculine and feminine, consciousness and unconsciousness, will and impulse, love and sexuality. If he is able to choose the first of all these pairs, he can “approximate the very highest type of man: the genius.”
Part of this 'human ideal' involves abstinence. According to Weiniger we should only love ourselves, and he explicitly says: “that the human race should persist is of no interest whatever to reason.” Ray Monk points out that with this theory, Weiniger offers a bleak choice: “genius or death”.
As a warped and dramatic conclusion to his book, Weiniger committed suicide a year after its publication. Being both homosexual and Jewish, making him one of the most feminine men possible according to his own theory, he thought himself excluded from the potential ranks of genius.
But by presenting suicide as the solution to failure of having reached the intellectual ideal, he throws away all potential and sabotages the chance of “genius” ever being attained. Many of us probably don't believe that we have what it takes to attain genius. But if we took Weiniger’s advice, all genius would die before it had the chance to be realised. The choice, therefore, should really be: genius or die trying (without suicide, that is).
In this book, Otto Weiniger argues for anti-semitic, sexist and misanthropic opinions. Pretty much all of it can be written off as nonsense, but somehow it still managed to capture the interest of young Ludwig Wittgenstein, and it seems to have continued to do so for pretty much the rest of his life.
According to Weiniger, man has a choice between masculine and feminine, consciousness and unconsciousness, will and impulse, love and sexuality. If he is able to choose the first of all these pairs, he can “approximate the very highest type of man: the genius.”
Part of this 'human ideal' involves abstinence. According to Weiniger we should only love ourselves, and he explicitly says: “that the human race should persist is of no interest whatever to reason.” Ray Monk points out that with this theory, Weiniger offers a bleak choice: “genius or death”.
As a warped and dramatic conclusion to his book, Weiniger committed suicide a year after its publication. Being both homosexual and Jewish, making him one of the most feminine men possible according to his own theory, he thought himself excluded from the potential ranks of genius.
But by presenting suicide as the solution to failure of having reached the intellectual ideal, he throws away all potential and sabotages the chance of “genius” ever being attained. Many of us probably don't believe that we have what it takes to attain genius. But if we took Weiniger’s advice, all genius would die before it had the chance to be realised. The choice, therefore, should really be: genius or die trying (without suicide, that is).
May 3, 2020
Безнадеждно остаряла дори в момента на издаването си в България (1981г.), Пол и характер обсъжда психологически въпроси по начин, който днес изглежда като излязъл от пещерната епоха.
Авторът изпада във философски и психоложки разсъждения в характерния фройдиянски стил, без да дава каквито и да е доказателства за понякога смехотворните си, често неразбираеми и доста рядко идейни тези.
Има някакви зачатъци на опити да се направи политически некоректен анализ на женската психология, но в сферата на психологията и общественото разбиране тия опити остават глас в пустиня чак до раждането на red pill.
Авторът изпада във философски и психоложки разсъждения в характерния фройдиянски стил, без да дава каквито и да е доказателства за понякога смехотворните си, често неразбираеми и доста рядко идейни тези.
Има някакви зачатъци на опити да се направи политически некоректен анализ на женската психология, но в сферата на психологията и общественото разбиране тия опити остават глас в пустиня чак до раждането на red pill.
March 20, 2021
What became of Kant's pragmatic belief and Friedrich Nietzsche? At the other side of the Atlantic Ocean lived Charles S. Peirce...
Absolutely average, far below the then expectations on the "Heir of German Philosophy".
To a huge deal Hitler's "Mein Kampf" is based on Weininger. Probably Rudolf Hess, a student of Karl Haushofer, was familiar with his ideas.
Keep in mind that the later "geopolititian" Haushofer was not a philosopher but a geographer.
Absolutely average, far below the then expectations on the "Heir of German Philosophy".
To a huge deal Hitler's "Mein Kampf" is based on Weininger. Probably Rudolf Hess, a student of Karl Haushofer, was familiar with his ideas.
Keep in mind that the later "geopolititian" Haushofer was not a philosopher but a geographer.
December 23, 2019
Broads be crazy because they can't grasp the genius of A=A; essential for all aspiring/neurotic Elliot Rodgers.
April 7, 2021
Yəhudi filosofu olan Otto Vayninger 1880-ci ildə Vyanada doğulub. Ali təhsilini fəlsəfə və psixologiya sahəsi üzrə alıb. Universiteti bitirdikdən sonra xristianlığı qəbul edərək prostestant olan 22 yaşlı filosof ən qalmaqallı əsəri “Cins və xarakter”i dissertasiya işi olaraq yazıb. Daha sonra əsəri nəşr etdirmək istədiyini bildirərək Freyddən məsləhət alsa da, müsbət cavab almır. Amma əsər 1902-ci ildə nəşr olunur. Əsər həm yəhudilər, həm qadınlar, həm də bir çox filosoflar tərəfindən mənfi qarşılanır. Və ölkəsini tərk edən filosof bir il İtaliyada yaşayır.
