I will try to lay out his argument in simple terms:

>massive impact of Otto's work
Kek. He's the definition of a literally who.

Schopenhauer influenced by him you dweeb

>He's still trying to shill Weininger
fuck off lol

Tell that to Freud, Wittgenstein, Evola, Strindberg, to name but a few.
you might want to check their dates, 'tard.

That all seems nice and well until you actually read his work and realize it's one lengthy /r9k/ post disguised as philosophy. If Witty didn't write about him I doubt even Veeky Forums would meme this literal virgin an hero.
>The most inferior man is still infinitely superior to the most superior woman, so much so that it seems hardly permissible to compare and rank them.
>Woman’s mind is neither deep nor high, either acute nor direct, but the precise opposite of all this. As far as we can see at present, she has no “mind” at all: woman as a whole is mindless, or mindlessness itself.
>The desire to be the object of sexual intercourse is the strongest desire of woman, but it is only a special instance of her deepest interest, indeed her only vital interest, which aims at sexual intercourse as such—her wish that there should be as much sexual intercourse as possible, no matter by whom, where, and when.
>Now it is possible to answer the question which was formulated as the central problem at the beginning of this second part, the question about what it means to be Man and to be Woman. Women have no existence and no essence, they are not and they are nothing. One IS Man or one IS Woman, depending on whether or not one IS somebody.

>influenced his own major influence who lived two decades prior to him
>the average Weininger "scholar"
FYI Freud and Evola heavily disapproved of his ideas next time you want to namedrop.

Freud called him a genius nonetheless

And Evola possibly disagreed with his conclusion that sexual intercourse was immoral, but otherwise he agreed on fundamental principles.

shit I mean wittgenstein

Being a genius isn't worth much if you can't apply it and produce anything of value.
>he agreed on fundamental principles
>disagreed with his conclusion
That's the whole point. Weiningers presumptions are neither innovative nor unheard of before his time. The salt of the entire work is in the conclusions he derives.

Perhaps he was a genius because he formalized the tone of the culture of the time to such an exacting degree that he “broke the spell”...

If that was the dominant culture in Vienna, no wonder that the intellectual history of fascism began there.

Really poor explanation of that second point. It's also the most important point in Sex and character

>tfw my Otto memeing finally caught on

>He's the definition of a literally who

t. user

I agree with
>A friendship between two men, which we might call platonic love, does not involve sexual relations because that would harm, degrade, destroy the relationship

I have never had a casual friend relationship with a woman, it's really hard for me to do. I have had relationships with women where the main drive was because she was attractive and perhaps was some what interesting but never solely based on interest.

Here are some quotes I've enjoyed. I'm halfway through the text myself and finding him to be not "wrong." His genius stuff is good.

>Only the more feminine men are constantly chasing women and interested in nothing but love affairs and sexual relations
>It is always W who expects the clarification of her vague ideas, the interpretation of her henids, from M. Where Woman has vague, unconscious ideas, she actually expects, desires, and demands to see in Man’s speech the structuring of thought, which she regards as a tertiary male sexual characteristic and which affects her in that way. That is why so many girls say that they would only marry, or at least could only love, a man who is more intelligent than they are, and why they may be surprised, or indeed sexually repelled, by a man who simply agrees with what they say and does not immediately say it better than they do. In short, that is why a woman feels it to be a criterion of masculinity that a man should also be her intellectual superior, and why she is powerfully attracted to a man who impresses her with his thought, and at the same time, without realizing it, delivers the decisive vote against all theories of equality.
(cf. Mencken and women liking intelligence; cf. Schopenhauer and women not liking intelligence; cf. Ovid and his advice to agree with what they say... conclusion that fits all? be smart, but do not disagree with what they're saying)
>Since a genius comprises the largest number of human beings with the greatest amount of life, the amplitutde of the periods will be the more pronounced, the greater a mind a man has... accordingly, many outstanding men, from their earliest youth, are accused by their teachers of constantly going "from one extreme to the other."
(he mentions that Goethe once spoke of this recurrent puberty of artists).

>user
>ruthless, cunning, intelligent, ironically autistic
>has fun, laughs at normies, appoints presidents
>known by hundreds of millions

>weininger
>wimpy, scornful, insecure, unironically autistic
>doesn't have any fun, writes "wymen are simply infirior" in 300 pages, kills himself
>known by specialist scholars and a board full of autismos fapping to Witty

You tell me.

>I can either read this philosophical and genetic dead end
stopped reading there, you're too obviously butthurt

You forgot the "stupid roastie".

Do people really care about pleasure? I thought sex was just about producing offspring.

And why should I care about Freud Again?

>proves my point
lel

I'm not even the one you replied to. It's just amazing to see mentally challenged frogmen in every whininger thread.

>anhedonia
>/thread

>Guess what I'm going to do.
browse reddit?

Cool non-arguments, friendos. My point still stands.

Wrong, he's going to commit sudoku in the house where Jung lived.

>says Otto W. is unknown and uninfluential.
>Anons give examples of the finest minds calling him a genius.
>says he doesn't accept that.
>Everyone's wrong but me, tee hee.
Just jog along already.

>Anons give examples of the finest minds calling him a genius.
Uh, have you actually read those posts? Because out of all of them only Wittgenstein and Strindberg seem to be correct, and then you also have the idiot who claimed that Schopenhauer was influenced by Weininger.

jesus why won't you basement virgins stay on the fucking Veeky Forums containment board
Veeky Forums - literature

Evola's Metaphysics of Sex makes a lot of use of Otto's work, and his take on the Jews makes more than a passing nod to the relevant chapter of Sex and Character.

Once you start looking for Otto, he just doesn't go away.