>"Our age is not only the most Jewish, but also the most effeminate of all ages; an age in which art only provides a sudarium for its moods and which has derived the artistic urge in humans from the games played by animals; an age of the most credulous anarchism, an age without any appreciation of the state and law, an age of species ethic, an age of the shallowest of all imaginable interpretations of history (historical materialism), an age of capitalism and marxism, an age for which history, life, science, everything, has become nothing but economics and technology; an age that has declared genius to be a form of madness, but which no longer has one great artist or one great philosopher, an age that is most devoid of originality, but which chases most frantically after originality; an age that has replaced the idea of virginity with the cult of the demivierge. This age also has the distinction of being the first to have not only affirmed and worshiped sexual intercourse, but to have practically made it a duty, not as a way of achieving oblivion, as the Romans or Greeks did in their bacchanals, but in order to and itself and to give its own dreariness a meaning."
"Our age is not only the most Jewish...
Incel
>"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."
>In the same letter to Moore, Wittgenstein added that if one were to add a negation sign before the whole of Sex and Character, one would have expressed an important truth; that is, he did not disagree with Weininger point by point but as a whole.
>"Dear Moore,
Thanks for your letter. I can quite immagine that you don’t admire Weininger very
much, what with that beastly translation and the fact that W. must feel very foreign to
you. It is true that he is fantastic but he is great and fantastic. 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."
Too esoteric for you, brainlet?
literally what the fuck did he mean by that
Let's talk about the fact Weininger describes Modernity to a T.
>projecting this hard
You would all agree if the Jewish part was taken out...To clarify:
>"The Jewish race has been chosen by me as a subject of discussion, because, as will be shown, it presents the gravest and most formidable difficulties for my views. I must, however, make clear what I mean by Judaism; I mean neither a race nor a people nor a recognised creed. I think of it as a tendency of the mind, as a psychological constitution which is a possibility for all mankind, but which has become actual in the most conspicuous fashion only amongst the Jews."
I feel like I agree with him, but I can't say why. There's something fundamentally wrong about his approach, but it's so wrong that it kind of falls in line with that thing that Neils Bohr said: "The opposite of a great truth is another great truth."
Like it's so monumentally wrong that perhaps it's a kind of mirror of reality, of some significant truths about reality.
Weininer seems to be saying that the fundamental distinction between men and women is a spiritual one rather than a physical one.Wittgenstein says, in that sense he inverted the problem: "womanly" qualities are claimed to be always inferior to "masculine" qualities by their very essence, when in fact the opposite is true. The male/female dichotomy is a purely physical bugaboo that resolves itself in the gender neutrality of logic.
>Our age is not only the least Jewish, but also the least feminine of all ages; an age in which art only provides fuel for its logic and which has separated the artistic urge in humans from the reality experienced by all life; an age of the most cynic conservatism, an age that can only appreciate the state and law, an age of metaphysical ethic; an age of the most general of imaginable interpretations of history (historical subjectivism), an age of liberty and culture, an age for which history, life, science, everything has become nothing but destiny and power; an age that has declared idiocy a form of sanity, but which no longer has one honest idiot or one uneducated infant, an age that is most devoid of truth, but which chases frantically after facts; an age that has replaced the idea of virility with the cult of the conqueror. This age also has the distinction of being the latest to have not only repressed and demonized sexual intecourse, but to have practically made it a right, as a way of achieving immortality, as the Romans and Greeks did in their brothels, and in order to and itself and to make its own enjoyment a triviality.
>implying this isn't reality as it has always been underneath ideals and fiction
Wonderful that he wrote this at one of the most culturally fecund times in Central European history, or even human history.
How many times and places have been as intellectually and artistically vibrant as fin de siecle vienna? I'd say it's on the level of classical Athens or renaissance Florence.
incredible
Thanks for sharing this. I've been reading a lot of Rene Guenon regarding parrenial philosophy/metaphysics/transcendent principles and it sounds like Weininger is along the same lines. I will have to add him to my reading list.
Are you a New Yorker reader or something? Half the culture of fin de siecle and interwar Germany, Vienna especially, was obsessed with the stench of death pervading Western civilization. They all knew it. Wittgenstein was reading Weininger and Spengler, Heidegger was teaching Spengler in his classes on the death of Western metaphysics, Husserl was writing in periodicals about the need to revivify the dying West, Hesse was having schizophrenic breakdowns over the sputtering out of Spirit, Mann was writing about the need for escape to a mystical source from a world rotten with decay and senility, Valery in '38 said the moral value of humanity had collectively dropped, Freud was writing about the death knell of the West, every other German social theorist was trying to put as much writing on the wall as possible so people would listen.
I think you mean the 19th century. The first half of the 20th century was Germany's Philip II, or reinstatement of the ducal Medici.
Yes, History is illusory even if it's real in a spatiotemporal sense.
Big if true
This is pure garbage.
This harken ing to some unnamed previous era where things were better was going on in the period when they wanted to harken back to. This sentiment is given life in Nietzsche's Future of educational institutions, with the old philosopher declaring the current time period to be the worst ever, with genius and art being snuffed out etc.
His thinking is a boring product of the conservatism which was prevailing in Germany, not some stroke of genius.
Wien artists at the time were bitching their city that was built on the back of Romanian, Hungarian, Czech, Croatian, Slovakian or whatever serf-like ethnicity was losing its importance. Fuck them.
This.
>This age also has the distinction of being the first to have not only affirmed and worshiped sexual intercourse ... to give its own dreariness a meaning.
I'm starting to fall into this kind of thinking. Every sexual experience I've had has been so impersonal that I can't help but feel that except in the context of a deep loving relationship the act is completely worthless. It's utterly surreal to have someone right on top of you and yet feel a million miles away.