Daha sonra Vyanaya qayıdaraq Bethovenin özünü öldürdüyü otel otağında atasına və qardaşına məktub yazdıqdan sonra tapanca ilə intihar edir.
Bəs “Cins və xarakter” niyə bu qədər xaos yaratdı?
Kitabı oxuyarkən ilk səhifələrdə hər şey yaxşı idi. Vayningerin qeyri-adi fikirləri o qədər xoşuma gəldi ki, hətta onu sevməyə başladım. Oxumağa davam etdikcə münasibətimiz pisləşdi. Amma günahkar mən deyildim.
Kitabın böyük bir hissəsi qadınlar, qadın psixologiyası, qadın və kişi, qadın və bəşəriyyət mövzülarını əhatə edir.
Vayninger “erkək və dişi” və ya “qadın və kişi” bölgüsünü natamam yanaşma qəbul edir. Ona görə, xalis qadın və ya xalis kişi anlayışları yoxdur, başqa sözlə, hər bir fərddə onda çatışmayan kişi ünsürü qədər qadın ünsürü var və əksinə.
Yanaşma bir az fərqli və qəribə görünsə də, əslində həqiqətdir.
Vayningerə görə, əsl azadlıq ehtiyacı və həqiqi azadlıq qabiliyyəti qadında olan kişiliyi nəzərdə tutur.
O qadınlar özlərinin azadlığını əldə etməyə nail olacaqlar ki, öz məqsədlərini yalnız sosial həyatla, illuziyalar yaratmaqla bitmiş hesab etməyəcək, kişiləri öz düşmənləri kimi görməyəcəklər.
Bəs kimə qarşı mübarizə aparmaq? Cavab budur: Öz qəlbində bu qurtuluşa, bu azadlığa mane olan hər kəsə qarşı. Çünki qadın azadlığının ən böyük və yeganə düşməni qadının özüdür.
Vayninger oxucusuna xəbərdarlıq edir ki, psixologiya yalnız duyğular haqqında təlim deyil. Psixologiya çox geniş elm olaraq fizika, anatomiya və fəlsəfə kimi elmləri özündə ehtiva edir. O deyirdi: psixoloqlar istisnasız olaraq kişilərdir.
Niyə tarixdə iz qoymuş, tanınmış qadın psixoloq yoxdur? Çünki qadın özü özünü anlamağa qadir deyil. O, həmişə müəyyən duyğunun təsir altındadır. Bu halda o necə başqalarını anlamaq, insanı çözmək iqtidarında ola bilər?
Kişi öz istəklərini elə gizlədə bilir ki, həm Don Juan, həm də müqəddəs ola bilir. qadın isə bu avantaja sahib deyil.
İnsan özünü anlaya bilməz. Səbəb isə odur ki, bunu bacarmaq üçün mənəvi aləminin çərçivələrindən kənara çıxmalıdır. Əgər bu kiməsə nəsib olsa idi, onda bütün kainatı anlaya bilərdi. Elə insanın bəşəri missiyası da budur; həqiqəti tapmaq.
Bir az dərinə getsək görərik ki, insan sonsuz kainatda təkdir, əbədi və sarsıdıcı tənhalıqdadır. O nə istəyir? Bağışlanma, dinclik. Hətta bu dincliyi ona düşməni vermiş olsa belə. Axı, o istəyir ki, kaş bu mübarizə bitsin! Kaş tənhalıq bitsin!
Bura qədər Vayningerlə yola gedirdik. Amma sonra işlər korlandı.
O deyirdi: qadın qəlbdən məhrumdur. Çinlilərin bunu çoxdan qəbul etdiyini əsas gətirərək deyirdi. Əgər çinli qadından neçə uşağı olduğunu soruşsaz, o yalnız oğlanlarının sayını deyəcək. Çünki o heçdir. Fərdilikdən məhrum cinsi tələbat məhsulu, kişinin əşyasıdır.
Elə bu fikir də qalmaqal yaratdı. Vyanada qadın haqları hərəkatı başladı. Bu fikrini onunla əsaslandırırdı ki, əgər qadının yeganə istəyi kişinin xoşuna gəlmək, ər axtarmaq, kişini məmnun etməkdirsə, qadın niyə bunu inkar edir? Vayninger haqlıdır. Amma bunu bütün qadınlara aid etmək bir az insafsızlıq, daha doğrusu vicdansızlıq deyilmi? Mütləq ana-mütləq fahişə aralığını 1 və -1 qəbul etsək, bütün qadınlar bu oxun üzərində yerləşir. Daha sonra mütləq ananın mövcud olmadığını, ideal ölçü vahidi olduğunu deyərək iddia edir ki, yüksəkdə duran qadın yoxdur. Hətta ən yüksəkdə duran qadın ən aşağıda duran kişidən daha aşağıdadır, fikri ilə böyük xaos yaradır.
Bəs qadın nə istəyir?
