Otto Weininger, at the age of 23, published Sex and Character, an idealist justification for not trusting the cosmic Woman, as well as an extended rumination on genius, sexual compatibility, Judaism, memory, ethics, and logic, all upon the background of his sexual fears.
Thinking about it a bit more (please don't feel under any obligation to reply!)...
I quite like the idea of "becoming the text''. Rowan Williams, talking of the Psalms, says the text reads you (and that's very much what lots of people I know think about the Qur'an).
More generally, don't we look to books/art to be moved- not just for our mind to be presented with something that interests it (as if we were objective observers of the world and life)?
The point about the radical distinction between prostitute and mother made me wonder if that wasn't in part a legacy of gnostic currents within the Christian tradition. Nature, the body and the world are all fallen (to some extent) and with the emergence of modernity (and the decline of Christianity) all of them had to be "rehabilitated".
And so there's a wild swing to the other extreme such that 'the body' (or bare life) then becomes everything. Or, in another sense, the body becomes nothing because it is only matter, is only finite (Holbein's Dead Christ).
Why "apparently"? Don't you have any choice? As Robert Hughes asked (in a different context): what happens when the shock of the new doesn't shock any more?
Increasingly drawn to Wendell Berry's "I read for instruction".
Because I frequently find myself defending the idea that we should read e.g. Hitler, and then being deliberately misrepresented as somehow defending the text I in fact say we should understand. Ancient lore. It's not really important!
I hear what you're saying. Similarly, after 9/11 anyone trying to understand terrorism was labeled a sympathizer. On reflection, though, I'd rather not waste my time trying to understand darkness (never did get that quote by Gillian Rose about keeping one's wits about one in hell). The lure of the abyss! I'd rather think about cinnamon rolls, tbh.
That's wyrd Nina, always works for me. Must have been one of those overly sweet American ones with icing. Would kill for one, now that you mention it…haven't had one in years! (Sad, I know)
It's always interesting to contemplate unusual ideas—and Weininger is not the first or last man to have had this belief: it's worth hanging on until the discussion of the end of the book where Weininger becomes much more sympathetic to the female plight.
Thanks, Nina. Not sure if I will tbh. Lots of things are interesting. At my age I have to be more discriminating. There's a great book by P J. Griffiths related to this…On Curiosity.
You both killed it.
Great discussion!
Has Weininger inspired any esoteric dating apps?
All of them, somehow.
Neener Powa
Thinking about it a bit more (please don't feel under any obligation to reply!)...
I quite like the idea of "becoming the text''. Rowan Williams, talking of the Psalms, says the text reads you (and that's very much what lots of people I know think about the Qur'an).
More generally, don't we look to books/art to be moved- not just for our mind to be presented with something that interests it (as if we were objective observers of the world and life)?
The point about the radical distinction between prostitute and mother made me wonder if that wasn't in part a legacy of gnostic currents within the Christian tradition. Nature, the body and the world are all fallen (to some extent) and with the emergence of modernity (and the decline of Christianity) all of them had to be "rehabilitated".
And so there's a wild swing to the other extreme such that 'the body' (or bare life) then becomes everything. Or, in another sense, the body becomes nothing because it is only matter, is only finite (Holbein's Dead Christ).
Why "apparently"? Don't you have any choice? As Robert Hughes asked (in a different context): what happens when the shock of the new doesn't shock any more?
Increasingly drawn to Wendell Berry's "I read for instruction".
Because I frequently find myself defending the idea that we should read e.g. Hitler, and then being deliberately misrepresented as somehow defending the text I in fact say we should understand. Ancient lore. It's not really important!
I hear what you're saying. Similarly, after 9/11 anyone trying to understand terrorism was labeled a sympathizer. On reflection, though, I'd rather not waste my time trying to understand darkness (never did get that quote by Gillian Rose about keeping one's wits about one in hell). The lure of the abyss! I'd rather think about cinnamon rolls, tbh.
I had a cinnamon roll recently! It was great but didn't get in the way of my Dark Reading Regime...waaahahhahhaaa
That's wyrd Nina, always works for me. Must have been one of those overly sweet American ones with icing. Would kill for one, now that you mention it…haven't had one in years! (Sad, I know)
Only 20 min but I couldn't understand what the interest in someone who thinks women have no essence or soul is.
It's always interesting to contemplate unusual ideas—and Weininger is not the first or last man to have had this belief: it's worth hanging on until the discussion of the end of the book where Weininger becomes much more sympathetic to the female plight.
Thanks, Nina. Not sure if I will tbh. Lots of things are interesting. At my age I have to be more discriminating. There's a great book by P J. Griffiths related to this…On Curiosity.
My purpose in life is apparently to defend the study of books that people dislike. It could be worse!