Otto Weininger on the English

[Anonymous No.19303492]

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

[Anonymous No.19303515]

The English-speaking world is a world of shopkeepers, nothing more than that.

[Anonymous No.19303569]

I suppose he would know.

[Anonymous No.19303625]

Why is a german complaining that the english are too empirical and physically-minded. And why does he leave out Newton, the best example of English empiricism

[Anonymous No.19303735]

>>19303492
>thinks Eriugena was Scottish (he was irish)
>thinks duns scotus was shallow (literally named 'the subtle doctor')
>thinks Shelley is the second greatest English poet (not keats, wordsworth, chaucer, milton...)
>thinks Shakespeare comes "nowhere near" Dante (lol, not even his fellow germans like goethe agree)
>doesn't think empiricism is 'le deep' (how we've discovered the most astonishing, profound facts about the universe)
Kek. So a halfwit understanding of what he was trying to criticise. Definitely reads like a 23 year old

[Anonymous No.19303766]

>>19303735
>>doesn't think empiricism is 'le deep' (how we've discovered the most astonishing, profound facts about the universe)
You negated your whole post with this. You have no idea what he's talking about.

[Anonymous No.19303773]

>>19303766
I find this reply ironic

[Anonymous No.19303785]

>>19303735
>(how we've discovered the most astonishing, profound facts about the universe)
Empiricism has had profundity, but to say we discovered 'the most astonishing, profound facts about the universe' through it is just idiotic.

[Anonymous No.19303790]

>>19303625
>why does he leave out Newton, the best example of English empiricism
It seems like he is talking about philosophers, not scientists.

[Anonymous No.19303840]

>>19303785
You don't think the big bang is profound? Discovering the origin of the universe is far more profound than whatever masturbatory a priori philosophy that Weininger values has discovered.

>>19303790
Newton was a natural philosopher. Just like Priestley or the two Bacons that he mentioned, in fact. Omitting Newton (and Darwin, so arguably the two greatest natural philosophers who ever lived) is just cope.

[Anonymous No.19303882]

>You don't think the big bang is profound? Discovering the origin of the universe is far more profound than whatever masturbatory a priori philosophy that Weininger values has discovered

[Anonymous No.19303924]

>>19303840
>You don't think the big bang is profound?
Not in the slightest, it means little.

The origin of the universe only matters on a profound level qualitatively rather than quantitatively. This is why questions of the meaning of existence always go back to the beginning of existence, and wisdom always is associated with earlier ages.

[Anonymous No.19303932]

>>19303735
>>doesn't think empiricism is 'le deep' (how we've discovered the most astonishing, profound facts about the universe)
All empirical "facts" are uncertain. Certainty is only possible through logic.

[Anonymous No.19303942]

>>19303840
>Discovering the origin of the universe is far more profound than whatever masturbatory a priori philosophy that Weininger values has discovered.
According to your masturbatory a priori philosophy...

[Anonymous No.19303948]

>>19303924
>Not in the slightest, it means little. The origin of the universe only matters on a profound level qualitatively rather than quantitatively.
Philosophers argued for millennia whether the universe was eternal or created. Thinkers were even excommunicated over the dispute. This is just factually incorrect.
>wisdom always is associated with earlier ages
Kek. This is just dogmatism.

[Anonymous No.19304008]

>>19303932
>All empirical "facts" are uncertain.
True, so far as it goes.
>Certainty is only possible through logic.
Logic cannot logically justify itself with certainty, so no.
>>19303942
According to my circumspect a priori philosophy that OP thinks is 'shallow', inclusive of the greatest pinnacles of human achievement.

[Anonymous No.19304013]

>>19303735
>>19303773
>>19303840
>>19303948
>>19304008

>t.

[Anonymous No.19304047]

>>19303948
You sure are stupid. I'm not going to explain my whole post, but I will say that I never supported the idea that previous ages are more wise, only that the association was important for understanding why 'the origin of the universe' is a profound question for many, that is, it has a qualitative meaning and isn't just an empirical fact.

Now reread my post and only reply when you've understood it this time.

[Anonymous No.19304069]

>>19304008
>Logic cannot logically justify itself with certainty
It's impossible not to use logic. The question of whether one values or *believes in* logic is a choice the individual makes.

[Anonymous No.19304075]

>>19304008
>According to my circumspect a priori philosophy that OP thinks is 'shallow', inclusive of the greatest pinnacles of human achievement.
Okay?