Qadın kişidən kişilik istəyir. İradə, doğruluq tələb edir. Və tamamlanmaq istəyir. Kişi isə öz iradəsi ilə qadının bütün xüsusiyyətlərini ilkin saflığından çıxararaq dəyişdirir, arxa plana keçirir və ya məhv edir. Ona öz qəlbini verməkdən imtina edir.
Buna görə də heç vaxt sevməyən filosof yalnız platonik sevgini qəbul edir. Sevginin son məqsədi yeni nəsil yaratmaqdır deyən Şopenhaurlə razılaşmır.
Yəhudilik adlı fəsildə isə özünün də mənsub olduğu yəhudiliyi qorxaqlığın ən yüksək forması adlandırır. Qadınlarla yəhudilər arasında bir neçə oxşarlıq da tapır: yəhudi də qadın kimi anlayışlarla düşünmür, yəhudi heç nəyə, hətta öz dininə də inanmır. Başqa sözlə, yəhudilik dinsizliyin ən yüksək formasıdır.
Gah Kantı, gah Şopenhaueri, gah Müller, gah da Nitsşeni haqsız sayan 23 yaşlı gənc nə qədər haqlı ola bilərdi? Və ya ondan əvvəlki filosoflar bu qədərmi yanılmışdılar?..
Daha sonra Vyanaya qayıdaraq Bethovenin özünü öldürdüyü otel otağında atasına və qardaşına məktub yazdıqdan sonra tapanca ilə intihar edir.
Bəs “Cins və xarakter” niyə bu qədər xaos yaratdı?
Kitabı oxuyarkən ilk səhifələrdə hər şey yaxşı idi. Vayningerin qeyri-adi fikirləri o qədər xoşuma gəldi ki, hətta onu sevməyə başladım. Oxumağa davam etdikcə münasibətimiz pisləşdi. Amma günahkar mən deyildim.
Kitabın böyük bir hissəsi qadınlar, qadın psixologiyası, qadın və kişi, qadın və bəşəriyyət mövzülarını əhatə edir.
Vayninger “erkək və dişi” və ya “qadın və kişi” bölgüsünü natamam yanaşma qəbul edir. Ona görə, xalis qadın və ya xalis kişi anlayışları yoxdur, başqa sözlə, hər bir fərddə onda çatışmayan kişi ünsürü qədər qadın ünsürü var və əksinə.
Yanaşma bir az fərqli və qəribə görünsə də, əslində həqiqətdir.
Vayningerə görə, əsl azadlıq ehtiyacı və həqiqi azadlıq qabiliyyəti qadında olan kişiliyi nəzərdə tutur.
O qadınlar özlərinin azadlığını əldə etməyə nail olacaqlar ki, öz məqsədlərini yalnız sosial həyatla, illuziyalar yaratmaqla bitmiş hesab etməyəcək, kişiləri öz düşmənləri kimi görməyəcəklər.
Bəs kimə qarşı mübarizə aparmaq? Cavab budur: Öz qəlbində bu qurtuluşa, bu azadlığa mane olan hər kəsə qarşı. Çünki qadın azadlığının ən böyük və yeganə düşməni qadının özüdür.
Vayninger oxucusuna xəbərdarlıq edir ki, psixologiya yalnız duyğular haqqında təlim deyil. Psixologiya çox geniş elm olaraq fizika, anatomiya və fəlsəfə kimi elmləri özündə ehtiva edir. O deyirdi: psixoloqlar istisnasız olaraq kişilərdir.
Niyə tarixdə iz qoymuş, tanınmış qadın psixoloq yoxdur? Çünki qadın özü özünü anlamağa qadir deyil. O, həmişə müəyyən duyğunun təsir altındadır. Bu halda o necə başqalarını anlamaq, insanı çözmək iqtidarında ola bilər?
Kişi öz istəklərini elə gizlədə bilir ki, həm Don Juan, həm də müqəddəs ola bilir. qadın isə bu avantaja sahib deyil.
İnsan özünü anlaya bilməz. Səbəb isə odur ki, bunu bacarmaq üçün mənəvi aləminin çərçivələrindən kənara çıxmalıdır. Əgər bu kiməsə nəsib olsa idi, onda bütün kainatı anlaya bilərdi. Elə insanın bəşəri missiyası da budur; həqiqəti tapmaq.
Bir az dərinə getsək görərik ki, insan sonsuz kainatda təkdir, əbədi və sarsıdıcı tənhalıqdadır. O nə istəyir? Bağışlanma, dinclik. Hətta bu dincliyi ona düşməni vermiş olsa belə. Axı, o istəyir ki, kaş bu mübarizə bitsin! Kaş tənhalıq bitsin!
Bura qədər Vayningerlə yola gedirdik. Amma sonra işlər korlandı.
O deyirdi: qadın qəlbdən məhrumdur. Çinlilərin bunu çoxdan qəbul etdiyini əsas gətirərək deyirdi. Əgər çinli qadından neçə uşağı olduğunu soruşsaz, o yalnız oğlanlarının sayını deyəcək. Çünki o heçdir. Fərdilikdən məhrum cinsi tələbat məhsulu, kişinin əşyasıdır.
