Engages in a thorough and honest investigation of the psychology of women

>goes right back to his chosen narrative

Wew.

Proof Veeky Forums is silted with insecure roasties

For instance, if I accuse a woman posing in a photograph, in a manner sexually provocative, though ridiculous in any other circumstances, of vanity, or because she takes photographs of herself daily, changing the shape of her face or figure with makeup and color filters, whilst meanwhile repeating to her viewers that it is important to "be yourself" and "show the world who you really are", I say she is hypocritical and vain, I bring immediate hostility upon myself, and suddenly my physical appearance, or sexual value, or intentions, or intelligence are viciously ridiculed and trivialized, and I am immediately banished or banned from the group, as if my only goal with my remark was to bully or raise my own sexual value up, for make the slightest judgment upon a woman or calling into question her virtue.

>any analysis
Not any, we're talking about Weininger in particular.
>attempt shield them from any blame
There was nothing shielding or defending women in either of two posts you replied to. No need to straw man.
>insulting the supposed inferior sexual prowess of the man
It's not insulting - it's a fact that Weininger died a virgin at the age of 23. He never had any serious or indeed flimsy relationships with the opposite sex. His input on topic is no more valuable than Justin Bieber's thoughts on quantum topology.

Translation:
>I called someone a worthless cockhole of a roastie for taking a selfie and now the cruel unjust plebs don't like me anymore

You still have yet to address a single argument and continue to resort to strawmen.

What arguments? Your imaginary anecdote?

seething

...

>implying the way people behave doesn't affect society

most of women I've met are very smart and beutiful people with whom it is actually an enjoyment to talk
its so sad to see them go down the cliff in this filthy modernist age serving the capitalist elite and prostrating themselves in front of men like a piece of meat instead of leading a good life they deserve

i wish they could be saved like salinger said in his childrens book

Veeky Forums - alt-right brainlets vs nu-male brainlets and sore roasties

You're the brainlet for engaging in this ridiculous false dichotomy

>he never had any serious relationships with the opposite sex

All the more he should be able to make judgments on the character of woman without bias. He wasn't trying to speak from the perspective of an allured man, he was an intellectual (man) who attempted to make a judgment on the intellectual character of women/Woman. Just as he did not need to enter into a sexual relationship with Beethoven or Spinoza to judge the character of these men.

If you are saying that a man will make a different judgment upon women after he enters into a relationship with one, you are only giving credence to the notion that man's love for women blinds him to her faults and flaws.

>had little to no contact with the main subject of his ramblings
>hurr unbiased durr intellectual
It's not about feelings, it's about having empirical experience with the object of your research first hand. It is important in any field and is pretty much of paramount importance in psychology. Your argument is equivalent to saying the proverbial pissbottle basement dwellers are an authority on societal interaction or human psyche, because they're "unbiased".

This. Go to /r9k/ if you want the truth about women. They know because they haven't been lured and they're unbiased

>muuhhhhhhh /r9k/

You were the first person to mention it

Seething

>MUHHHHH EMPIRICISM

>it's about having empirical experience with the object of your research first hand. It is important in any field.
Explain how historians can assemble accurate naratives from purely secondary sources as just one example.
It is indeed much more difficult to describe a phenomenon with absolutely no direct impression of it but to dismiss somebody's propositions with regard to the author's person but none to his substance is fallacious.

He clearly demonstrates that he has extensive and detailed experience of women as well as their portrayals in works of art, philosophy and history throughout the ages.

Anyone who reads his comments on the public and private behavior of women may draw from their own experiences and shall see that his conclusions are valid and on display for all to see.

Moreover, his conclusions about women are not all "sexual", but many are merely judgments on the intellect (or lack thereof), whose influence (or lack thereof) permeates and informs all behaviors in public and in private. It is ridiculous to say that conclusions cannot be drawn without entering a sexual relationship with the object of analysis--if this was necessary then one would have to intercourse with anything that they study. Observation is all that is necessary.

Reddit, please go away.