[Anonymous No.19304159]

>>19304047
>You sure are stupid. I'm not going to explain my whole post, but I will say that I never supported the idea that previous ages are more wise, only that the association was important for understanding why 'the origin of the universe' is a profound question for many, that is, it has a qualitative meaning and isn't just an empirical fact.
Failing to grasp my point entirely. There is no total distinction between qualitative meaning and empirical fact. The two bear on each other. As I pointed out, philosophers argued for millennia over empirical fact, believing it had deeply qualitative importance to them.
What is amusing is that the 'deep' philosophers Weninger was influenced by (Kant) advanced theories (the transcendental aesthetic) that were disproven in part by the 'shallow' empirical tradition he derides.
>>19304069
>It's impossible not to use logic. The question of whether one values or *believes in* logic is a choice the individual makes.
Agreed
>>19304075
Okay :)

[Anonymous No.19304175]

>>19304159
>What is amusing is that the 'deep' philosophers Weninger was influenced by (Kant) advanced theories (the transcendental aesthetic) that were disproven in part by the 'shallow' empirical tradition he derides.
Empiricism, being inherently uncertain, is in on position to disprove anything.

[Anonymous No.19304183]

>>19304159
>What is amusing is that the 'deep' philosophers Weninger was influenced by (Kant) advanced theories (the transcendental aesthetic) that were disproven in part by the 'shallow' empirical tradition he derides.
Empiricism, being inherently uncertain, is in no position to disprove anything.

[Anonymous No.19304208]

>>19303492
>Shakespeare nowhere near Dante
Stopped reading here.

[Anonymous No.19304225]

>>19304183
>Empiricism, being inherently uncertain, is in no position to disprove anything.
In the same way that we can never conclusively disprove any claim to knowledge about the universe because an evil demon might always be tricking me, sure. But this is just a solipsistic argument if held to.

[Anonymous No.19304226]

>>19303840
>You don't think the big bang is profound?
The theory came from a catholic and it has a clear christian bias.

[Anonymous No.19304240]

>>19304159
>There is no total distinction between qualitative meaning and empirical fact.
You can believe that, but it's secondary to what I was saying.

Read it again.

[Anonymous No.19304300]

>>19304240
>I'm not going to reply to your points, just repeat how I said something different
k

[Anonymous No.19304352]

>>19303735
>he got the nationality wrong so that means everything he said about the person is wrong!
>the proof that he isn't shallow is his nickname!
>we've discovered the most profound facts about the universe with empiricism, bro! we are made of stardust bro
get a load of this pseud

[Anonymous No.19304364]

>>19304300
Didn't say that, go back and read my post.

[Anonymous No.19304385]

>>19304225
>we can never conclusively disprove any claim to knowledge about the universe because an evil demon might always be tricking me
Logic provides us with certainty. For example, your statement above is a 100% certain, logical, absolute truth.

[Anonymous No.19304388]

>Euro seethe thread #234774
Yeah am thinking Anglos are alright

[Anonymous No.19304394]

>>19304388
But Anglos are of the European stock, anon

[Anonymous No.19304417]

>>19303492
based, and yes he was right

[Anonymous No.19304572]

>>19303492
In comparing Enlgish translations and the original German of this passage I noticed that only in the OP translation, which is Ladislaus Loeb's from 2005, are Dante and Aeschylus mentioned. The German from the fourteenth and nineteenth unchanged editions have "Michel Angelo and Beethoven" in their place. Weininger made changes after the first edition and this could be one of the changes he made. The only question is which names appear in the first edition and which in the revised editions.

The German text from the fourteenth and nineteenth unchanged editions:

"Hier ist auch der Ort, der seit Richard Wagner oft hervorgehobenen Ähnlichkeit des Engländers mit dem Juden zu gedenken. Denn sicherlich haben unter allen Germanen sie am ehesten eine gewisse Verwandtschaft mit den Semiten. Ihre Orthodoxie, ihre streng wörtliche Auslegung der Sabbatruhe weist darauf hin. Es ist in der Religiosität der Engländer nicht selten Scheinheiligkeit, in ihrer Askese nicht wenig Prüderie gelegen. Auch sind sie, wie die Frauen, weder durch Musik, noch durch Religion je produktiv gewesen: es mag irreligiöse Dichter geben – *sehr* große Künstler können es nicht sein –, aber es gibt keinen irreligiösen Musiker. Und es hängt hiemit auch zusammen, warum die Engländer keinen bedeutenden Architekten und nie einen hervorragenden Philosophen hervorgebracht haben. Berkeley ist wie Swift und Sterne ein *Ire*, Erigena, Carlyle und Hamilton, ebenso wie Burns, sind *Schotten*. Shakespeare und Shelley, die zwei größten Engländer, bezeichnen noch lange nicht die Gipfel der Menschheit, sie reichen auch nicht entfernt hinan an Michel Angelo oder an Beethoven. Und wenn wir nun die englischen "Philosophen" betrachten, so sehen wir, wie von ihnen seit dem Mittelalter stets die Reaktion gegen alle Tiefe ausgegangen ist: von Wilhelm von Occam und Duns Scotus angefangen, über Roger Baco und seinen *Namensvetter* den Kanzler, den Spinoza so geistesverwandten Hobbes und den seichten Locke, bis zu Hartley, Priestley, Bentham, den beiden Mill, Lewes, Huxley, Spencer. Damit sind aber aus der Geschichte der englischen Philosophie die wichtigsten Namen auch schon aufgezählt; denn Adam Smith und David Hume waren Schotten. *Vergessen wir niemals, daß uns aus England die seelenlose Psychologie gekommen ist!* Der Engländer hat dem Deutschen als tüchtiger Empiriker, als Realpolitiker im Praktischen wie im Theoretischen, imponiert, aber damit ist seine Wichtigkeit für die Philosophie auch erschöpft. Es hat noch nie einen tieferen Denker gegeben, der beim Empirismus stehengeblieben ist; und noch nie einen Engländer, der über ihn selbständig hinausgekommen wäre."