Elə bu fikir də qalmaqal yaratdı. Vyanada qadın haqları hərəkatı başladı. Bu fikrini onunla əsaslandırırdı ki, əgər qadının yeganə istəyi kişinin xoşuna gəlmək, ər axtarmaq, kişini məmnun etməkdirsə, qadın niyə bunu inkar edir? Vayninger haqlıdır. Amma bunu bütün qadınlara aid etmək bir az insafsızlıq, daha doğrusu vicdansızlıq deyilmi? Mütləq ana-mütləq fahişə aralığını 1 və -1 qəbul etsək, bütün qadınlar bu oxun üzərində yerləşir. Daha sonra mütləq ananın mövcud olmadığını, ideal ölçü vahidi olduğunu deyərək iddia edir ki, yüksəkdə duran qadın yoxdur. Hətta ən yüksəkdə duran qadın ən aşağıda duran kişidən daha aşağıdadır, fikri ilə böyük xaos yaradır.
Bəs qadın nə istəyir?
Qadın kişidən kişilik istəyir. İradə, doğruluq tələb edir. Və tamamlanmaq istəyir. Kişi isə öz iradəsi ilə qadının bütün xüsusiyyətlərini ilkin saflığından çıxararaq dəyişdirir, arxa plana keçirir və ya məhv edir. Ona öz qəlbini verməkdən imtina edir.
Buna görə də heç vaxt sevməyən filosof yalnız platonik sevgini qəbul edir. Sevginin son məqsədi yeni nəsil yaratmaqdır deyən Şopenhaurlə razılaşmır.
Yəhudilik adlı fəsildə isə özünün də mənsub olduğu yəhudiliyi qorxaqlığın ən yüksək forması adlandırır. Qadınlarla yəhudilər arasında bir neçə oxşarlıq da tapır: yəhudi də qadın kimi anlayışlarla düşünmür, yəhudi heç nəyə, hətta öz dininə də inanmır. Başqa sözlə, yəhudilik dinsizliyin ən yüksək formasıdır.
Gah Kantı, gah Şopenhaueri, gah Müller, gah da Nitsşeni haqsız sayan 23 yaşlı gənc nə qədər haqlı ola bilərdi? Və ya ondan əvvəlki filosoflar bu qədərmi yanılmışdılar?..
June 9, 2022
Sex and Character was published in 1903. Soon after, the author shot himself in the same house where Beethoven had died. Naturally, the book became a bestseller and Weininger was hailed a genius (by some and a bombastic idiot by others). I expected this to be a collection of misogynistic ramblings by a severely depressed, immature student. It turned out to be a fairly coherent, readable work and it is my own fault that I could only pick some seemingly almost unconnected ideas and sort them into those that I liked, those that I disliked, those that I disagreed with but found interesting and those that I found completely irrelevant, making the book seem less cohesive than it is.
The beginning is the part of the book that would probably cause the least anger today (although many people would disagree with it). The author introduces the idea of woman (W) and the idea of man (M). Ideal women and men don't exist in nature, just like ideal gases, but inside every person there is a pendulum fluctuating between M and W. A person is not simultaneously both, nor a mixture of them. Some men are very feminine and some women very masculine and raising boys and girls separately according to a certain model overlooks the needs of those people. Weininger lists some things a masculine woman or a feminine man might enjoy. He is, however, looking at this from the perspective of his time and culture. While it seems that some kind of division appears between typical male and female activities in most cultures, where the line is drawn differs from place to place and time to time enough to make one think that maybe there are no fundamentally male and female activities. The existence of division could be natural but people having atypical interests for their sex in their culture doesn't necessarily need to be telling of an inner fluctuation between man and woman.
Sometimes one seems to see indeterminism here, sometimes essentialism. The author states that a person's character can be seen in his appearance and every move he makes includes his entire character.
The book includes some surprisingly progressive views about the upbringing of girls and boys and on bisexuality (which I would agree is much more natural and common than is usually thought, as was apparent among boys in their late teens studying in a boarding school with no access to the opposite sex). It definitely has its good parts. Some interesting ideas are that genius is not just extreme talent but requires originality; a good working memory is a big part of being "gifted" and you can estimate a person's intelligence based on how they perceive and remember things and forgiveness belongs together with forgetting, not with understanding. Unfortunately, Weininger often adds "this only applies to men" after some of his more interesting observations. He thinks that both geniuses and radically stupid people are only found among men (which brings to my mind the IQ distribution which is more weighed on the average in women and more weighed on the extremes in men).