>empirical experience
>translated: my anecdotes mean shit
>he's had little experience with the case in point therefore he's wrong although I have not read his works to judge them
>translated: ad hominem

Tell me what you actually know about his philosophy before you "LOL BTFO" it with one sentence.

>historians can assemble accurate naratives
They can't in the majority of cases. Our historical knowledge is never unbiased and always evolving.
>to dismiss somebody's propositions with regard to the author's person but none to his substance is fallacious
Sure, in realms of pure logic. In real world it's a basic sensibility to make rational probabilistic presumptions.
>extensive and detailed experience of women
He hasn't been in a personal relationship with a single woman, that already excludes all pretense at "extensive and detailed experience".
>It is ridiculous to say that conclusions cannot be drawn without entering a sexual relationship with the object of analysis
The argument was about relationships at all, not necessarily sexual in nature, stop with the retarded strawmanning.
>Observation is all that is necessary.
Yes, and he has failed to observe his study object firsthand.

>He's not had experience with women why would I take his word on good authority about women
>I've not experienced his works please take me on good authority about their vailidity

In the real world you could stop being such a cocksucking faggot pseud and actually read him, then opine.

>he hasn't been in a personal relationship with a single woman

You mean like how you haven't read Weininger even though you are making a judgment about him?

>he has failed to observe his study object firsthand

Do you mean to say he never saw or heard of a woman?

Yeah, nothing insecure at all about a bunch of dudes bristling at the suggestion that women may not be inherently inferior

You don't have to repost your stupidity twice, user. I never appealed to my authority on his works. Try the sub-80 IQ board, they're probably more your speed with the edgy memetexting.
Why? I don't need to taste the masses coming out of dog's anus to opine on them.
>You mean like how you haven't read Weininger even though you are making a judgment about him?
No. Deducing the broad scope of topical thoughts of a single man on the basis of his singular biography is far from making radical claims about the intrinsic composition of half the humanity's psyche' while being a proto-frogposter.
>Do you mean to say he never saw or heard of a woman?
Are you pretending to be retarded at this point? Seeing a bunch of vegetables doesn't make you a horticultural expert.

You're thinking of a chauvinist, a brute. Weininger was clearly not a chauvinist, otherwise he would have argued that women should be subservient to men, that they should be treated differently because they are women. He argued the opposite, because his whole system of morality would have fallen to pieces if he didn't. Man's need to subjugate and degrade women comes from his being a slave to his own sexuality in relation to them; once he is freed from his own sexuality, he is able to treat all women as ends in themselves.

>he said something Veeky Forums summarized in 1 meme image
Great thinker.

>You're thinking of a chauvinist, a brute. Weininger was clearly not a chauvinist
>The male aspect is active, productive, conscious and moral/logical, while the female aspect is passive, unproductive, unconscious and amoral/alogical. Weininger argues that emancipation should be reserved for the "masculine woman", e.g. some lesbians, and that the female life is consumed with the sexual function: both with the act, as a prostitute, and the product, as a mother.
>analyzes the archetypical Jew as feminine, and thus profoundly irreligious, without true individuality (soul), and without a sense of good and evil
Now fuck off to your frog lair, faggot.

What do you even think Weininger was arguing about? He wasn't making comments on how to seduce women, or how to properly have intercourse with them. He wasn't talking about how it feels to have a woman be attracted to you, or how it feels to be in love with a person.

You seem to be entirely missing the point. We can observe animals and draw conclusions regarding their psyche, their mating patterns, their intellgience, and so forth, without being in a "personal relationship" with one of those animals, no? Why is not the same true of women?

He judged Woman just as he judged Man, and in the same way, and with the same power of observation and reason. His chastity has ***nothing to do with it***. Just as my chastity has nothing to do with my conclusions regarding horticulture.

>Weininger argues that emancipation should be reserved for the "masculine woman", e.g. some lesbians

You will not find this argument in any of Weininger's writings.

As for the first sentence, this is in regards to the archetypal man and woman, which is not to say that no woman is completely unproductive or amoral.

Also, regarding his argument about Jews, this too is an archetypal argument, which obviously does not imply that Jews do not have souls.

