>be me >complete retard >never read a book>read sex and character>immediately become a genius i now understand life itself, bookcucks wasted their time.
Not sure what this means, but on the subjectSex and Character is his weaker work, and is a bit of a chud magnet. It is amazing how much it has predicted. It’s importance to the subsequent intellectual culture is almost totally ignored - what would JJ’s Ulysses be like if not for Weininger? He was beginning to doubt many of his conclusions, such as the mother prostitute dichotomy, towards the end. Uber Die Letzen Dinge is the most important work - the insightfulness is like nothing else. Despite dying so young, he is in the same league as Nietzsche as a critic of culture
You're not a genius if you were changed that much through education, more so suggestible. His whole idea of genius comes from Kant's secondary remark about it coming through nature. Kant making it synonymous with natural disposition is already a link to 'masculinity'. It's already counter-enlightenment and reactionary/primitive/'faith' through judgement IE character, Weininger just re-organizes it for obvious political reasons "human rights". It is a better art guide than the Paglia book tho
great book
>>23623682>It is a better art guide than the Paglia book thothe way Weininger rationalizes art is great. like his whole>acceptance of the phallus is immoral, that's why Dante made it the central pillar of hellHe literally sees it as a proof. Most people falter from that level of commitment
>>23623682What are you talking about? Suggestibility? Political reasons? “Human rights”? You don’t have to feign an understanding you don’t possess.Weininger’s idea genius is that genius is equivalent with universal responsibility, which has its highest meaning in Christ. He even says that anyone can choose to be a genius is they want to. Few have so strongly identified high art with Christianity. Even within this view he does regard Nietzsche as a genius (albeit one who succumbed to madness (happiness)).
>>23623578To think he wrote all of that because he couldn't get laid.
>>23623851 Leave discussion to the noncocksuckers. Go, Your boyfriend wants to sodomize you
>>23623826Weininger doesn't link morality with sympathy, but with provocation. Responsibility would be capability, the person most responsible would be the one most capable. Someone choosing to be a genius would be an act of disposition, they'd want to 'hold the world in their hand'. >The artist has breathed in the world to breathe it out again; the philosopher has the world outside him and he has to absorb it>Genius ! genius ! how much mental disturbance and discomfort, hatred and envy, jealousy and pettiness, has it not aroused in the majority of men, and how much counterfeit and tinsel has the desire for it not occasioned ?Genius is supposed to make people jealous, it's supposed to arise all those feelings of immorality and immoral failing when it appears, that's why it's collected in the 'individual'. Weininger also listed physical weakness as a sin along with any other major sin. Because everyone fails it has to be collected in one as a sign in remembrance of that collective shirking. Remember the 'genius' doesn't exist, in the world it can only exist as crooked stick, not a metal rod, or people would be completely possessed by it. It's a sign or symbol that HAS to be chosen internally by everyone, they have to find the way for themselves and CHOOSE Christ. That's responsibility through disposition and character
>>23623905aren't you conflating genius with founders of religion?
>>23623916No I’m saying responsibility and morality means standard. Weininger likes religious founders the most because it’s like the difference between someone that does something great and asymmetrical off the pressure of some thorn in their side vs a person that can flip around their own organs
>>23624274isn't the worldly genius of a man like napoleon inherently amoral? but your formulation is right. the page on founders of religion is probably my favorite single page of philosophy i've ever read. have you seen the sentiment elaborated anywhere else? i can only think of zizek's formula for christ's masterhood.
Just call me if you want to talk next time broOr maybe not… I’m pretty busy
Jeez what’d I say that bothered you this time. You know I wasn’t so sure but maybe I really do have an understanding of the world
