Sex and Character by Otto Weininger

[Spaceballs]

I search his name in the forum and to my BIG SURPRISE, there is no mention of him.  I read his book a few months ago and it's been a revelation.  It's confirming almost every hypotheses I had but couldn't put into a clear and concise arguments. His book addresses this topic perfectly.  The best book I've read to date (I haven't read much unfortunately).  He wrote this book at around 22 years old.  At his age, I really doubt any of us or anyone you know could've wrote anything close to this quality.  This book redefined my notion of a "Genius".   I probably will need to read it again a few times since I don't have the culture to fully understand all of his references.

His biography from Wikipedia, a summary of his book from Wikipedia

Sex and Character links pdf : Old version, modern version, web version or buy it somewhere.

 

The practice of merely calling any one who assails woman a misogynist, instead of

refuting argument by argument, has much to commend it. Hatred is never impartial,

and, therefore, to describe a man as having an animus against the object of his

criticism, is at once to lay him open to the charge of insincerity, immorality, and

partiality, and one that can be made with a hyperbole of accusation and evasion of the

point, which only equal its lack of justification. This sort of answer never fails in its

object, which is to exempt the vindicator from refuting the actual statements. It is the

oldest and handiest weapon of the large majority of men, who never wish to see

woman as she is. No men who really think deeply about women retain a high opinion

of them; men either despise women or they have never thought seriously about them.  

 

Have any of you read it ?  Do you agree with his view of woman? 

[eschiedler]

Yes, I have read it. I highly recommend the 2006 translation, which is still available from the US publisher, I believe. The older translations are available from free on Google Books.

 

It is a brilliant book and quite remarkable, I highly recommend it.

 

Here is a website of Otto Weininger's writings, with links, of brilliant material from this young (but wise) mind.

http://www.theabsolute.net/ottow/

 

Here is an online resource, the Preface to the book:

http://www.naturalthinker.net/trl/texts/Weininger,Otto/sexchar/000_pref.html

[Donnadogsoth]

One point to bear in mind when reading it is that he is not describing women as they are, but as an archetype.  He spends a lot of effort initially describing how each human individual is a blend of the masculine and the feminine essences, and the ones where the feminine predominates we call "women" and the ones where the masculine, "men".

 

This book transcends misogyny into being a specimen of the bizarre.  It's as though the Gor novels were written by Immanuel Kant.

[J. D. Stembal]

I would also recommend In Defense of Women by Henry Louis Mencken, which was written nearly 100 years ago. Much of our collective wisdom regarding the battle of wits between the sexes has been lost within this span of time. What kinds of cultural Marxist movements occurred between then and now?

[AccuTron]

I'm partway into it, and it's a very interesting work.  I was first struck by passing comments re feminism around the year 1900.  Could apply today.  Also a remark about treating all students as identical.  

[Mister Mister]

 

Male activity and female passivity

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.

Forgoing love for the absolute

Woman is a "matchmaker". By contrast, the duty of the male, or the masculine aspect of personality, is to strive to become a genius, and to forgo sexuality for an abstract love of the absolute, God, which he finds within himself.

 

...also it says he committed suicide.  doesn't really sound like a completely sane, rational authority.

[Spaceballs]

 

...also it says he committed suicide.  doesn't really sound like a completely sane, rational authority.

 

I thought the same, until I read it.  At some point in the book, topic about religion I think, you could easily see that he's probably going to commit suicide.

[RCali]

I'm more curious about his past. What led him to hate and fear women such, and that he would associate Judaism with the female sex, in terms of how lowly he qualified them. I'm more curious about the reports of him having never smiled or laughed. Does anyone have stories on his background?

[eschiedler]

 

...also it says he committed suicide.  doesn't really sound like a completely sane, rational authority.

 

 

You've committed the Genetic Fallacy and the Appeal to Authority Fallacy.

 

His work, such as it is, should stand on its own merit and logic.

[eschiedler]

I'm more curious about his past. What led him to hate and fear women such, and that he would associate Judaism with the female sex, in terms of how lowly he qualified them. I'm more curious about the reports of him having never smiled or laughed. Does anyone have stories on his background?