>how are humans different from animals?
Okay, either this is some elaborate (you) collecting or you are irredeemably mentally challenged.

Weininger? More like my nigger

You're the one comparing analysis of women to the practice of horticulture.

>fags saging a good thread like this
bump

You can observe animal behavior and draw conclusions (but not about their psyche, which is not directly observable). Behavioral ecology and other sciences do just that. There has been a vast amount of research conducted in the ~100 years since Weininger wrote this and his ideas are incredibly outdated, not because "it isn't PC," but because it's not supported by modern science.

If you want conclusions about women, men, and the nature of gender based on "observations and reason" you're best served looking at modern scholarship. As a starting point, check out works by Sarah Hrdy and the (poorly named) anthology "Evolution's Empress: Darwinian Perspectives on the Nature of Women" if you're actually interested in the subject and not just looking to reinforce your preexisting beliefs.

Arguing that women are morally and intellectually inferior to men is chauvinistic

>You will not find this argument in any of Weininger's writings.
>The vast majority of women have never paid special attention to art or to science,
and regard such occupations merely as higher branches of manual labour, or if they
profess a certain devotion to such subjects, it is chiefly as a mode of attracting a
particular person or group of persons of the opposite sex. Apart from these, a close
investigation shows that women really interested in intellectual matters are sexually
intermediate forms.
>If it be the case that the desire for freedom and equality with man occurs only in
masculine women, the inductive conclusion follows that the female principle is not
conscious of a necessity for emancipation; and the argument becomes stronger if we
remember that it is based on an examination of the accounts of individual cases and
not on psychical investigation of an “abstract woman.”
>It is most important to have done with the senseless cry for “full equality,” for even
the malest woman is scarcely more than 50 per cent. male, and it is only to that male
part of her that she owes her special capacity or whatever importance she may
eventually gain.
I don't know if you're a larper that hasn't read him or a plain retard, but Weininger is undoubtful 100% autistic frogman. I'm not fond of modern feminism myself, but it would be pure fucking cretinism to call the work that is basically "everyone is a mix of masculine and feminine, where masculine is everything good and virtuous, and feminine is some other stuff. oh btw I don't mean it like esteemable housewifes are subhuman trash or anything haha :^)" anything less than a lengthy /r9k/ post. The only thing that may distinguish him from a robot is that he actually realized that this hatred is nothing but inability to cope with own sexuality before offing himself. And even that was in his diary and not in Sex and Character that is basically shitty reeeing only somewhat known due to him becoming an hero at 20-something.

>Arguing that women are morally and intellectually inferior to men is chauvinistic

Only if its a means to an end (to puff oneself up, for instance, or to be sexually imposing), but if it is purely intellectual how can it be chauvinistic? On the contrary, it is evidence of intellectual integrity.

Why is it that effeminate men and homosexuals exhibit behavior similar to women? Why is it that women are so outwardly agreeable, but are often viciously critical or judgmental in private? Why is it that women are attracted to masculine behavior (not intellectually, but sexually) and what does this say about what kind of **people** women are? What kind of **person** would be attracted to a man (as opposed to a woman)? Why is it that no woman has ever produced anything which so deeply speaks to the soul of man as the works of Dante, Beethoven, Plato, etc.?

You, my friend, are the one who sounds like you have never been around women, or thought about them critically. Once you understand Weininger, the evidence for his conclusions will appear suddenly before you, clear as day if you find yourself around **any** woman.

Jesus, I made this post without referring to /r9k/ or "frogposting" or whatever else you're referencing. I don't have any Pepe's on my computer nor do I visit any other board than this one and especially not one's with animated child pornography, pornography, and lamentations about not being accepted by women.

You're the one so well versed in /r9k/ lingo that you're using it to make arguments against another person--maybe you should rethink your life.

