/lit/ - Literature

The library has it in the magazine. I'm too chicken to ask for it.
Don't even understand why. There's plenty I can't find in the lib but I did found this guy. I live in the Netherlands, and they have both a Dutch translation and the German original.

What did he write about and why was Wittgenstein so into him?

>>10139475
OP is still mad after he got shown up for the brainlet he was in that thread the other day so he feels the need to attack Weininger again.

>>10139475
I've read Sex and Character and On Last Things multiple times AMA.

>>10140303
> "It isn't necessary or rather not possible to agree with him but the greatness lies in that with which we disagree. It is his enormous mistake which is great." In the same letter to Moore, Wittgenstein added that if one were to add a negation sign before the whole of Sex and Character, one would have expressed an important truth; that is, he did not disagree with Weininger point by point but as a whole.

I dont get it

>>10140361

LW thought he was so wrong about every tiny little thing that he was impressed with the effort; the "negation sign" he's talking about is his belief in the direct OPPOSITE of every point Weininger is making.

>>10139475
Weininger just struggled with his sexuality. He's human. Oh well... But his mind was phenomenal. He would have been a great philosopher/poet.

>>10140378
>struggled with sexuality

in what way?

>>10140382
Wasn’t he a notorious f.a.g.?

>>10140361
It was his methodology. Weininger proceed from the general to the particular. LW thought it better to proceed from the particular to the general. Hence his focus on the particulars of language and thought. From the same reason Freud couldn't accept Weininger's ideas. They lacked evidence.

>>10140382
He was homosexual.

>>10140392
>>10140399
evidence?

>>10140375
>LW thought he was so wrong about every tiny little thing that he was impressed with the effort; the "negation sign" he's talking about is his belief in the direct OPPOSITE of every point Weininger is making.

Wrong. Wittgenstein stated that he believed Weininger was right point by point but to put a negation sign in front of the work as a whole would result in it being correct.

>>10140378
>>10140392
>>10140399
Brainlets think Weininger = Wittgenstein.

>>10140408
which implies what, exactly?

that women are the real geniuses and men aren't?

>>10140408
And what would the general idea of the book be then?

>>10140415
>>10140416
No one knows. It's one of those Wittgenstein anecdotes that Wittgenstein professors like to jack themselves off over trying to discover its true meaning.

http://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/25535/sample/9780521825535ws.pdf

Page 4

>>10140421

So okay I misinterpreted the quote. I guess it’s Ludwig playing more language games?

>>10140415
>>10140416
>>10140421
>>10140429
Page 2, sorry. Here's a quote from the book in the image to my left.

>>10140432
literally what the fuck did he mean by this

>>10140444
It is unlikely that Weininger would have regarded Wittgenstein as a great genius. It is unfortunate that so many people only know of Weininger through Wittgenstein, who has clearly confused his image.

Sex and Character is an extremely challenging work, though very few people seemed to have addressed it. Zizek has critiqued it, as well as some Marxist feminists who were hopelessly out of their depth, but it will likely remain an esoteric work.

>Sex and Character is an extremely challenging work

Implying a kid with Schopenhauer-levels of misogyny in him has anything useful to say about sex or character.

>>10140580
Not him, but I'll definitely imply that

>>10140580
Why do you talk about books and people you haven't read?

>>10140580
>muh he just hates women xD
People like you don't have any place in academics lel

>>10140580
Ever wondered if women were simply inferior to me as a white man? Think it wasn't men like me who built Western white civilization? Think it wasn't men like me who created, invented, and conquered everything? Don't think women through feminism and communism are now trying to destroy all we've built as white men? You belong in the kitchen, sweety. Leave /lit/. This is for grown men. Let the adults talk.

>>10140588
>>10140590
>>10140592
>>10140598

in all seriousness the book is not that difficult to understand, nor dismissable

>>10140664
can you say why?

>>10140671
>114. Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life."

>Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven."

>>10140678
what did he mean by this

>>10140679
Read Sex and Character

>>10140409
Wittgenstein was enthusiastic about Weininger.

>>10140392
Weininger was obviously a repressed tranny

>>10140678
Hold on a bloody second...Are you saying that Christian decadence led to the current decline?

Really makes me think...

>>10140678
Was Jesus the first trap chaser?

>>10140678
DELET THIS

Half of it seems like somewhat interesting metaphysics that is let down by Elliot tier r9k diatribes.

Doesn't seem worth it, desu. Women are party crashing annoyances; I get it. And?