 

I can find no evidence that he came to "hate and fear" women. His reputation has been attacked by rival academics in order to obscure the brilliance of his work.

 

His book is about understanding how thought arises in consciousness, and by necessity, how biological men and women are of intermediate forms, or contain qualities of both genders, and how this affects thinking. His primary foundation for how clear thinking occurs in all biological humans, both men and women, in his main argument is the Law of Identity of Logic: A = A

 

If you look at the links in my above post, you will find more info on Weininger.

[RCali]

"No men who really think deeply about women retain a high opinion

of them; men either despise women or they have never thought seriously about them."

 

It's right there on the first post. Just one of many thoughts of his you can easily find.

[eschiedler]

 

First of all, it's translated badly from German and the quote is probably from the first translation. The 2006 translation is better because in German it means reject, not despise.

 

Second of all, the complete quote says the opposite. That he is not a misogynist. He is actually REFUTING the claim that he is a misogynist. He explains it is a smear tactic.

 

"This sort of answer never fails in its

object, which is to exempt the vindicator from refuting the actual statements."

 

What he says in the book is that we are all made of male and female sex cells, what science would later come to understand as genetics and epi-genetics. And that science demonstrates that we have all both male and female sex hormones and sex characteristics throughout  our bodies. In his scientific model, the 100% male is logic and rejects the 100% female which is emotion. Remember that at the same time none of us are 100% male or 100% female in mind or body.

 

That is his view because he is talking about ideal forms.

 

There is no question that Weininger "rejects" the emotions in favor of logic.

 

Having said all of that, the accusations will stand against him for all time, I suppose.

 

Far better is to ask oneself, without even reading Weininger, questions such as: What is logic? What is thought? and how does it in arise in humans, whether male or female?

 

It'd be nice to hear Spaceballs, who posted the quote, and to hear his interpretation, since he even went so far as to make Otto his avatar.

[RCali]

"but there is no woman who has surpassed certain circumscribed, not particularly elevated moral and intellectual limits. And, therefore, I must again assert that the woman of the highest standard is immeasurably beneath the man of lowest standard."

 

"The greatest -geniuses, on the other hand, have nearly always been antisemites (Tacitus, Pascal, Voltaire, Herder, Goethe, Kant, Jean Paul, Schopenhauer, Grillparzer, Wagner)"

 

"The Antisemitism of the Jews bears testimony to the fact that no one who has had experience of them considers them loveable – not even the Jew himself"

 

"It cannot be denied (there can be no mistake about it) that Wagner's music produces the deepest impression not only on Jewish Antisemites, who have never completely shaken off Jewishness hut also on Indo-Germanic Antisemites. From the music of “Parsifal,” which to genuine Jews will ever remain as unapproachable as its poetry, from the Pilgrim's march and the procession to Rome in “Tannhauser,” and assuredly from many another part, they turn away"

 

"It would not be difficult to make a case for the view that the Jew is more saturated with femininity than the Aryan, to such an extent that the most manly Jew is more feminine than the least manly Aryan. This interpretation would be erroneous."

 

"The true conception of the State is foreign to the Jew, because he, like the woman, is wanting in personality; his failure to grasp the idea of true society is due to his lack of free intelligible ego. Like women, Jews tend to adhere together, but they do not associate as free independent individuals mutually respecting each other's individuality."

 

"As there is no real dignity in women, so what is meant by the word “gentleman” does not exist amongst the Jews. The genuine Jew fails in this innate good breeding by which alone individuals honour their own individuality and respect that of others."

 

"When men change, it is from within, outwards, unless the change, as in the case of women, is a mere superficial imitation of real change, and is not rooted in their natures"

 

I chose a chapter at random "Judaism" from his book - and the modern translation, as you so advised. Seems like there are no shortage of misogynistic and antisemitic ideas.

[Spaceballs]

I'm more curious about his past. What led him to hate and fear women such, and that he would associate Judaism with the female sex, in terms of how lowly he qualified them. I'm more curious about the reports of him having never smiled or laughed. Does anyone have stories on his background?