I don't think just throwing around terms like "misogynistic", "racist" and "antisemitic" should be considered valid arguments against a book like this if the book is not shown to be clearly illogical and the claims badly grounded. Especially towards the end, this book often crosses the line into ridiculousness. Claim: the Chinese might be an entirely feminine nation. One good proof: Chinese men wear ponytails! Ending slavery in the US was possibly a bad idea; all women (and Jews) live outside of morality and logic, have no sense of humor or imagination, individuality or free will; there's no music in nature and so on. Most of the weird and seemingly misinformed statements about women accumulate on the position taken near the beginning of the book that women are only sexuality but men are also something more, which is based on the claim that women feel sexual sensation if any part of their body is touched whereas for men this is limited to certain areas and girls "enjoy" puberty while boys find it awkward. Doesn't ring true to me.
There were two things in the book that really left me confused:
1. It is stated men have both the wish for eternal life and fear of death and women only the latter. This is because women can't be geniuses, have less apperceptions and don't remember their past vividly enough to want it to last forever. It is also stated that fear of death is a result of the wish for eternal life. Where does women's fear of death come from?
2. Jews are said to be a feminine nation, they are compared to women in many ways and also to other feminine nations like the Chinese or Mongoloids, including in racial terms. Judaism, however has to be separately suppressed inside everyone's mind and if a Jew (like Jesus) succeeds in beating their own Judaism and converting to Christianity, he should not be looked down on because of his unfortunate birth (they seems to lose their femininity). Can Chinese men beat their own femininity too?
I wanted to give this book 2,5 stars and decided to round it up to 3. I have probably misunderstood a lot of what the author originally meant but I do not think that even if he came back from the dead to explain it to me personally I would find it a very good or important philosophical work or investigation. It is mostly a very confusing piece of bigotry with some interesting ideas thrown in between. I give 3 stars to better books. This one is, however, far too entertaining and captivating to be given any less. I found myself giggling occasionally while reading.
The beginning is the part of the book that would probably cause the least anger today (although many people would disagree with it). The author introduces the idea of woman (W) and the idea of man (M). Ideal women and men don't exist in nature, just like ideal gases, but inside every person there is a pendulum fluctuating between M and W. A person is not simultaneously both, nor a mixture of them. Some men are very feminine and some women very masculine and raising boys and girls separately according to a certain model overlooks the needs of those people. Weininger lists some things a masculine woman or a feminine man might enjoy. He is, however, looking at this from the perspective of his time and culture. While it seems that some kind of division appears between typical male and female activities in most cultures, where the line is drawn differs from place to place and time to time enough to make one think that maybe there are no fundamentally male and female activities. The existence of division could be natural but people having atypical interests for their sex in their culture doesn't necessarily need to be telling of an inner fluctuation between man and woman.
Sometimes one seems to see indeterminism here, sometimes essentialism. The author states that a person's character can be seen in his appearance and every move he makes includes his entire character.
The book includes some surprisingly progressive views about the upbringing of girls and boys and on bisexuality (which I would agree is much more natural and common than is usually thought, as was apparent among boys in their late teens studying in a boarding school with no access to the opposite sex). It definitely has its good parts. Some interesting ideas are that genius is not just extreme talent but requires originality; a good working memory is a big part of being "gifted" and you can estimate a person's intelligence based on how they perceive and remember things and forgiveness belongs together with forgetting, not with understanding. Unfortunately, Weininger often adds "this only applies to men" after some of his more interesting observations. He thinks that both geniuses and radically stupid people are only found among men (which brings to my mind the IQ distribution which is more weighed on the average in women and more weighed on the extremes in men).
I don't think just throwing around terms like "misogynistic", "racist" and "antisemitic" should be considered valid arguments against a book like this if the book is not shown to be clearly illogical and the claims badly grounded. Especially towards the end, this book often crosses the line into ridiculousness. Claim: the Chinese might be an entirely feminine nation. One good proof: Chinese men wear ponytails! Ending slavery in the US was possibly a bad idea; all women (and Jews) live outside of morality and logic, have no sense of humor or imagination, individuality or free will; there's no music in nature and so on. Most of the weird and seemingly misinformed statements about women accumulate on the position taken near the beginning of the book that women are only sexuality but men are also something more, which is based on the claim that women feel sexual sensation if any part of their body is touched whereas for men this is limited to certain areas and girls "enjoy" puberty while boys find it awkward. Doesn't ring true to me.
There were two things in the book that really left me confused:
1. It is stated men have both the wish for eternal life and fear of death and women only the latter. This is because women can't be geniuses, have less apperceptions and don't remember their past vividly enough to want it to last forever. It is also stated that fear of death is a result of the wish for eternal life. Where does women's fear of death come from?
2. Jews are said to be a feminine nation, they are compared to women in many ways and also to other feminine nations like the Chinese or Mongoloids, including in racial terms. Judaism, however has to be separately suppressed inside everyone's mind and if a Jew (like Jesus) succeeds in beating their own Judaism and converting to Christianity, he should not be looked down on because of his unfortunate birth (they seems to lose their femininity). Can Chinese men beat their own femininity too?
