Otto Weininger on the character of man

truth, of principle are all idea. They are but they do not exist. The human race lived for a long time without them. They may be necessary for the development of culture, and now even for that of civilisation, but they are not necessary for the bare existence of the race. For that only food, shelter, clothing and human reproduction are necessary.

‘Man’s religion’ says Weininger, ‘consists in a supreme belief in himself, woman’s in a supreme belief in other people.’ In herself she has no knowledge of identity, and so, wrote Weininger, ‘the absolute female knows neither the logical nor the moral imperative’. The logical imperative implies the commitment to inner truth. For from the proposition of identity is derived the concept, and the clarity and firmness of the concept is a logical imperative. Inner truth, the truth of one’s own inner being, and outer truth, the truth of one’s speech, go indissolubly together. “‘Untruthfulness, organic untruthfulness’ wrote Weininger, ‘characterises all women . . . so woman always lies, even if factually she speaks the truth.’ It is plain from this last statement that Weininger is not speaking of truth in the superficial manner of the law-courts, where one swears to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. He does not deny that woman may do this.

Similarly with the moral imperative. The moral imperative is duty. But, as we have seen, Weininger means by duty only duty to oneself, one’s own inner adherence to principle. This possibility he denies to woman. But he makes it quite clear that he is not calling her immoral. He calls her a-moral. She may profess duty to others, or what she may conceive as a higher duty to the human race, but neither of these are moral imperatives unless they are derived from the highest duty of all—that to oneself. In Weininger’s view woman values happiness and the continuity of the race more highly than her own individual identity. Indeed she has no inner identity, for if she had, there would be to her no higher value. He attaches no moral value to mere utilitarianism, to the search for happiness or to the desire that all should turn out for the best. He does not even allow it to the continuity of the race, for, he asserts, ‘that the human race should persist is of no interest whatever to reason’.

This conflict between principle and advantage is well brought