What does IQfy think of Mr. Weininger and his thoughts on women?
>"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."
"Sex and Character" - Otto Weininger
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Schopenhauer wore it better
Weininger misunderstood Wagner. He claimed his philosophy was inspired by Parsifal, but he failed to understand that it was about the importance of loving woman not hating woman. Wagner's dramas and essays are the superior analysis of female nature. Read Opera and Drama, A Communication to My Friends and On the Womanly in the Human Race, and listen to the Ring cycle, Tristan und Isolde and Parsifal.
>The nature of Woman is love: but this love is a receiving (empfangende), and in receival (Empfängniss) an unreservedly surrendering, love.
>Woman first gains her full individuality in the moment of surrender. She is the Undine who glides soulless through the waves of her native element, till she receives her soul through love of a man. The look of innocence in a woman's eye is the endlessly pellucid mirror in which the man can only see the general faculty for love, till he is able to see in it the likeness of himself. When he has recognised himself therein, then also is the womans all faculty condensd into one strenuous necessity, to love him with the all-dominant fervour of full surrender.
>A woman who really loves, who sets her virtue in her pride, her pride, however, in her sacrifice; that sacrifice whereby she surrenders, not one portion of her being, but her whole being in the amplest fulness of its faculty—when she conceives. But in joy and gladness to bear the thing conceived, this is the deed of Woman,—and to work deeds the woman only needs to be entirely what she is, but in no way to will something: for she can will but one thing—to be a woman! To man, therefore, woman is the ever clear and cognisable measure of natural infallibility (Untrüglichkeit), for she is at her perfectest when she never quits the sphere of beautiful Instinctiveness (Unwillkürlichkeit), to which she is banned by that which alone can bless her being,—by the Necessity of Love.
Wagner corrected Schopenhauer's mistakes.
Wagner inability to recognize the genius of some of his peers dampens his credibility in matters outside of music. Wagner was not the ‘great man’ that Leibniz, Haydn, or Goethe were, no matter his valiant attempts at gesamtkunstwerk.
>Wagner inability to recognize the genius of some of his peers
Such as? Btw your opinion on Wagner not being a 'great man' a la Goethe isn't held by any important figure.
Wagner wasn’t half the man Mendelssohn was and he knew it. Wagner didn’t have half the moral character nor the charisma that Haydn did.
I think Wagner was pretty charismatic. Moral though no so much
how was he immoral? The Wagner =bad person is the most absurd cliche. I guarantee you he was a much "better person" than anyone who has ever repeated this
I was thinking of his affairs mostly. Not to say he was a monster but not exactly the picture of morality
I get why you think that if you are unfamiliar wit the subject but they are pretty justifiable within context. His first wife was already unfaithful so it wasn't as though he owed her any tremendous loyalty. The incident with the Wesendonck's looks really bad since this was his patron, but this was an affair du coeur which was unconsummated and was important in producing Tristan, maybe the most affecting work of art ever, so all is forgiven.
No one with a full view of the matter could blame him for "stealing" Cosima, unless you are under the most fundamentalist Catholic view of marriage, it's clear that few couples were so united and in every sense made for each other, and Hans Bulow didn't treat her well.
Actually, from what I can gather, Wagner was one the the least "lustful" of geniuses, and there is pretty much no reason to classify him as a cad or a womanizer, bizarre descriptions which I see made all the time.
This. See how Hans von Bulow described it himself:
>I know from what Von Bülow himself told me that he accepted philosophically the trouble between himself and his wife Cosima Liszt, and her subsequent marriage to Wagner. Soon after he arrived in New York, in 1876, I called on him, and during our conversation I broached the subject in a tentative way. I was not sure that his feelings toward Wagner were not so hostile that mention of the Bayreuth master would have to be avoided, and I thought it just as well to arrive immediately at a clear understanding of the matter.
>"Bülow," I said, "you will excuse me if I touch on a rather delicate subject. Of course your friends abroad know just what your present attitude is toward Wagner; but over here we know little or nothing about it. Perhaps you would like to enlighten me. I hope, however, I have not touched on a painful subject."
>"Not at all," he exclaimed. "What happened was the most natural thing in the world. You know what a wonderful woman Cosima is—such intellect, such energy, such ambition, which she naturally inherits from her father. I was entirely too small a personality for her. She required a colossal genius like Wagner's, and he needed the sympathy and inspiration of an intellectual and artistic woman like Cosima. That they should have come together eventually was inevitable."
And one thing I believe Weininger is correct on is that philosophical and artistic genius is an eminently moral calling
>The statement that a great man is most moral towards himself stands on sure ground; he will not allow alien views to be imposed on him, so obscuring the judgment of his own ego; he will not passively accept the interpretation of another, of an alien ego, quite different from his own, and if ever he has allowed himself to be influenced, the thought will always be painful to him. A conscious lie that he has told will harass him throughout his life, and he will be unable to shake off the memory in Dionysian fashion. But men of genius will suffer most when they become aware afterwards that they have unconsciously helped to spread a lie in their talk or conduct with others. Other men, who do not possess this organic thirst for truth, are always deeply involved in lies and errors, and so do not understand the bitter revolt of great men against the “lies of life.”
Lmao, Mendelssohn is a nobody next to Wagner, and Wagner wasn't any less noble and idealistic than Haydn. I don't know where you're getting him being less charismatic from, since he was renowned for his charisma.
This may be the dumbest comment in the history of IQfy
Even if true, and (a) it's not and (b) who are you to judge their relative human merit, Wagner's personal stature and his incidental writings are irrelevant to his art. The Ring dwarfs Hadyn and Mendelssohn and everything since. As a composer, he was a spiritual titan. As a journalist or analyst of the female psyche, not so much. But who in his right mind cares?