Like eschiedler already said, there is no hate or fear from him, you totally imagining things.  And your questions are answered in the book.  It wasn't answered in a few lines unfortunately.

Also why would you want to know his background after reading one LINE in a quote from him ?  At 23 years old, there isn't much about background anyway.

Everything is explained in his book.  You can't just judge a person from one quote and without reading his MAJOR work.  We have a little understanding of his life from Wikipedia but to take his little biography and to think that it summarize his thinking is a big mistake.

 

To answer eschiedler : well again, you explained it very well.  I think everything is in the quote already, but it seems like it might not be clear to some. The quote should be something that hits someone's curiosity.  I have his avatar more for publicity than admiration.

 

(btw english is my 3rd language, I probably have some syntax or orthographic mistakes)

 

 

[Mister Mister]

Why should we read his book?

[AccuTron]

Why should we read his book?

 

I just started, and have found many fascinating statements.

[RCali]

I just started, and have found many fascinating statements.

 

The only fascinating theme on these statements is the past of the character who presented them, and how the past has helped him be lead to such a present as he was in. The statements themselves were hardly inteligent or based on evidence, and were overflowing with contempt. Easy is it to find even Freud commenting on how unscientific his book is, and the according response of the author on how little he cared for evidence. I assume the author thought himself such a genius that he couldn't possible wrong in any of his thoughts, and, no mistake to be made about my opinion, his inteligence was certainly very high. But even the smartest man, or being, is prone to error and waste of resources if he thinks himself too great to fail. And this certainly was his case, as if you read about his suicide, and events shortly before, he had said something along the lines of surely doing it, but not before completing his work. One can only assume he thought it of such great importance that his life could surely be over, for nothing else would ever come close to such great deeds he would have already accomplished. In essence, a greatly troubled man, both from without and within. He must have faced great repression from his peers, and somehow, faced both no confidence in himself, and far too much.

This is what I conclude with what I've read. I'm sure to complete reading of his book in the future, for nothing but study of his character.

[Will Torbald]

It's confirming almost every hypotheses I had but couldn't put into a clear and concise arguments.

 

Have any of you read it ?  

 

Confirmation bias is the gift that keeps on giving: http://skepdic.com/confirmbias.html

 

 

As long as one ignores certain facts and accepts speculation as fact, one can prove just about anything to one's own satisfaction.

[stMarkus]

A retail quality 2005 PDF version of the book. http://www26.zippyshare.com/v/uE6UgUjf/file.html

[Eternal Growth]

This book is a fantastic instance of the general principle that "high verbal skills are the scar tissue that result from being lied to in very complex ways as a child" [1].

 

The pile of anti-philosophical words to read (and attempt to take seriously), as a man, if you never want to have a functional relationship with another human being (who happens to be a woman).

 

[1] from podcast http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/2073/mensa-statists-and-the-aneurysm-of-truth

 

Otto seems to have been highly inspired by Kant, and mentions him a lot as I've skimmed through the book. I'll leave a quote from Ayn Rand here also: 

Kant originated the technique required to sell irrational notions to the men of a skeptical, cynical age who have formally rejected mysticism without grasping the rudiments of rationality. The technique is as follows: if you want to propagate an outrageously evil idea (based on traditionally accepted doctrines), your conclusion must be brazenly clear, but your proof unintelligible. Your proof must be so tangled a mess that it will paralyze a reader’s critical faculty—a mess of evasions, equivocations, obfuscations, circumlocutions, non sequiturs, endless sentences leading nowhere, irrelevant side issues, clauses, sub-clauses and sub-sub-clauses, a meticulously lengthy proving of the obvious, and big chunks of the arbitrary thrown in as self-evident, erudite references to sciences, to pseudo-sciences, to the never-to-be-sciences, to the untraceable and the unprovable—all of it resting on a zero: the absence of definitions. I offer in evidence the Critique of Pure Reason.

 

Otto's conclusion is brazenly clear (indeed, OP quoted and underlined it)... his proof? If anyone here does think it is intelligible, please provide a summarised version of the reasoning. 

