Has anyone actually read his Sex and Character? Is this guy just

>>8762233
What are some profound concepts of it?

I dont get how the sexuality stuff is such a topic or cause for study or anything. Benis and Bagina. What more needs to be said

>>8762237
Fool, we must analyze everything to the point that we become inept, unmoving and unmoveable. It is our duty.

>>8762233
I think it's just a really well written /r9k/ shitpost about women

>>8762237
I believe his ideas transcend the physiological representations of "male" and "female." It seems to me his ideas represent functions to be elevated. The unconscious processes are necessarily passive and receptive to virility, such that what would be considered Nature represents the thesis, the unconscious, passive principle of what "is," and it creates the active and virile principle, which are its (Nature) antitheses.

Here we have the virile principle or Urano-function (masculine) which is represented stability and Being, in the sense that it is adynamic. It is adynamic because the mechanics of dynamic phenomena (Nature, feminine function, unconscious [lacking an intra-conceptualization]) remain constant regardless of variable. However, such mechanics can only exist as far as the dynamic function gives birth to them; so while the virile is atemporal and constant, it is still temporal respectively.

His idea of the masculine being elevated to is the condition of assuming a function - in this case the virile principle. It must necessarily be conscious, then, because consciousness = potentiality of willful conditioning, in an operative sense (this also is the answer to the free will/determinist issue in this view).

>>8762233
>>8762237

Never mind, just read the chapter details overview, think I learned a bit just from that.

Weininger is a genius

>>8762233

I've done a few cursory readings but I'm actually starting to properly read it now.

I like his idea of whores being superior creatures compared to housewives. Which disproves this common accusation: >>8762259

>>8762260
did he have a conclusion or solution, or just if everyone read this work, and understood the points, everyone would more smoothly go in a proper direction? Or everyone would just say, oh hey, yeah, that is kind of how it all is, oh well, back to whatever we were doing?

He had a "problem" with women? Or he thought there was no solution to their situation, it was inherently necessarily 'tragic'? Or that there was some hope of transcendence for male and female in their roles their play, to distance from what could be seen as 'mistakes' that lead one such as himself to in any way 'critique' with a 'negative tone'?

>>8762237

Because obviously sexuality isn't just reproductive.
It's a social activity. A glue if you like, but maybe more than that.
And on top of that we can satisfy our sexual urges through our mental faculties, which doesn't make it like any other base need, like hunger f.e.
It's an "ideal" need in the Platonic sense. That's what makes it so interesting.

>>8762300
>we can satisfy our sexual urges through our mental faculties

expand on that?

>It's an "ideal" need in the Platonic sense. That's what makes it so interesting.

I think I might have caught this from the skimming of the chapter details of his book; one section might have been about, if there was some universal,transcendent, timeless essence of the nature/meaning of sexuality/sexual desire/attraction; which seems to be what you are suggesting does exist with your mention of ideal in platonic sense.

For that to be true, we would have to wonder, if human reproduction was possible without contact, and the sexual organs were removed, and evolved over thousands of years, where sexual intercourse was not necessary or possible, and no sexual pleasure was possible, would the desire to 'be intimate/close/kissy with another still remain... and perhaps smoother way of asking this would be, if greatly conscious free will robots were made, would they over time develop any 'feelings' of desire for touchy closeness with another.