[Anonymous No.19304577]

>>19304572
The anonymous 1906 English translation from the sixth German edition:

"I may now touch upon the likeness of the English to the Jews, a topic discussed at length by Wagner. It cannot be doubted that of the Germanic races the English are in closest relationship with the Jews. Their orthodoxy and their devotion to the Sabbath afford a direct indication. The religion of the Englishman is always tinged with hypocrisy, and his asceticism is largely prudery. The English, like women, have been most unproductive in religion and in music; there may be irreligious poets, although not great artists, but there is no irreligious musician. So, also, the English have produced no great architects or philosophers. Berkely, like Swift and Sterne, were Irish; Carlyle, Hamilton, and Burns were Scotch. Shakespeare and Shelley, the two greatest Englishmen, stand far from the pinnacle of humanity; they do not reach so far as Angelo and Beethoven. If we consider English philosophers we shall see that there has been a great degeneration since the Middle Ages. It began with William of Ockham and Duns Scotus; it proceeded through Roger Bacon and his namesake, the Chancellor; through Hobbes, who, mentally, was so near akin to Spinoza; through the superficial Locke to Hartley, Priestley, Bentham, the two Mills, Lewes, Huxley, and Spencer. These are the greatest names in the history of English philosophy, for Adam Smith and David Hume were Scotchmen. It must always be remembered against England, that from her there came the soulless psychology. The Englishman has impressed himself on the German as a rigorous empiricist and as a practical politician, but these two sides exhaust his importance in philosophy. There has never yet been a true philosopher who made empiricism his basis, and no Englishman has got beyond empiricism without external help."

[Anonymous No.19304583]

>>19304577
Robert Willis' 2004 translation from the fourteenth, unchanged edition:

"Here is also the place to consider the often, since Richard Wagner, raised similarity of the Englishman with the Jew. Then certainly they, among all Germanics, most probably have a certain kinship with the Semites. There has lain in the religiosity of the English not seldom sanctimoniousness, in their asceticism not a little prudishness. They have also, like women, neither through music nor through religion, ever been productive: there may be irreligious poets - *very* great artists can not be it - but there is no irreligious musician. And it also interrelates with this why the English have brought forth no significant architect and never an outstanding philosopher. Berkeley is, like Swift and Sterne, an *Irishman*, Erigena, Carlyle and Hamilton, likewise Burns, are *Scots*. Shakespeare and Shelley, the two greatest Englishmen, represent not nearly the summit of humanity, they do not even distantly reach upwards to Michelangelo or to Beethoven. And if we now consider the English "philosophers", so do we see how, since the Middle Ages, always the reaction against all profundity has proceeded from them: starting from William of Occam and Duns Scotus, over Roger Bacon and his *namesake the Chancellor*, to Hobbes, so spiritually akin to Spinoza, and to the shallow Locke, up to Hartley, Priestley, and Bentham, to the two Mills, Lewes, Huxley, Spencer. But with that the most important names are also already enumerated from the history of English philosophy; then Adam Smith and David Hume were Scots. *Let us never forget that the soulless psychology has come to us from England!* The Englishman has impressed the German as an able empiricist, as a Real-politician in the practical as in the theoretical, but his importance for philosophy is also exhausted with that. There has never ever been a deeper thinker who has remained fixed with empiricism; and still never an Englishman who would have independently gotten beyond it."