>inability to cope with own sexuality before offing himself

He didn't get a teenage girl pregnant, he didn't lead some girl on and then break her heart and devastate her family like Goethe, he didn't involve himself in dangerous affairs, he didn't go to parties and drink and fuck irresponsibility, and because of this there must have been something wrong with him? He must have been a misogynist because he didn't engage in degrading sexual intercourse with them? He actually attempted to treat them as persons who he might judge according to the same standards as he judges his greatest role models? What a monster!!!

because our unsustainable economic paradigm depends on the advancement of women. This causes an unsustainable set of gender relations because the advancement of women comes at the expense of most men and the system it creates requires those same men to defend it.

They're just desperate to defend the crumbling status quo.

>so well versed in /r9k/ lingo that you're using it to make arguments
These are characteristic descriptions, not arguments. The argument is nice big quotes from Sex and Character that you claimed didn't exist. Unsurprisingly, you go on to ignore them and try to divultge attention instead.
>autism about sex
There's no need to privy us with your fears and rationalizations about sex. It's his words from his diary, you metally ill incel.
>Der Haß gegen die Frau ist nichts anderes als der Haß gegen die eigene, noch nicht überwundene Sexualität

I'd think more straight white males would object that they were fucking jew-male hybrids known as "women", but apparently they're okay with that. It's why they're not invited to my nazi party meetings, filthy homo jew fuckers with no shame who won't speak against this attack on Aryan women.

What is inherently wrong with celibacy? Monks, artists, and intellectuals have been practicing it for generations--nuns too.

Moreover, why do treat it like an insult? Is not lustful behavior more damaging to human affairs and to women in general? When did a monk ever hurt a woman by using her as a means to his own pleasure and then denying her self-hood by revealing that this lust was what drew him to her in the first place?

Why do men and women protect women who are sexualizing themselves from criticism, and then claim that it is the critical men who are misogynistic?

>Der Haß gegen die Frau ist nichts anderes als der Haß gegen die eigene, noch nicht überwundene Sexualität

In this quote he is not saying that he hates women, he's saying it is man's descent into lustful behavior which causes him to hate women (because he hates himself). Therefore, if he has overcome his sexuality, i.e. become "incel" as you like to call it, he does not hate women.

"Chauvinism: an attitude that the members of your own sex are always better than those of the opposite sex"

I agree that arguing for what you believe to be "the truth" is not morally wrong. However, he is arguing that women are morally and intellectually less capable than men (which is factually wrong per modern science), and that women are therefore "inferior" to men (which is a value judgement that women are inherently worse than men i.e. chauvinism).

>Why is it that effeminate men and homosexuals exhibit behavior similar to women?
Could you be experiencing observer bias and just not be noticing masculine gay men? Is this a cross cultural trend? Does homosexual behavior in chimps, bonobos, and other primates (and yes, to differing degrees they all exhibit homosexual behavior) correlate with traits more often associated with the opposite sex in these species? Could homosexuality be related to fetal hormone levels and be a very mild form of intersex? Idk, but these are the sort of questions you need to be asking.

>Why is it that women are so outwardly agreeable, but are often viciously critical or judgmental in private?
Because direct aggression is more likely to result in direct retaliation. Women are physically weaker than men so this is not a good strategy. Intrasexual aggression is exhibited at similar levels in both women and men, but the degree to which direct vs indirect aggression is favored varies with the environment. See the sources I recommended.

>Why is it that women are attracted to masculine behavior (not intellectually, but sexually) and what does this say about what kind of **people** women are?
What behavior specifically? Can you prove women are attracted to it? How? Don't say genital arousal, which likely evolved to be responsive to the presence of any sort of sexual behavior as a way to avoid injuries from rape. How does this relate to the fact that testosterone levels are a balancing act between fertility and negative health outcomes?

>What kind of **person** would be attracted to a man (as opposed to a woman)?
Is there a difference in the type of person who would be attracted to a man as opposed to a woman? The burden of proof is on you to show what the specific differences are, the magnitude of these differences, and in what contexts they occur if they're not universal. Are you attaching a moral judgement to these (hypothetical) differences? Why?

>Why is it that no woman has ever produced anything which so deeply speaks to the soul of man as the works of Dante, Beethoven, Plato, etc.?
Can't blame women for your shit taste.