Is this a legitimate point of view, or is it entirely a consequence of the fact that I have an incoherent sexuality?
It's a consequence of strictly fucking escorts and hookers. Or yes, it's your fault for being a weirdo
Source?
My alternate virgin diary desu
I hope I'm not a brainlet for thinking this is largely applicable even today. Historical materialism has given way to an even simpler historical narrative, a moralist one that is almost solely based on the reality of World War 2.
Political and social problems are framed almost exlusively in economic terms from my experience (although this has recently shifted a little bit) and it's fairly obvious that our age is the most hypersexual one ever.
Often his method is coherent and consistent but the premises very questionable. But he describes his method quite thorougly too, yet there always seems to be "something wrong with it". It's really a great example of how dangerous good writing can be.
If you showed somebody only the parts about trans- and homosexuality, even modern readers might find it progressive and not at all bitter or vile.
Dangerous in what way? I hope you're not getting at something like "distorting the truth by way of rhetoric".
Yes you are. People were always materialistic and they had sex in the past a lot too, it was just taboo to speak of it, even though they did. You're view is skewered by your own distorted perspective.
>I'm only in agreement with Weininger by proxy, I swear!
You cowards. Just admit it, his strokes are broad but precise
Your view* thanks autocorrect fag
Why did you slip in that word "alternate"?
Because I keep a diary as a virgin and one as a non-virgin, d'uh
>People were always materialistic and they had sex in the past a lot too, it was just taboo to speak of it, even though they did.
This doesn't convince me. How far back are we putting "the past"? I think you can very easily make the argument that prior to and outside of urban environments what you describe wasn't true at all. It couldn't have been, as it would have been a mortal danger to any community to be excessively materialistic and sexually devious.
I'm not denying these impulses are fundamentally human, but simply claiming that "not speaking of it" is no different seems wrong. Impulses being reigned in and not being reigned in seems like a clearly different set of values to me. You couldn't compare pre-1933 to today in antisemitism just because there's a "taboo to speak of it". A taboo seems like a clear expression of a social rule
>You're view is skewered by your own distorted perspective.
Woah
I suppose the non-virgin one is fiction?
This being said, I disagree with Weiningers's view on women in general
Poor choice of word from me. It was maybe dangerous for Weiniger himself as in falling in love with his flawed (but at times brilliant) logic.
Why do you have to be so mean?
I'll let you guess.
What I meant that this weird quirk of not relating to people is skewering your perspective and not the way around.
Well, I see what you mean. For me it's far more the case that I'm guilty of all these things and I see myself as (sadly) embodying many of the negative things about our time.
That was a very compassionate response, thank you
You are suffering from a strange case of self-hate mixed with a righteousness that really has no place in a world like this. I get it, I do. You won't get anywhere with a hard-on for being virtuous tho, you won't change anything and it will only cause you suffering. Also, look at what kind of people actually felt like this: losers, outcasts, miserable men with a raging hatred against the world and its structure. Do you really want to be Nietzsche?
this ugly ass, cross eyed jew is gonna tell us about the faults of the modern era?
give me a fucking break
What I mean is: do you want to be a martyr for a cause whose flag only you carry and no one cares about? You might if you want to hold true to your principles. But a principle is a prison just like anything else: it binds you and it limits you and it marks you for all around you to see. Fuck it. Or not.
I'd rather burn in the flames of Virtue than live a life of worldly mediocrity.
I don't have a great answer to this, except that you haven't convinced me that there's a life where I simply ignore all these things about the world and me in relation to it that I have observed (or not observed). Wanting to be Nietzsche himself is one thing (I don't think anyone would, considering his illness and early descent into madness), but his position does seem enviable. He did change the world and he bore his mark proudly (to stay with your metaphor) and sat in his prison like it was a palace. If I was capable of that, I would surely choose to do it.
Well then, carry the cross brother. No one will help you. People won't even take the time to spit on you and will stay away like the plague. You will die and the shadow of forget will cover you and no one will ever care. You will be ignored. Don't be spiteful tho, you don't get too. Be proud and don't be arrogant. And find a woman. A woman makes you focus and gives you that balance we all need. A good woman then. Dog bless.
I ain't trying to convince you. You seem an honest and disciplined man. I'm just telling you I was there long ago and called it quits because I don't care about a great many things enough to be a saint. You will carry this weight if you want to. Or not. Sooner or later something will break you, either money or women. We are not meant to fight for a cause for long, especially one as elegant as the one you presume to follow. Just be happy with who or what you are and don't be a cunt. Peace of mind is more important that principle or pleasure both.
Following Christ is choosing my own destruction. Such is life.
>Dog bless.
pic related
I'll try to take it to heart
It's also selfish and you have to admit it, to yourself and to The Big Guy in the sky. You want to be the saint, so it's selfish and altruistic. Love yourself and love people and you'll be a happy man.
Soren, is that you?
>so its selfish and altruistic
That doesn't make any sense man. And I'm not about to become an anchorite, I just want to live as selfless a life as possible, which involves destroying the evil inside.
Ya what a do
Not that user but there's a kernel of truth to this.
But yeah you do have a point. I do have that Messianic pride quite a lot. My concern for others is genuine, but at the same time I have a desperate need to be an important respected person. Long story short I'm a cliche
Wittgenstein is not a deconstructionist. Read more, English major.
Well said
makes sense - if you think on the sterotypes on some races -
he is against stereotypical/archetypical jew
he denounces the ills that are associated with this stereotype and is pissed of by their acceptance and prevalence in his current society that is what he calls "jewishness" of his current society.