I wanted to give this book 2,5 stars and decided to round it up to 3. I have probably misunderstood a lot of what the author originally meant but I do not think that even if he came back from the dead to explain it to me personally I would find it a very good or important philosophical work or investigation. It is mostly a very confusing piece of bigotry with some interesting ideas thrown in between. I give 3 stars to better books. This one is, however, far too entertaining and captivating to be given any less. I found myself giggling occasionally while reading.
March 30, 2018
Näin lyhyen käännösvalikoiman ja tunnustuksellisen "vapaan" suomennoksen jälkeen on paha sanoa oikein mitään. Herkullinen kuriositeetti, ehdottomasti. Weininger on vuoroin progressiivinen jopa 2000-luvulle, vuoroin taantumuksellinen 1900-luvulle. Kummallinen kirja. Ehdottoman omalaatuinen ajattelija tämä Weininger. Jätti kutisemaan himon lukea koko opus. Toisaalta, jos tähän Simolan valikoimaan ja käännökseen voi luottaa kuvaavana muustakin sisällöstä, en sittenkään tiedä.
June 16, 2023
“Sex and Character" by Otto Weininger, first published in 1903, is a seminal work that explores the complex relationship between sex, gender, and individual identity. Weininger, an Austrian philosopher, delves into the realms of psychology, philosophy, and morality to present a controversial thesis regarding the inherent differences between men and women. In this academic review, we critically analyze the key themes, strengths, limitations, and scholarly significance of Weininger's work, taking into account its historical context and the ensuing debates it has engendered.
"Sex and Character" presents a deeply problematic and controversial perspective on gender and identity. Weininger argues that men and women embody opposing moral and intellectual qualities, with men representing the ideal of reason and women being relegated to a more irrational and emotional existence. He proposes that true individuality and greatness can only be attained by transcending one's biological sex and embracing the masculine ideal.
One of the strengths of Weininger's work lies in its influence on subsequent discussions of gender and identity. Despite its deeply flawed and misogynistic arguments, the book sparked debates and provoked critical engagement that ultimately contributed to the emergence of feminist and gender studies. Weininger's work serves as a historical artifact that exposes the biases and prejudices prevalent during the time of its writing.
However, it is crucial to acknowledge the severe limitations and problematic aspects of Weininger's work. His reductionist approach to gender fails to account for the vast diversity and complexity of human experiences. Furthermore, his reliance on essentialist notions of gender and the binary understanding of sex perpetuates harmful stereotypes and overlooks the spectrum of identities and lived experiences.
Moreover, Weininger's work is marred by its underpinning anti-Semitic and racist views. His identification of certain intellectual and moral qualities with specific ethnic and religious groups reflects a deeply prejudiced worldview that undermines the credibility and validity of his arguments.
"Sex and Character" by Otto Weininger is a historically significant work that demands critical engagement and scrutiny. While recognizing its historical context and influence on subsequent discussions, this academic review underscores the severe limitations and problematic aspects of Weininger's arguments. The book's reductionist approach to gender, reliance on essentialism, and perpetuation of harmful stereotypes contribute to its lack of scholarly credibility in contemporary discourse.
"Sex and Character" by Otto Weininger stands as a historically significant but deeply flawed work. This academic review recognizes the enduring influence it has had on discussions of gender and identity, while critically highlighting its problematic nature. Scholars and readers must approach Weininger's work with caution, acknowledging its limitations and engaging in rigorous critique to foster a more inclusive and nuanced understanding of gender and identity in contemporary scholarship.
GPT
"Sex and Character" presents a deeply problematic and controversial perspective on gender and identity. Weininger argues that men and women embody opposing moral and intellectual qualities, with men representing the ideal of reason and women being relegated to a more irrational and emotional existence. He proposes that true individuality and greatness can only be attained by transcending one's biological sex and embracing the masculine ideal.
One of the strengths of Weininger's work lies in its influence on subsequent discussions of gender and identity. Despite its deeply flawed and misogynistic arguments, the book sparked debates and provoked critical engagement that ultimately contributed to the emergence of feminist and gender studies. Weininger's work serves as a historical artifact that exposes the biases and prejudices prevalent during the time of its writing.
However, it is crucial to acknowledge the severe limitations and problematic aspects of Weininger's work. His reductionist approach to gender fails to account for the vast diversity and complexity of human experiences. Furthermore, his reliance on essentialist notions of gender and the binary understanding of sex perpetuates harmful stereotypes and overlooks the spectrum of identities and lived experiences.
Moreover, Weininger's work is marred by its underpinning anti-Semitic and racist views. His identification of certain intellectual and moral qualities with specific ethnic and religious groups reflects a deeply prejudiced worldview that undermines the credibility and validity of his arguments.
"Sex and Character" by Otto Weininger is a historically significant work that demands critical engagement and scrutiny. While recognizing its historical context and influence on subsequent discussions, this academic review underscores the severe limitations and problematic aspects of Weininger's arguments. The book's reductionist approach to gender, reliance on essentialism, and perpetuation of harmful stereotypes contribute to its lack of scholarly credibility in contemporary discourse.
