/lit/ - Literature

My guess would be, demoralization after pondering and the feeling of not being able to do anything, nobody cares about the truth and very often these truths do not empower the person literally, only burden him with a wisdom that generates permanent alienation.

What did you think?

Gee, I dunno...what would *you* do if you realized the bulk of humanity were half-witted cattle, racing each other to be first to the slaughterhouse, and stampeding you along with them? Get all *cheerful* about it or something?

People really, really suck.

You don't want to know the truth.

The truth is that the world is pure materialism. It's too much for most to stomach.

>>19237858
>The truth is that the world is pure materialism
the truth is that this is pure cope

>>19237548
These answers make me believe that none of the people have read or understood Weininger

>>19237548
The truth hurts.

>>19238126
Nice projection faggot, the world is entirely material and that is too horrible and nightmarish for you to stomach so you desperately deny it

>>19238174
>projecting his embarrassingly pseud-tier views this hard
ngmi

I think it's funny there is always talk about the dignity of surviving the harshness of the natural world but then being unable to adapt in survive in the modern. Anti-modernism is a cope.

>>19238180
I don't want to believe this but anything is so obviously cope.

If there's an alternative recommend me a book and a place to start.

>Inb4 the bible

>>19238202
phenomenology of spirit

>>19238174
Please share the copium Mr frog

>>19237548
a young man, especially an intelligent one, looks for a mediator, no? a bright young man must end up looking past his own father, past his peers, for such a model. he ends up fashioning his own ideal in god. if you read weininger's 'last thoughts' it is as if his god is entirely turned away from the world; the world itself is to guilt-ridden, too ephemeral. nobility in things characterizes them only to the extent that they have left this world. look at his chapter on animal symbolism: every natural thing becomes a symbol for some aspect of guilt, even the stars, for, alas, they 'twinkle and so are vain'. there is much of the dramatic in weininger, no? after all, he wrote that wagner was the greatest after christ -- wagner, of all people. just read weininger carefully. what is his concept of goodness? the highest, all-encompassing being in the 'most perfect' reality. what is this reality? it is alike to the eternal realm of forms, no? is there not much of the gnostic in weininger? materiality as sin, natural being as sin, all being vanity. his dramatism was his effeminacy, was it not? it was a melodramatic sense of 'duty', a relentless pursuit of 'the highest being'. all possible mediators fall, one after the other. only the remote, imperceptible god remains. how does weininger follow after this highest model for being? must it not drive him to suicide? after all, how can he remain in the world, as a natural thing -- eating, bathing, defecating -- and not look at himself with disgust? he, being in the world, is totally unlike his god. what is left to him but suicide?

>>19237548
>hurr man good woman bad incel cope
>fundamental truth
lmao the absolute state of philosophyfags, get your own board already.

>>19238291
just look at this one of his last aphorisms:
>for shakespeare the opposite of compassion is not cruelty but apathy
i.e., indifference. as weininger says he thought shakespeare was a kind of genius to be 'overcome', by greater genius, which he gave beethoven as an example. the dramatic, striving tendency in weininger is very unlike the world of shakespeare and rabelais, with its calm trinity (i.e., the ebb and flow of the world through its opposites, alongside the serenity of a third, the one that unites the other two). weininger remain in the 'problem of duality' which, with nothing left to stand on, just tears apart.

here is another of his last
>all illness is ugly. that is why it must be sin
it is as if the book of job were never written. again, weininger is unable to find repose in the transitory. illness, death, passion -- clearly these are all caused by sin, the sinfulness of what is in the world, i.e., what is not god.

weininger is a lot like dostoevsky's kirilov, who is tempted to assert himself against the fear of death, the 'last thing to conquer' (weininger's last 'note'). there is all this dramatic pursuit of some kind of self-assertion, this desiring to be god -- and really to challenge god as a rival. one hopes to become god (take god's place) by rising up to the challenge of committing against oneself that which is most fearful, which looms over like a mocking god. in effect, one seeks to take hold of death itself, and bring it upon oneself as though it were nothing. this is a young man's anxiety -- an inability to cope with the thought of a greater rival. but how could weininger stop striving? idleness, tarrying would be sin; for weininger, morality is all striving, directedness. but this is just the opposite of a model -- so there is a nasty contradiction at the bottom of it. one the one hand, his serene, reposing god, terrifyingly indifferent to the world; on the other, the envious subject, anxious to challenge this god, to stir him into some activity and thereby to get past him. hence one tries to bring oneself to an identical serenity; to look death in the face and say that it is nothing -- to bring it willingly upon oneself, even! like a bucket of cold water. death is the only passage. but this is sheer foolishness: how could god, being god, be moved? this is kirilov's unanswered question, no?

>>19238202
>I don't want to believe this but anything is so obviously cope
only once you realize that cope is cope can you move forward

>>19238547
This

>>19237548
Kevin Solway: Otto Weininger certainly wasn't fully enlightened (ie, a "Buddha"), and he probably wasn't even enlightened (ie, having a complete intellectual understanding of Reality, as well as the direct experience of it).

But, relative to ordinary people, he is practically enlightened, because he is so far above the station of the ordinary human mind, and so close to absolute Truth.

Being so close to it, his life reflects enlightenment, even if it did not reside fully inside him.

Kierkegaard says:

"God can involve himself with the human race on one of two conditions, either in such a way that individuals are found who are willing to venture out so far in hating themselves that God can use them as apostles, or in such a way that the true situation is honestly and unconditionally admitted. The latter is my primitivity.

As far as the former is concerned, this is certainly the instruction of the New Testament. But with respect to venturing out so far, the following must be noted. This is something so dreadful for a human being that it is permissible to say: I dare not."

Kierkegaard is here saying that he has complete knowledge of the true situation (ie, God/Reality), but he hasn't the strength, or faith, or love of truth, to enter fully into it.

Now, Weininger's knowledge of the "true situation" (ie, God/Reality) was probably even less than that of Kierkegaard, yet it was enough to fill him with so much pain that he couldn't live with it.

Shardrol: What was the nature of that pain?

Kevin Solway: I think it was the pain of having some comprehension of what is actually true, and then seeing just how incredibly remote the world, and even himself, was from that truth.

It was the pain of being a "criminal" (ie, non-enlightened, non-perfect) - and knowing you are a criminal. I believe it was that very pain that killed him.

I recommend a study of Kierkegaard to learn more about spiritual suffering. He writes at length about Jesus as the "suffering servant".

http://archive.is/e45WF

>>19238350
You're stupid.

>>19237548
Weininger's ideas are outdated and contradict modern science