Seriously, you don't need to write out answers, just go do some reading. The sources I recommended actually talk about some of this stuff and it's not just standard "strong womyn" fare. Make the narrative fit the evidence and not vice versa, otherwise you're no better than the facebook feminism crowd

I agree with some of what he says. However, maybe I just don't get it, but why does he use 'jew' and 'jewishness' as synonyms for weakness/femininity? How can that be interpreted as anything but anti-Semitic?

>conclusions about women aren't perfectly aligned with idealistic daydreams
>dis mans b virjun

>>conclusions about women aren't perfectly aligned with idealistic daydreams
>they must be jews
i prefer the lizards variation but whatever floats your starship

Great, where's your argument?

You have to fuck women to understand them?

>What is inherently wrong with celibacy?
A fuckton both physiologically and psychologically. But this isn't part of original discussion and you're not that interesting of a retard to spend time debating or educating even more.
>Is not lustful behavior more damaging
The logical complement of celibacy is not lustfulness, but a presence of any sexual life at all. For the last time take your retarded convoluted strawmen and shove them up your rectum.
>In this quote
Wow, thanks for explain what *I* am quoting to you, cretin. As already stated in the original post Sex and Character is what shows his hatred towards women in full power. This is just him acknowledging he couldn't cope.

>A fuckton
According to your arbitrary bouregois standards.
You still haven't shown that he hated women, only that you hate him.

Judging from this post I am fairly certain I am conversing with a woman. Am I wrong? If you lie you are engaging in deception which is dishonest.

If not you are just like an old friend of mine who became a snarky feminist because he could not garner the attention from women that he want, so the next best thing for him was to become one so he would appear agreeable to them.

As for all the questions you ask me... These are addressed in Weininger's work, which you haven't read.

>Because direct aggression is more likely to result in direct retaliation. Women are physically weaker than men so this is not a good strategy.

Was it not you that said it was unfair to compare women to animals, and now you are merely assessing their behavior as a product of survival strategy? You are merely explaining to me why woman as an animal, as a phenotype behaves the way she does in the survival setting, and attempting to justify women's behavior in this respect, but survival is not the standard for any system of ethics and is therefore extraneous to our purpose, which is to attempt to compare individuals as well as the archetypal man and woman in regards to *moral and logical integrity* which lies in a realm above the mere evolutionary tendencies of animals.

>Can't blame women for your shit taste.
This is really what makes me think you're either a woman or a snarky, effeminate man who reads Vox.com.

You are most certainly a woman. I pray for you. It may do you good to read a little less modern science and a little more Dante, but I confess I have no answer as to how to actually help women grow intellectually and morally. Weininger seemed to frame the problem better than anyone but even he was fairly hopeless in regards to your sex.

Why do you fags try to write in an outdated "intellectual" tone? It comes off as really affected and silly.

Another woman. Shit how many women are on this board ffs.

>no I'm not a frogtard
>I don't even know what r9k is
>gets told and has no argument
>u a dumb woman lul BTFO xD

One sharp observation!

>gets told

This kind of speaking is starting to bring me back to when I had a facebook and women would gang up on some guy who said something like "I'm a feminist and I support feminism but maybe they're wrong on this little point here?"

Also,
>accuses me of being "frogtard"
>frogposts

Any study of pre-history (not as in stoneage, literally just pre-written/recorded history) demonstrates that all cultures eventually manifest from being matriarchal to patriarchal as men take on the role of exploring and assimilating the unknown into the known - this is the basic foundation of culture or cultural knowledge (the things your group knows and no longer has to apply a dominant, novel valence to, and simply exists as more-or-less understood in its categorical novelty [though it can be misunderstood in a different categorical application which when learned is also considered as further development of culture]) which is passed on from along patriarchal lineage such as in the form of "rites of initiation" (to adolescence, and adulthood) for young males (being exposed and brought into the "secrets" of your tribe or group's knowledge). Now what is up for debate is why it was men who undertook this role, but it is not so much up for debate that they were responsible for these particular "creations" or that cultures naturally become patriarchally inspired and oriented over time as they developed in breadth and complexity. But (to the women) don't get pissed at men for wanting to explore the world, to explore things, if that is their prerogative, because it's the reason why we got here (wherever "here" is) in the first place. If you want to be culture creators, ladies, then go out and explore something new. (Or do you have a biological imperative that deters you from exposing yourself to the unknown, which manifests itself as have the intrinsical potential for "danger")?

thats some sentence, good lord.

