/lit/ - Literature

>>21000612

>>20994523

>>20487638
Sincerity does not get you laid with anyone but a prostitute.
Monks and whores have so much in common.

>read sex and character
>expect misogyny
>talks about hermaphrodites and homos
What was this guy's deal?

Was he right?

>"This is also the place to remember the similarity between the Englishman and the Jew, which has often been emphasized since Richard Wagner first noted it. Among all the Germanic peoples the English are most likely to have a certain affinity to the Semites. This is suggested by their orthodoxy, including their strictly literal interpretation of the Sabbath. The religiousness of the English often involves hypocrisy, and their asceticism a great deal of prudery. Like women, they have never been productive either in music or in religion. There may be irreligious poets—who cannot be very great—but there is no irreligious musician, and there is also a connection between religion and the fact that the English have never produced a significant architect and even less an outstanding philosopher. Berkeley is an Irishman, as are Swift and Sterne, while Erigena, Carlyle and Hamilton, like Burns, are Scots. Shakespeare and Shelley, the two greatest Englishmen, are still far from the pinnacles of humanity and come nowhere near Dante or Aeschylus. If we consider the English “philosophers,” we see it was they who have supplied the reaction against any depth ever since the Middle Ages, from William of Occam and Duns Scotus, through Roger Bacon and the Chancellor of the same surname, Spinoza’s spiritual relative Hobbes and the shallow Locke, to Hartley, Priestley, Bentham, the two Mills, Lewes, Huxley, and Spencer. This list contains all the important names from the history of English philosophy, for Adam Smith and David Hume were Scots. Let us never forget that psychology without the soul has come to us from England. The Englishman has impressed the German as an efficient empiricist and as exponent of Realpolitik in both practical and theoretical terms, but this is all that can be said about his importance for philosophy. There has never yet been a profound thinker who stopped at empiricism, and never an Englishman who transcended it on his own."

Part 2: The Sexual Types, Chapter XIII, p.287

>man uncovers some fundamental truth, especially concerning modernity and its effect on society
>instead of feeling empowered, or reveling in his new-found knowledge, he commits suicide (or worse yet, starts mailing bombs to people)
>many such cases
>pic related
Why does this happen?

Ahem

>>18328325
>"Women are equipped to a high degree with the art of creating the illusion that they are really asexual and that their sexuality is only a concession to Man. For if this illusion were to cease, what would become of the competition of several, or indeed many, men for one woman? However, with the support of men who have believed them, women today have almost succeeded in persuading the opposite sex that the most important, most characteristic, need of Man is sexuality, that he can expect the fulfilment of his truest and deepest desires only from Woman, and that chastity, for him, is something unnatural and impossible. How often are the young men who find satisfaction in serious work told by women, to whom they do not seem too ugly and too unpromising as lovers or sons-in-law, not to study too hard, but to "enjoy life." These friendly admonitions reveal Woman's, naturally unconscious, sense of failing in her mission -- which is directed solely at copulation -- and of becoming nothing and losing all her significance together with her entire sex, as soon as a man begins to take an interest in anything other than sexual matters.

>That women will ever change in this respect is doubtful. Nor should it be believed that they were ever any different. Today the sensual element may be more prominent than it used to be, because such an infinitely large part of the "woman's movement" is only a desire to exchange motherhood for prostitution: The movement as a whole is the emancipation of prostitutes rather than an emancipation of women, and its main result is certainly the bolder emergence of the coquette element in Woman."

What does /lit/ think of Otto Weinninger?
Have you read Sex and Character yet?

Have you read Sex and Character by Otto Weininger? Was he right about women and race?
Additionally, have you read On Women by Arthur Schopenhauer? Was he right about women

Otto Weininger was right about women.

What the fuck was his problem?

Have you read Sex and Character?
What did you think of it?

>>14937219
>Since when do 18-year olds write about anything deeply profound or philosophical?

Did he overdose on redpills?

Sex and Character by Otto Weininger

Have you guys read Otto Weininger's Sex and Character?

Was he really right about women? Are women really creatures with no self? Are women just their sexuality and nothing besides?

>“Woman is soulless and possesses neither ego nor individuality, personality nor freedom, character nor will.”

Now that the dust has settled, was he really a homosexual?

Many articles written about him conclude that he definitely was one, but is that just a way to dismiss his arguments on the basis that he criticized something that he hated about himself? It seems to me that the contemporary academic tends to think that anyone who criticizes homosexuality or speaks badly about it, is actually just a latent homosexual who hates that part about themselves.

Weininger

Why haven't there been any great women writers despite the claim that women are more equipped verbally compared to men? Is Weininger really right by saying that women don't have souls?

What are your thoughts on this gentleman?
Was he right?

What was his problem?
(other than dying as a virgin)

Can someone explain why Weininger thought Jews were "feminine"? I don't see any evidence for that