 

The primary error seems to be epistemological: he is trying to describe a man and woman "perfect form" as a primary thing, with objective reality just some annoying thing that only imperfectly ever expresses these forms. Quoting from Stefan Molyneux's master's thesis under the heading of "Supra-Sensual Epistemology",

For supra-sensualism, material entities are imperfect reflections of immaterial concepts, and thus of lesser value.

 

If we continue to the conclusion that Stef's thesis makes about supra-sensualism,

...it is important to remember that the purpose of a belief in a ‘higher reality’ is not to determine truth from falsehood, but to destroy the possibility of individual determination of truth and falsehood. It is a weapon against the epistemological sovereignty of the individual. If the individual believes that he cannot determine truth from falsehood, he is far easier to control.

 

Otto's book is actually explicitly using a Platonist (i.e. supra-sensual) epistemology. The following quote taken from the first chapter:

Between Man and Woman there are innumerable gradations, or “intermediate

sexual forms.” Just as physics talks about ideal gases—i.e., those that precisely follow
Boyle-Gay-Lussac’s law (in reality none obeys it)—before proceeding to note divergences
from this law in concrete cases, we can also posit an ideal Man M and
an ideal Woman W, neither of whom exists, as sexual types. These types not only can
but must be constructed. The type, the Platonic idea, is not only the “object of art”
but also that of science. The science of physics explores the behavior of completely
rigid and completely elastic bodies, in full awareness that reality will never supply
it with either the one or the other for con¤rmation. The intermediate stages
that are empirically established as existing between the two serve merely as a
starting point in this search for typical forms of behavior and, on returning
from theory to practice, are treated and exhaustively described as mixed forms.
And, equally, there are any number of intermediate stages between the complete Man
and the complete Woman, which may both be approximated but which are never
experienced as such in reality.

 

In other words: Reality doesn't fit my ideas, but I feel very strongly about them, so reality must be secondary.

 

I actually laughed given Rand mentioning of Kant's "erudite references to sciences", and Otto's Physics metaphors in this quote. 

[Eternal Growth]

Also why would you want to know his background after reading one LINE in a quote from him ?  At 23 years old, there isn't much about background anyway.

 

At 23 years old, 99% of background is a done deal. I would be curious to ask if you have started in the process of self-examination, gaining self-knowledge and becoming aware of how your psychology works and why it works the way it does?

[eschiedler]

Liberalismus:
 
"At 23 years old, 99% of background is a done deal."
 
That's not logically possible. At all times 100% of your background is whatever happened in your life, including your actions and reactions to events.
 

"The primary error seems to be epistemological: he is trying to describe a man and woman "perfect form" as a primary thing, with objective reality just some annoying thing that only imperfectly ever expresses these forms. "

 

His primary work is based on logic, which he states quite clearly, and is the basis for philosophy. He describes how thought comes up with concepts and ideas, through the process of giving thoughts "character" or clarity in the mind.

 

"This book is a fantastic instance of the general principle that "high verbal skills are the scar tissue that result from being lied to in very complex ways as a child"

 

So genetics, nutrition, and education play little to no significant role?. What about highly UN-verbal people who are traumatized as children but are not glib as adults? I see no evidence for this observation, but it is a very colorful expression, of which Molyneux is quite apt to use for marketing his ideas.

LIberalismus:

 

"If anyone here does think it is intelligible, please provide a summarised version of the reasoning. "

 

I have provided links in my reply above to summaries of his work, feel free to peruse them at your lesiure.

 

Here is a website of Otto Weininger's writings, with links, of brilliant material from this young (but wise) mind.

http://www.theabsolute.net/ottow/

 

Here is an online resource, the Preface to the book:

http://www.naturalth...r/000_pref.html

[Eternal Growth]

I am experiencing a fogginess in the approach you are bringing to the conversation. That may not mean anything; the problem might be me; I am just reporting how I am experiencing it.

 

That's not logically possible. At all times 100% of your background is whatever happened in your life, including your actions and reactions to events.

 

1) The point I was making was that 99% of a person's background that is going to continue to determine their personality and approach to living is done by the age of 23 (in the absence of major self-work), which is a separate thing.