"Sex and Character" by Otto Weininger stands as a historically significant but deeply flawed work. This academic review recognizes the enduring influence it has had on discussions of gender and identity, while critically highlighting its problematic nature. Scholars and readers must approach Weininger's work with caution, acknowledging its limitations and engaging in rigorous critique to foster a more inclusive and nuanced understanding of gender and identity in contemporary scholarship.
GPT
July 15, 2025
Weininger's infamous tract, Sex and Character, is full of contradictions that reflect his own life and philosophy. He manages them in a strange dialectic that informs all great philosophical systems.
He navigates a thorny trajectory between two modern philosophical paradigms: critiquing the reduction of the self to a rational soul (à la Schopenhauer and Nietzsche) and the objectification of the self through scientific inquiry (anti-naturalism). And, within this framework, Weininger critiques the sexual and social divisions of labor, as well as the sexual and spiritual relations between men and women.
Weininger's work can be coherently interpreted as a critique of alienation, employing metaphors of sex to explore philosophical themes. His preoccupations are essentially with emerging modernity and the crisis of traditional values. Furthermore, he refuses to reconcile opposing binaries, showing precisely the undulating dialectic of modernity. His lamentation of the Western tradition's decline is primarily concerned with fragmentation, with the erosion of a coherent, meaningful reality.
Something that moved me about Weininger is that, in his last few months on earth before his tragic suicide, he wrote these depressive, fantastical aphorisms. The introduction reveals a great duality in his character. I thought I'd share these quotes here. Especially for his detractors, considering there is a lot of complexity in this major work of his, which is often missed.
"They (the aphorisms) are more radically honest in their self-reflexivity: he identifies the hatred of women with hatred of one’s own sexuality insofar as one has not yet overcome it (see Weininger 1980, p. 626), and he labels the person who fails in his attempt to commit suicide the perfect criminal “because he wants life in order to take revenge” (Weininger 1980, p. 624). He regards suicide to be cowardly, “even if it is the least of the cowardly acts” (Weininger 2001, p. 157), and he considers the possibility that it might depend on the shallowness or depth of an individual whether he or she considers suicide permissible in certain circumstances or not permissible in any (Weininger 1980, p. 602). “There is only psychotherapy,” he writes, and in proper psychotherapy, everyone is his own diagnostician and thus his own therapist: “Everyone must cure himself and be his own doctor. If that is what he wants, God will help him. If not, nobody will help him” (Weininger 1980, p. 602)"
He navigates a thorny trajectory between two modern philosophical paradigms: critiquing the reduction of the self to a rational soul (à la Schopenhauer and Nietzsche) and the objectification of the self through scientific inquiry (anti-naturalism). And, within this framework, Weininger critiques the sexual and social divisions of labor, as well as the sexual and spiritual relations between men and women.
Weininger's work can be coherently interpreted as a critique of alienation, employing metaphors of sex to explore philosophical themes. His preoccupations are essentially with emerging modernity and the crisis of traditional values. Furthermore, he refuses to reconcile opposing binaries, showing precisely the undulating dialectic of modernity. His lamentation of the Western tradition's decline is primarily concerned with fragmentation, with the erosion of a coherent, meaningful reality.
Something that moved me about Weininger is that, in his last few months on earth before his tragic suicide, he wrote these depressive, fantastical aphorisms. The introduction reveals a great duality in his character. I thought I'd share these quotes here. Especially for his detractors, considering there is a lot of complexity in this major work of his, which is often missed.
"They (the aphorisms) are more radically honest in their self-reflexivity: he identifies the hatred of women with hatred of one’s own sexuality insofar as one has not yet overcome it (see Weininger 1980, p. 626), and he labels the person who fails in his attempt to commit suicide the perfect criminal “because he wants life in order to take revenge” (Weininger 1980, p. 624). He regards suicide to be cowardly, “even if it is the least of the cowardly acts” (Weininger 2001, p. 157), and he considers the possibility that it might depend on the shallowness or depth of an individual whether he or she considers suicide permissible in certain circumstances or not permissible in any (Weininger 1980, p. 602). “There is only psychotherapy,” he writes, and in proper psychotherapy, everyone is his own diagnostician and thus his own therapist: “Everyone must cure himself and be his own doctor. If that is what he wants, God will help him. If not, nobody will help him” (Weininger 1980, p. 602)"
July 12, 2021
Interesting as a historical text. I was interested in reading this for his general ideas about sex as well as what propaganda looked like back in the days of Hitler. If the sources I read were correct only parts of this book were used for propaganda but I could see the whole thing being a sort of anti-woman/anti-jew piece. I think there is still merit in looking at some of his ideas about men and women but you really have to peel away the crap and dig through the mud to find them because the book is egregiously sexist. I will say though that many of his controversial ideas about masculinity and femininity were fun to read. Biggest issue is that the book is just so dry.