Thank you for keeping up my work OP but unfortunately, it will never work.

The plebs that make up this board are made up of multiple classes of brainlets:

1. Actual women that get instantly offended when skimming his wiki
2. Actual jews that get instantly offended when skimming his wiki
3. Reddit normies that dismiss him because of suicide
4. Pseuds that maybe read one chapter and gave up, too esoteric for them, the kind of people to read Burke and TS Eliot but shitpost all they can about Spengler and Weininger
5. Capitalists
6. Communists

Extreme ironing.

Number 3.

Are weiningers observations useful in taking a fresh look at The Patriarchy in 2017? Seems to me feminists should gobble his work right up.

The conclusion that I have come to is this: women are unable to grasp the immaterial. If you look at the few female philosophers or spiritualists, say Anne Conway or Blavatsky, at the core of their worldview is something **physical**.

A woman I worked with once remarked, "If I can't see it, it doesn't exist." Now, she was no philosopher but even one like Blavatsky implies essentially the same thing. Her spirituality, which makes a mockery of that term, led her to attribute importance to things like levitation, and "ancient cities" and so forth, things which in themselves are meaningless, but which move the minds of women who need something tangible to give them value--something which Weininger noted.

In other words, their sense of value does not come from within themselves, as something intrinsic that must be unraveled through intense introspection and personal transformation, but from things outside themselves, or things which they may "get" to experience, as though these experiences (for instance, levitation, or "astral traveling") themselves could bestow meaning onto our lives.

The wisest sages of Christianity or Eastern spirituality always, always seek God in the plainest things, in the mundane, in the everyday, (and this is why they never sound preachy, unlike a Manly Hall or a Steiner) the idea of which is completely foreign to someone like Blavatsky, in whom there is nothing to unravel. She views herself as already complete (just like every woman) and thus is only looking for the thing to be excited about, the thing to bring meaning to her life **according to the person she is now**. She does not think of **becoming** something different and thus becoming a thing with an entirely new set of valuations. Weininger would say, a woman cannot undergo self-transformation because she has no self to transform. The deepest truths of astrology, divination, Atlantis, and so forth are accessible to her, but not deliverance.

Don't take the shit taste comment so seriously, I see that posted all the time here and what I really meant is that taste is subjective so you can't say "it's a fact" that women don't make moving art.

My arguments don't depend on whether I'm a woman or Chad Thundercock himself, if you have a good point to make you can do it without an ad hominem attack.

I haven't read his book because there's been a hundred years worth of observations and analysis that make it reasonable to conclude the ideas in it aren't true. It sounds like a rehash of views that were dominant at the time, which have since been analyzed and thoroughly debunked. It's useful as a historical document, not as a source of factual information about the topic at hand. I'm not going to read the book because it's reasonable for me to assume that it's full of fairly typical claims based on false knowledge.

I never said that women aren't animals - all humans are animals and it makes sense to analyze human behavior with our evolutionary history in mind. Men are animals too, just as much as women. It's an oversimplification to say humans are "just animals," but that topic is too complicated to get into right now. Evolution and ethics are separate, and just because something is "evolved" doesn't make it ethical (for example, infanticide is an adaptive response in certain contexts). If the point is to make moral evaluations of an archetypical woman and man, you need data to support that those archetypes apply across cultures and throughout human history. You need data that women and men behave as you say they do, and not just rely on your slice of life observations of society. If there are exceptions, you need to account for them. You can't make valid ethical claims based on false premeses. If you want to argue that women are inferior based on the best current information your claims will carry a lot more weight than Weindinger's.