2) It feels as though you being inconsistent. Previously your view was that "At 23 years old, there isn't much about background anyway." and now it is "At all times 100% of your background is whatever happened in your life".

 

His primary work is based on logic, which he states quite clearly, and is the basis for philosophy. He describes how thought comes up with concepts and ideas, through the process of giving thoughts "character" or clarity in the mind.

 

My experience of reading this was of a pile of words that means nothing in particular. Could you please define your terms? What does it mean for "thought to come up with concepts and ideas, through the process of giving thoughts "character" or clarity in the mind"? I do get a vague sense of the primacy of consciousness being promoted here, but nothing specific. 

 

So genetics, nutrition, and education play little to no significant role?. What about highly UN-verbal people who are traumatized as children but are not glib as adults? I see no evidence for this observation, but it is a very colorful expression, of which Molyneux is quite apt to use for marketing his ideas.

 

These physical environmental factors increase the capacity for intelligence, to be sure. But certain forms of intellectualism seem to arise out of childhoods that involve a lot of anti-reality words being used as a control mechanism. 

 

Those who are traumatised as children but do not exhibit this form of intellectualism typically were either subject to different traumas, or responded by not taking ideas very seriously, or would never have taken ideas seriously to begin with.

 

I have provided links in my reply above to summaries of his work, feel free to peruse them at your lesiure.

 

Are you able to express the reasoning behind the conclusion yourself and in your own words? If not, why do you accept the conclusion?

[RCali]

Why do we need to read more of his work, if what we read was already based on nothing but bias? Funnily, what you, who're defending this man, or his work, or both, yourselves seem to be suffering greatly from bias. You are yet to provide a solid argument. After his summary is commented you say "read his book". Once I read a full chapter and some backgroud of his life you still say: read more AND that we're wrong. Well, that's not much of a case, not only since you're not actually saying anything to defend him, but avoid confrontation and that he's very obvious in his writing, and I've quoted it. Phrases like those cannot possibly be taken out of context. I even quoted one of his phrases which he follows with "this is not really true" and, after that, he proceeds to say the same thing... Over and over... And over again...

[eschiedler]

Liberalismus:

 

I am aware that the definition of background in this forum can be paraphrased as the child and adolescent development period, so I apologize for using the broader definition. I focused on the definition rather than the need to communicate an idea clearly. Having said that, I am more interested in the mature thought as an adult. At 23, that is only a few years of logical thinking of the highest level. That is because logic is timeless, and I'll get back to that point below.

 

My terms are the traditional three laws of thought, or logic, called the Law of Identity, the Law of the Excluded Middle and the Law of Non-Contradiction. They are not my laws, I simply use them as best I can. As such, I reject post-modernist thought that denies these laws, and all irrational thought that fails to use them. I also try to eradicate any delusion in my mind that may arise by violating these laws. As this applies to Otto's work, he uses the laws in the main thesis. Therefore, he argues his work is philosophical and not epidemiological. Although, of course, he gives examples to aid the reader.

 

I agree with you that "certain forms of intellectualism  ... involve a lot of anti-reality words". Post-modernist academia provides many examples, and I find those efforts in academia very disappointing.

 

You said: "Those who are traumatised (sp) as children but do not exhibit this form of intellectualism typically were either subject to different traumas, or responded by not taking ideas very seriously, or would never have taken ideas seriously to begin with."

 

Each individual experiences different cause and effect.

 

As I stated in this post, I am not interested in the biography of thinkers if we are looking at their core arguments. Don't get me wrong, I have enjoyed reading a lot of history. I just read the "Don Quixote" and I loved the story and I marvel to think of the historical context that Cervantes survived the Battle of Lepanto and years of imprisonment before writing the novel. But I don't care to think of what in the author's childhood made him write down a lot of words in a book about fantasy stories and legends.

 

The conclusion in Weiniger's book is that people who are most able to think consciously should value logic and that thoughts and conclusions based on sound logic will be true at all times and for all possible worlds. How else could it be so? It can not be otherwise.