[Anonymous No.19304604]

>>19303492
>Berkeley is an Irishman, as are Swift and Sterne, while Erigena, Carlyle and Hamilton, like Burns, are Scots
Eriugena was also Irish tho, the Johannes "Scots" throws people off
But damn hes right, the only notable Anglo phils were either massive jews, Celts or German emigrants

[Anonymous No.19304686]

>>19304394
And so too can a nigger walk into thread and claim Euros are of African stock!

[Anonymous No.19304723]

>>19304604
I feel like euros are putting the cart before the horse with philosophy and its use. Who are all of these German and Jewish ‘Anglo’ philosophers? I suppose the 20th century proved we really needed those vague continental copes from the supposed Natural Philosophers too clever to be outdone by the stemlord Anglos. Anyway Smith, Locke and Hume are Anglo

[Anonymous No.19304773]

>>19304572
I got Weininger's italicised words wrong. This is how the passage appears in the nineteenth, unchanged edition:

"Hier ist auch der Ort, der seit Richard Wagner oft hervorgehobenen Ähnlichkeit des Engländers mit dem Juden zu gedenken. Denn sicherlich haben unter allen Germanen sie am ehesten eine gewisse Verwandtschaft mit den Semiten. Ihre Orthodoxie, ihre streng wörtliche Auslegung der Sabbatruhe weist darauf hin. Es ist in der Religiosität der Engländer nicht selten Scheinheiligkeit, in ihrer Askese nicht wenig Prüderie gelegen. Auch sind sie, wie die Frauen, weder durch Musik, noch durch Religion je produktiv gewesen: es mag irreligiöse Dichter geben – *sehr* große Künstler können es nicht sein –, aber es gibt keinen irreligiösen Musiker. Und es hängt hiemit auch zusammen, warum die Engländer keinen bedeutenden Architekten und nie einen hervorragenden Philosophen hervorgebracht haben. *Berkeley* ist wie *Swift* und *Sterne* ein *Ire, Erigena, Carlyle* und *Hamilton*, ebenso wie *Burns*, sind *Schotten*. *Shakespeare* und *Shelley,* die zwei größten Engländer, bezeichnen noch lange nicht die Gipfel der Menschheit, sie reichen auch nicht entfernt hinan an *Michel Angelo* oder an *Beethoven*. Und wenn wir nun die englischen "Philosophen" betrachten, so sehen wir, wie von ihnen seit dem Mittelalter stets die Reaktion gegen alle Tiefe ausgegangen ist: von *Wilhelm von Occam* und *Duns Scotus* angefangen, über *Roger Baco* und seinen *Namensvetter den Kanzler,* den Spinoza so geistesverwandten *Hobbes* und den seichten *Locke,* bis zu *Hartley, Priestley, Bentham,* den beiden *Mill, Lewes, Huxley, Spencer.* Damit sind aber aus der Geschichte der englischen Philosophie die wichtigsten Namen auch schon aufgezählt; denn Adam *Smith* und David *Hume* waren Schotten. *Vergessen wir niemals, daß uns aus England die seelenlose Psychologie gekommen ist!* Der Engländer hat dem Deutschen als tüchtiger Empiriker, als Realpolitiker im Praktischen wie im Theoretischen, imponiert, aber damit ist seine Wichtigkeit für die Philosophie auch erschöpft. Es hat noch nie einen tieferen Denker gegeben, der beim Empirismus stehengeblieben ist; und noch nie einen Engländer, der über ihn selbständig hinausgekommen wäre."

[Anonymous No.19304791]

>>19304723
>Anyway Smith, Locke and Hume are Anglo
Only Locke is an anglo of those three

[Anonymous No.19304858]

>>19304773
Comparing this to Ladislaus Löb's translation, with his italicised words included:

"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."

Löb doesn't italicise any of the names Weininger mentions, removes his exclamation point from "Let us never forget that psychology without the soul has come to us from England", replaces Michel Angelo and Beethoven with Dante and Aeschylus and italicises "Realpolitik". I wonder why his translation is so different from the nineteenth, unchanged edition. I see a few possibilities: 1) despite claiming in his translator's note to be using the second edition he is using the first edition before Weininger made changes (this could account for "Michel Angelo" and "Beethoven" becoming "Dante" and "Aeschylus"); 2) he consciously made changes for translation into English, possibly to improve readability or 3) he made unconscious errors.

[Anonymous No.19304923]

>>19303515
What did Napoleon mean by this ? In science, arts and militarily England was on par with France and today the English have superseded them in all those areas.

[Anonymous No.19304953]

>>19304208
It's true.

[Anonymous No.19304978]

>>19304923
It means that in England shopkeepers ran society and organised everything according to their whims and preferences. (This is true.)

[Anonymous No.19304991]

>>19304923
His shops underproduced their shops so he had to pay a German to do his work