Ultimately, I'm calling out your methods and reasoning, not any value judgements (though we obviously disagree). Again, if you're going into this looking for data to fit a conclusion you're handicapping yourself. This is a natural inclination for everyone, so it takes conscious effort to avoid making this mistake, and it's impossible for anyone to avoid 100% of the time. Still, try to lose the chip on your shoulder and go research with the intent to learn more about the world rather than to prove yourself right. If you're relying on faulty info you can't expect people to take what you say seriously.

You can find certain critiques by feminist "scholars". I have attempted to read some of them. They are typically written from a Marxist, structuralist point of view, i.e., Weininger's bourgeoisie environment inspired his views--a notion which is fairly absurd, considering the self-awareness he displayed in exactly this respect, as well as the sources from which he drew inspiration, which spanned across time, all the way back to the Greeks and early Indo-Europeans.

Lol, I just posted the comment above but see for proof.

>I haven't read his book
>Other people have read it
>They say he was just full of bigoted, bourgeoisie opinions
>Modern science says its not true [and modern science must be right because the people living now are smarter than the people living earlier, of course]
>It's useful as a historical document
t. a Marxist
>It's reasonable for me to assume that it's full of fairly typical claims based on false knowledge
t. a woman who went to a **modern** university and thinks she can just say whatever the fuck she wants because she went to a big, smart school with lots of Jewish professors who told that she was smart and didn't need to read things and think for herself because she can just trust that modern science is going to take care of her

>You need data
Well, I would provide examples from Sex and Character but we've already established that it's not worth reading.

>Don't take the shit taste comment so seriously, I see that posted all the time here

This is a typical retraction from a woman. She feels she may have compromised her reputation with something she said and then attempts to shift the responsibility for it to something or someone else: "I see it posted here [by other people]", "lol just don't take it so seriously".

Tertullian was trying earnestly help women progress spiritually in the second century, but he has had no such luck, because women keep rationalizing away any criticism:

>I don't need to read the book because other people said it wasn't true

>provide some examples
>HAHA T WOMYN T MARKSIST HAHA TYPICAL WOMAN BTFO
So... this is the power of incels.

your posts are the best example stupid

>HAHA NO U
Kek. Are you going to provide some examples of Weiningers observations or are you here just to shitpost and call everyone who disagrees with you names?

Another user has already decided that Weininger's views are false, and that modern science has BTFO'd them. So what's there to discuss?

"It is no longer the aristocrat who controls the money. The decision rests with the big capitalist, and he opts for science." - Weininger

"Just as historical materialism destroyed the entire value of humanity's past by attributing no further meaning to history than the struggle for forage and foraging places, so did the conception of science as comfort degrade the human thirst for knowledge to something more monstrous than it had ever been before in history." - Weininger

Well, I'm not that user and open-minded, so please oblige.

>modern science must be right because the people living now are smarter than the people living earlier
No, modern science is probably more right because it's the result of centuries of intellectual progress. Some ideas are simply wrong. Do you see people arguing in favor of Aristotle's physics?

>REEE utilatarianism
>REEE nobody wants my fee-fee based "knowledge pursuit" anymore

"Knowledge for the sake of value is to knowledge for the sake of power, as love is to coitus, as restoring life is to death. The thirst for knowledge is thus, thirdly, will to value; knowledge, for this pure impulse, is willed value, a guarded jewel."

Hence the need for the purification of one's relationship with knowledge, that it becomes a search for value itself, not value insofar as it is abused as a means to a worldly end. The purest form of knowledge-seeking is the love of wisdom, Sophia, and anything else is a rape of knowledge, a desecration of the holy temple of knowledge. Hence, the purification of one's pursuit of knowledge requires also the purification of the self to perfect morality. He who rapes women especially rapes knowledge; he who engages in coitus also uses knowledge as a means to his own end, self-servicing, for pleasure or for validation. He who delights in the degradation of woman surely delights in the degradation of knowledge, and in subjugation. He who is chaste, who does not hate, he only shall show knowledge the same respect that he shows women and all men, and he only shall pursue knowledge for its own sake; he shall will to value and not to power, and every lesser man shall fail to understand him and believe that he has forfeited his own life, when truly he has renounced everything except life; it is death he has renounced. He who does not believe in the Resurrection believes is in his own will to power; he does not believe in redemption or salvation or deliverance; he believes only in his own theft, and that his greatest potential lies in the greatest theft he can achieve. He believes most of all in his false self, and thus in whatever this false self can achieve. He shall lose his self, as Christ says. All his gains are lost, since they are not really gains, but losses. He who believes in the false self believes in rape. He who loves this self hates others, he who loves this self steals from others.