 

Making observations about the capacity to use consciousness (the use of logic) in men and women got him labeled as a misogynist; but of course, anybody who criticizes women is labeled a misogynist. Every major philosopher has been labeled a misogynist or has simply ignored the subject of women because they thought it was a waste to time, thus also setting themselves up for the label of misogynist. The resident Molyneux gets called a misogynist when he releases a video in which he criticizes women. So the misogynist charge is so watered down as to be meaningless - in practice it is just a shaming tactic.

 

On a related note, I don't post here much because I am not very interested in Objectivism. But my objections to it would derail this thread. Perhaps because of that, we will find little common ground. The reason I mention it is because, due to lack of experience in the forum, I may have not written my posts in a way that is helpful to the forum readers, of which their interests I should be considerate as best I can in order to best communicate an idea. My goals in writing a post here do not include making people do extra work.

[Eternal Growth]

A direct philosophical line can be traced from Kant to post-modernism. Post-modernism is really Kant plus an extra sprinkle of subjectivism. 

 

You've mentioned the Law of Identity. With respect to Otto's ideas and your support of them, I would like to ask: The identity of what? The law of identity presupposes something which exists in reality and has an identity. Which existing and observable entity in objective reality corresponds to Otto's concept "woman", and his concept "man"?

 

Developing a rational understanding doesn't consist of just making stuff up and then manipulating it logically. Logic has to be combined with empiricism or you're talking about nothing of any reality or relevance at all, even if you manage to form a logically consistent system about it.

 

A level of disingenuousness is also involved here, as arguments are being made without reference to reality, but the conclusion is being expressed as though it does. Were Otto being honest and even vaguely philosophical, he would have invented two new words to think about his essences, rather than stealing the words "man" and "woman" (which actually do have meanings and do correspond to things in reality) and talking about a load of (possibly internally logically consistent) non-reality about them.

 

Let's say he chose the words "flabadab" and "jollytog" to describe his invalid concepts.

 

The quote which you started this thread with would look very different:

No jollytogs who really think deeply about flabadabs retain a high opinion

of them; jollytogs either despise flabadabs or they have never thought seriously about them.

 

Kind of removes the emotional satisfaction that comes from it, doesn't it?

 

Include empirical reality in your reasoning process, or don't expect your conclusion to be relevant to it (by misappropriating words which do correspond to reality).

[eschiedler]

You've mentioned the Law of Identity. With respect to Otto's ideas and your support of them, I would like to ask: The identity of what? The law of identity presupposes something which exists in reality and has an identity. Which existing and observable entity in objective reality corresponds to Otto's concept "woman", and his concept "man"?

 

The Law of Identity is often described, in shorthand, by the formula "A=A".

 

The law of identity does not presuppose that something exists. It is deeper than that. It is the fact that A=A must be true and any formulation of any argument relies upon A=A.

 

From Weininger's "Sex and Character":

"The proposition A = A is axiomatic and self-evident. It is the primitive measure of truth for all other propositions; however much we may think over it we must return to this fundamental proposition. It is the principle of distinction between truth and error; and he who regards it as meaningless tautology, as was the case with Hegel and many of the later empiricists (this being not the only surprising point of contact between two schools apparently so different) is right in a fashion, but has misunderstood the nature of the proposition. A = A, the principle of all truth, cannot itself be a special truth. He who finds the proposition of identity or that of non-identity meaningless does so by his own fault. He must have expected to find in these propositions special ideas, a source of positive knowledge. But they are not in themselves knowledge, separate acts of thought, but the common standard for all acts of thought. And so they cannot be compared with other acts of thought. The rule of the process of thought must be outside thought. The proposition of identity does not add to our knowledge; it does not increase but rather founds a kingdom. "

 

Here is a summary, offered by a group of people one of which is Dan Rowden, running a discussion board on wisdom called Genius Forums. There are many discussions about A=A there.

 

http://theabsolute.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=970&start=0

 

Dan Rowden:

"A=A - the law of identity - as the basis of existence where "to exist" is defined as "presenting an appearance to an observer": 

 

Any thing is what it is because it appears in relation to what it is not; that is, any thing requires what is not that thing for it to be what it is. If it was not for this boundedness, this relation to other things, this demarcation by other things, the thing in question would necessarily be the Totality of all that is. Therefore, things being relative to what they are not is the basis of existence (which is to say a thing cannot be at all - present an appearance - other than by way of demarcation from other things)."