Read
April 30, 2012A strange mixture of interesting and thoughtful arguments mixed with social and socio-political viewpoints that have not withstood the test of time. Some parts of the book are very much worth reading, while others are so outrageously outdated that they invoke either anger or humor, depending on your own outlook.
May 30, 2018
"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." -L. Wittgenstein to G.E. Moore
February 14, 2022
Когда нет груза прожитых лет, для окружающих становишься наивным мечтателем. К числу таковых стоит отнести и Отто Вейнингера, невзирая на иногда придаваемое значение его трудам. Не стоит забывать, Отто покинул наш мир в возрасте двадцати трёх лет, не сумев справиться с пониманием должного вскоре последовать изменения в его мировоззрении. О чём же он смел мыслить? Часто работы Вейнингера объединяются в один том, например под обложкой основного труда, им оставленного. И так уж получается, что высказывая мысли в самом начале XX века, Отто отражал всё то, о чём станут размышлять люди в дальнейшем, придавая тому вес чрезмерной важности. Самое главное, заложенное Вейнингером, — это право каждого человека считать, будто ему с рождения свойственны черты обоих полов. Получается, Отто внёс новое в обсуждение вопроса о «табула раса».
(c) Trounin
(c) Trounin
Read
December 29, 2019This book has been on my to-read list for many years (since I read Duty of Genius). Lately I finally got reminded about it (due to an article describing scientific evidence of gender differences of intelligence), and got hold of a Chinese copy. Hence, I was able to scan through it quickly - my honest opinion is this book is good for thinking but not worth too much time for reading.
My first question is: why did Otto Weininger commit suicide at 23 years old? I mean, it might not be too strange for a young person to consider death at that sort of age, but most of the time other urges in life (luckily) would have stopped any real actions. I have a difficult time understanding the logic of his action.
On the book itself: it's actually on psychology, where sex is used as a "means" or a "ladder" (similarly Judaism) for Weininger to explain his considerations about a few different dimensions of human psychology. In other words, his work is on describing a set of personas, focusing on understanding what humanity means, why is a human different from all other animals, and so on.
There are a few chapters I can tolerate less than others, such as those on female hysteria - since I really find those sort of psychological theories ridiculous. However, it's easy to understand why Weininger included them - since any thinker has to think within the circumstances of his own age, bounded by existing theories, especially the popular ones, at his time.
Similarly, there are a lot of other considerations that I failed to follow due to my lack of context to understand why a person in his age , his time, and his circumstances, thought that way.
That said, I consider this book as a mental exercise of a very young person trying to build out his theory for life. It's not entirely a silly thing to do - I can vividly remember myself, at the age of around 20, rather eager to write some scattered thoughts not too unsimilar to this book - only I didn't even attempt to create a system on all these thoughts and publish them in a book (if I did, it'd be impossible to read with zero value for sure).
I think anybody who's truly interested in this book, would be better off being interested in the author himself, instead of judging the content on its own. If you're well acquainted with theories of Kant， Spinoza, and Hume (I don't), then it'd be even easier for you to follow along.
My first question is: why did Otto Weininger commit suicide at 23 years old? I mean, it might not be too strange for a young person to consider death at that sort of age, but most of the time other urges in life (luckily) would have stopped any real actions. I have a difficult time understanding the logic of his action.
On the book itself: it's actually on psychology, where sex is used as a "means" or a "ladder" (similarly Judaism) for Weininger to explain his considerations about a few different dimensions of human psychology. In other words, his work is on describing a set of personas, focusing on understanding what humanity means, why is a human different from all other animals, and so on.
There are a few chapters I can tolerate less than others, such as those on female hysteria - since I really find those sort of psychological theories ridiculous. However, it's easy to understand why Weininger included them - since any thinker has to think within the circumstances of his own age, bounded by existing theories, especially the popular ones, at his time.
Similarly, there are a lot of other considerations that I failed to follow due to my lack of context to understand why a person in his age , his time, and his circumstances, thought that way.
That said, I consider this book as a mental exercise of a very young person trying to build out his theory for life. It's not entirely a silly thing to do - I can vividly remember myself, at the age of around 20, rather eager to write some scattered thoughts not too unsimilar to this book - only I didn't even attempt to create a system on all these thoughts and publish them in a book (if I did, it'd be impossible to read with zero value for sure).
I think anybody who's truly interested in this book, would be better off being interested in the author himself, instead of judging the content on its own. If you're well acquainted with theories of Kant， Spinoza, and Hume (I don't), then it'd be even easier for you to follow along.
January 4, 2025
Terrible. So terrible, in fact, that everyone ought to read it.
November 4, 2023
Women aren't people. If a woman tells you she is, don't believe her, because women are empty vessels. They don't have souls. They aren't even conscious. If you meet a woman who seems a bit soulful or conscious, that's masculinity poking through. Only males are individuals. Females are husks. Animal or plant, but not human.
January 8, 2020
Prejudicial point of view bolstered by questionable reasonings and evidences. Yet it is still worthwhile to take a look at it considering its historical value and reflection of concurrent social situation.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 64 reviews