>Implying the vast majority of modern science and mathematics isn't useless shit that has no application in the real world
But keep posting your faux-magniloquent quotes, please.

The modern man does not even want to admit his own guilt. He wants to shed even the notion that he may have ever possessed it in the first place. He does not want to carry the burden of shame, he desires womanly bliss and ignorance. He arrogantly ridicules Christian humility, and wills to power even as he claims his service to others.

"For all art and philosophy, as long as there are human beings, have dealt with the same eternal problems, the great problems of humanity and of existence. The great themes of world literature remain the same, the motif of the requiem is renewed for every musician, and the problems of philosophy are the same from the oldest myths and sayings of the Babylonians and Indians to the present day."

>he shall will to value and not to power, and every lesser man shall fail to understand him and believe that he has forfeited his own life, when truly he has renounced everything except life; it is death he has renounced. He who does not believe in the Resurrection believes is in his own will to power; he does not believe in redemption or salvation or deliverance; he believes only in his own theft, and that his greatest potential lies in the greatest theft he can achieve.

Where is this from? Or did you write it?

This contains basically everything that I've been thinking about for some time (and probably longer before I could come to any definition of it). Then yesterday I read the Rene Girard thread with something similarly relevant, now this... Veeky Forums is starting to spook me.

Yeah, that's my writing.

"It cannot be proven that people ought to do the good, for if that could be deduced, then the idea of the good would be the consequence of a cause, and thus could become the means to an end."

"If I give up the idea of truth, I also give up the measure by which I can determine that something is false; where there no longer is law, there is nothing but arbitrariness. Neither can the idea of truth be demonstrated; for if it were to be demonstrated, then I might have wanted the truth for the sake of something else. Likewise my own existence, the 'I', if it is to have value, cannot be proven; and likewise the 'you', when it is not the consequence of a reason and is not to be used as the means to an end, cannot be demonstrated."

>only le true patricians like me, Christians and autistic incels will to value instead of power
Holy kek, Weininger is even more pathetic than I thought.
>uses "rape" more than a tumblrina on a bus ride
Pottery.

If women desire sex as much as men if not moreso, then why are they offended by the male sex drive? Perhaps because the manner in which man seeks sex, and his pursuit of sex, revolve around an end, which to woman appears as the end of her existence. Women want to draw out sex as long as possible, standing in opposition to man's desire to "get it over with". A woman rolls her eyes at the thought that man ultimately "just wants sex", even though woman does not want sex any less. Rather woman is offended at the notion that she is only a means to an end for a man. If a man appears too overtly sexual woman is offended. Because of this we have made the mistake of thinking that women are more innocent and pure, when in fact they do NOT appear to deal with sex in such a vulgar way, only because man only wants to bring it to an end.

I here note a similarity between the sexual drive in males to the anxiety surrounding their "failure" in the sexual sphere. Man only wants to "get rid of it", whether "it" be his virginity, his anxiety, his lack of skill in an area associated with sex (dancing, socializing). Man is concerned with deeds (finality, success, conquest), while woman is repulsed by the same, being concerned with perpetuality denying any resolution to any sexual relationship whatsoever. Man boasts to his friends, even about rudimentary accomplishments, while woman will drag on and on about the intricacies, literally without end--"he just wasn't enough of this" or "I just didn't know what to think about that". "And then what?" tends not to enter into men's conversations among each other concerning sexual triumphs--"what do you mean 'and then what?' I had sex with her and that was that!". For woman, on the other hand there is always, "and then what?" and a woman always has an answer, apparently never desiring to "put and end" to the matter, because for woman the matter does not end.