2 Answers

  1. No way. Here you can quote the conclusion of Weininger's biographer Chandak Sengupta.

    “Weininger's argument, of course, was philosophical only in terms of terminology and rhetorical form. Based primarily on medical findings, Weininger rewrote, distorted, and misused them to fit his “data” into a deeply politicized ontology.”(Sengoopta, Chandak. Otto Weininger: Sex, Science, and Self in Imperial Vienna.)

    Weininger's book is interesting mainly because it was a bestseller at the beginning of the century, because it attracted the attention of a wide variety of people, far from psychology, physiology or philosophy.�

    Nikolai Berdyaev, in a long review of 1909, remarks:�

    “It is only wrong if Weininger becomes fashionable, if some of his ideas become widespread, which may seem piquant and entertaining, ideas that were justified in the passionate subjectivity of his rich personality, but harmful and vulgar in mass consumption.”

    That's exactly what happened.

    In philosophical circles, Weininger's book is known for being read by Wittgenstein.�

    Wittgenstein's opinion was as follows:

    “Indeed, he is a visionary, but he is a great visionary. His greatness lies in the greatness of his error. Roughly speaking, if you put a negative sign in front of the entire book, it will express an important truth.”(letter from J. R. R. Tolkien) Moore, August 23, 1931).

    Accordingly, philosophers do not care about Weininger in any way. It concerns historians of philosophy in connection with Wittgenstein:

    “Why did Wittgenstein admire this book so much? What did he learn from it? Indeed, given that the claim to scientific biological analysis in the book is a blatant forgery, the epistemology is obvious nonsense, the psychology is primitive, and the ethical precepts are odious, what could he learn from it? ” (Ray Monk. “Wittgenstein. The Duty of a Genius”).

    The collection Wittgenstein reads Weininger, edited by David Stern, is devoted to the study of this issue.

  2. A brief introduction to Weininger's views:

    This book, highly regarded by A. Strindberg[8], was written from a natural philosophical perspective and was a global “study” of the “male” and “female” beginnings. According to the author, the former is characterized by a high level of development of consciousness, creation and asceticism. The second one acts as a carrier of a primitive model of consciousness, unproductivity and sensuality. The carriers of the “feminine” principle are, in addition to women, also men — Jews and Negroes. In the chapter” On Judaism, “Weininger contrasted” feminine “(i.e., immoral) Judaism with” masculine ” Christianity, which later formed the basis for the study of Jewish religion.anti-Semitic propaganda among Austrian Judeophobes[6].

    It would be surprising if there were professional philosophers willing to treat this as anything other than a hack.

Leave a Reply