>Who are you to judge their relative human merit
It’s easy to judge their merit when one was a humble, good-natured and virtuous picture of the Enlightenment man while the other was conceited crypto-neopagan blinded by jealousy even at the height of his own success
>Wagner's personal stature and his incidental writings are irrelevant to his art
Not according to the resident IQfy wagnerites, who post about him in every thread. Mendelssohn on the other hand was practically a polymath, for which Wagner resented him.
>The Ring dwarfs Hadyn and Mendelssohn and everything since.
Fricking delusional.
I would not say that the Ring dwarfs Haydn. Mendelssohn sure but Haydn was unbelievably innovative. I don't even personally like Haydn very much but you cannot argue that he wasn't one of the most important composers of all time.
nta, and haydn was one of the greatest composers to ever live, but it's not exaggerating to say the ring dwarfs him. the ring is an immortal work of genius, while most of haydn's works, despite their perfect craftmanship and innovation, are quite flippant and superficial, since they were written primarily for the entertainment of the aristocracy. he only produced his truly great works after mozart died and for himself.
You don’t have to say nonsense for no reason
Weininger is based but more so when he isn’t talking about women, On Ultimate Things.
Sex and Character is definitely the steelman of misogyny, and thoroughly mogs all red pill misogyny grifters. These quotes make him sound deranged but they aren’t really representative of his work in my opinion. He has no affinity to most misogynists, he’s actually more of a feminist if anything
I agree that he misunderstood Parsifal but I don’t think that’s a fair description of Weininger’s view, or at least he would agree that one should love women and not hate them. He thought that true love for women would mean denying them love so as to liberate them from their sexuality. “Woman must cease to be woman”, he says at the end of sex and character. He took Kundry as a symbol of “women in general”, which is just not a tenable interpretation.
Towards the end Weininger was questioning his previous positions (such as the division of women into mother and prostitue types)
>He thought that true love for women would mean denying them love so as to liberate them from their sexuality.
That's the kind of rational view that Wagner was against, otherwise everyone of his dramas before Parsifal makes no sense. And it is still a misunderstanding of what happens in Parsifal, since Kundry is, in being a cursed prostitute, a particular case.
That’s what I’m saying
You are posfing on every trhead about Wagner and surprisingly woth relevant takes - this one, the one about lit women, the one about music and morality etc
Good
The aphorisms in On Last Things are really great, puts him of Nietzsche’s level as a psychologist imo. No one accomplished so much so young. He called Wagner the greatest man since Jesus Christ, Wagner who had said on average women were better than men
Although I don't really like the implications that his metaphysics of gender may have, he hits the nail on the head with many things. A pity that it is difficult to recommend to anyone, both for being israeli and for being a misogynist.
>being israeli and for being a misogynist.
Weininger was neither.
A lot of arguments similar to his seem to point to this idea that women are just more "natural" than men are. They operate mostly on instincts, reflexes, and peer pressure, they generally lack individuality, and exist more like a tree or a river than people with agency. Like they're more of an extension of nature than entities existing in nature.
Zizek points out that Weininger is paradoxically close to feminism, although at the same time he holds very anti-feminist positions. Weininger claims that true love does not exist and that the man's love merely projects his own ideals, making the woman an object. He argues that the woman betrays the man's true nature and seduces him through her "ontological mendacity". Zizek interprets these views as a critical reflection on gender roles and their interactions.
best book for this syndrome is Kreutzer Sonata, literally every second line is incredibly feminist and every second line incel tier rhetoric
Nobody writes more incel rhetoric than women themselves. They literally will write a song about their boyfriend being too nice and how they miss their toxic ex because it was 'exciting'. For example:
It is literally the nice guy/butthole meme kek
He's really more so following and working under Kant than Wagner or Schopenhauer. Wagner is just a proof for the confidence of his ideas. The fact that he is existed and was this icon worshipped by everyone in Vienna. Even the israeli Nietzcheans that Weininger was trying to counter had deep unbreakable respect for him so Wagner becomes this ultimate proof and symbol. But Parsifal is different from the works that made him so respected, and Weininger admits that it's musically weaker. It's Parsifal's innocence in the presence of Kundry that inspired Weininger
>Parsifal, a name which means “pure fool,” an innocent young man raised by his overly-protective mother in poverty
This is really more Ibsen, especially Peer Gynt (Weininger's favorite), Dostoyevsky, than the sort of world totalizing triumph that Wagner's known for. Majority of his references to Schopenhauer are used to draw up a specific point of disagreement and defense of Christianity, Schopenhauer's actual influence on him is in his weaker more proto-hippie boomer parts of the suffering genius. What's good and interesting in Sex and Character has to be interpreted more through Kant and Novalis. It's Kant that gives it the moral severity and the whole mission of trying to create this center point of dignity and judgement and standard for neo-man. It's Novalis that gives him his whole conception of genius, he just puts in a paragraph from his diaries. Schopenhauer gives him the whole suffering genius and unfulfillment, Wagner is his rockstar hero, but the real literary value comes through his references to Ibsen, Dostoyevsky, Kant, Novalis. It's funny but I realized he never really talks about Beethoven except saying Ode to Joy is overrated and Waldenstein 3rd movement is his best.
If you listen to Waldenstein it's basically perfect montage music, it's pretty easy to picture it playing in his head as he was laying there dying.
why do the people saying these things all look like this LOL
I agree however.