 

Because the Law of Identity is the basis of all thought, this must necessarily be also my view on the matter. You are objecting by also necessarily using the law of identity to say that things which exist have an identity. Therefore the Law of Identity holds.

[Eternal Growth]

My post did not dispute the Law of Identity, first explicitly identified by Aristotle. It was holding your ideas to the standard of it.

 

I will point out that in the quote from Weinininger that you have posted, a definition of A=A is not provided in the entire block of words. Please tell me in your own words: What does A=A mean? I am really curious whether you understand it.

 

Dan Rowden:

"A=A - the law of identity - as the basis of existence where "to exist" is defined as "presenting an appearance to an observer": 

 

This involves a confusion between consciousness and existence. Consciousness consists of an appearance being presented to an observer. Existence is a separate and distinct process that is primary to consciousness. A thing exists before, and even if it is not, observed. 

 

Any thing is what it is because it appears in relation to what it is not; that is, any thing requires what is not that thing for it to be what it is. If it was not for this boundedness, this relation to other things, this demarcation by other things, the thing in question would necessarily be the Totality of all that is. Therefore, things being relative to what they are not is the basis of existence (which is to say a thing cannot be at all - present an appearance - other than by way of demarcation from other things)."

 

This is just false. A table would be no less a table even if it was the only entity in the universe. Existence is to possess characteristics: to possess an identity (This is A=A!) What an entity isn't or what are the properties of other entities are irrelevant; at most they are peripheral concerns that have no bearing on the entity's existence. 

 

If you're not processing the arguments I am making or believe that any of what you have posted counts as thinking, I think the question I posed in an earlier post about self-knowledge that you didn't answer would be a far more productive area to shift the conversation, as it feels to me (and this may well be wrong) that on this topic a lot of distortions are taking place in your thought process, typically of the sort that result when one is the victim of inflicted falsehoods as a child. Given what this thread is about: what was your childhood experience of your mother? Or start wherever you like.

 

(To be sure, childhood experiences don't invalidate a person's arguments, but childhood experiences that haven't been thoroughly examined - particularly in a conversation about a very personal topic such as gender - would almost certainly lead a person to thinking and concluding faulty things for faulty reasons using faulty methodology. And really, you started a philosophical conversation with the conclusion that 50% of human beings should be despised by those who have thought most about them in the absence of any evidence or action committed by these individuals, merely as a blanket collective condemnation, a recognition of the Original Sin of being born as someone who grows into a woman. As honest feedback, it seems as though you are very far from objective reality on this issue and a major error has taken place in your thinking somewhere and for one or more reasons.)

[eschiedler]

Liberalismus:

 

"This is just false. A table would be no less a table even if it was the only entity in the universe."

 

If the parts, causes, and events that make up the "table" were the only thing in the universe, then it would be the entire universe. Nothing would be outside of it. There would be no way to differentiate between universe and not-universe, therefore, there would be no table and not-table. Therefore there would be no "thing" that was a table. Only parts of the universe can have an identity.

 

"And really, you started a philosophical conversation with the conclusion that 50% of human beings should be despised by those who have thought most about them..."

 

I made no such emotional or hysterical claims. You're making the "have you stopped beating your wife" rhetorical argument. We've derailed this thread enough from the OP who wanted to, it seems, make people aware of this book. Therefore to you I say good day.

[Eternal Growth]

If the parts, causes, and events that make up the "table" were the only thing in the universe, then it would be the entire universe. Nothing would be outside of it. There would be no way to differentiate between universe and not-universe, therefore, there would be no table and not-table. Therefore there would be no "thing" that was a table. Only parts of the universe can have an identity.

 

The entire universe has an identity also. For example, the universe has the attribute of changing over time. Were the universe to lack an identity, the concept "universe" would be invalid (which it isn't). In the case of a universe that consisted only of a single table, "table" and "universe" would merely be synonymous, referring to the same concept i.e. everything. 

 

You can still differentiate the universe from other entities because you can differentiate the universe as a whole from the (sub)entities that constitute it. In the same way that you can differentiate "table leg" from "table", each having different properties.

 

"And really, you started a philosophical conversation with the conclusion that 50% of human beings should be despised by those who have thought most about them..."

 

I made no such emotional or hysterical claims. You're making the "have you stopped beating your wife" rhetorical argument. We've derailed this thread enough from the OP who wanted to, it seems, make people aware of this book. Therefore to you I say good day.

 

My apologies - I confused you with the thread creator, who did in fact create a thread quoting and underlining such a conclusion, as well as "It's confirming almost every hypotheses I had but couldn't put into a clear and concise arguments. His book addresses this topic perfectly."

[Spaceballs]

Why should we read his book

OK.  His book is about Men & Woman and the Genius. 

In the book you'll have the concept of Man & Woman, simplified as M & W.  It contradicts EVERY feminist ideas about man and woman. He trying to explain what the "ultimate" man is and what the "ultimate" woman is.  Through his definition of M & W, he will describe what Love is and what Geniuses are.  If you think you are smarter than most people, this book is for YOU.

 

There are 2 parts in the book.  The more antropological part and the philosophical part.  You could skip the 1st part if you are lazy.

Three reasons made me read his book :

• a very knowledgable, smart & intellectual Frenchman,  #2 most wanted and persecuted by the state of France (#1 being a standup comic called Dieudonne)  highly recommended this book; as a general metric or benchmark reference of his knowledge, it's about ~10X Molyneux.
• I think I'm smarter than the average dude;
• and the quote (1st post).

 

Why do we need to read more of his work, if what we read was already based on nothing but bias?

Based on your answer and skepticism I really doubt it's for you. If the quote isn't already poking your curiosity then it might be a waste of time for you,  just skip it. 

 

 

Eschielder vs Ethernal Growth.

Eternal Growth : I think you are too specific and therefor missing the point. Your ideas probably differs because you are a S (Sensing, opposite of iNtuitive according to Jung personality or MBTI). 

You two are very advanced, too advance for me,   very interesting conversation. I'll add more small inputs later.

[Huggins]

Spaceballs and eschiedler:

 

I haven't read Otto Weininger, but I think this article is relevant.

 

http://edwardfeser.BlogSpot.com/2012/11/cardinal-virtues-and-counterfeit-virtues.html

 

I cannot paste the article, so please read it and pay attention to the last paragraph.  Do you think this article echoes Weininger's perspective? 

 

I think the last paragraph implies that the Counterfeit VIrtues are feminine in nature and must be subordinated to the Cardinal Virtues which are masculine in nature.  Do you agree with my interpretation, and do you think Weininger would agree with it? 

[eschiedler]

 Do you think this article echoes Weininger's perspective? 

 

I think the last paragraph implies that the Counterfeit VIrtues are feminine in nature and must be subordinated to the Cardinal Virtues which are masculine in nature.  Do you agree with my interpretation, and do you think Weininger would agree with it? 

 

There are some parallels, but only superficially.

 

It seems to be your interpretation, and not the interpretation of the author. The blog author put an image of women on the cover, but never really addressed the influences of sex in society on the cardinal and counterfeit virtues.

 

The author address one point that would be important to Weininger. This is that the difference between cardinal and counterfeit virtues lies in thinking, or use of Plato's description of reason.

 

However, this does not go far enough, as to Weininger it is very important that the basis of thinking and reason is in logic. And if you follow this to its conclusion, then you arrive at the logical genius, the genius of highest capacity for genius, who would be more like Neitzche's Uberman, and place all moral responsibility within himself. He would be the highest moral person and transcend both cardinal and counterfeit virtues. Which, by the way, the author of the blog says the wise man would agree that the counterfeit virtues have some value, and Weininger would certainly disagree with this statement.

[Huggins]

Thanks for your reply. 

 

Why would Weininger assert that the counterfeit virtues have zero value?

[eschiedler]

Why would Weininger assert that the counterfeit virtues have zero value?

 

Because they don't have memory. Therefore, whatever derives from them is not timeless.