Jump to content

Talk:Beyond Good and Evil

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

General Organization

[edit]

Introduction

[edit]

The sentence, "He is possibly one of the easiest philosophers to read, but is most definitely one of the hardest to interpret," seems out of place in an Encyclopedia. It is a very obviously opinionated statement. If this is indeed the general consensus in the philosophical community, then it should be phrased as such. If this is simply the opinion of the author, then it should be removed. Daniel S. Clouser 15:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outline

[edit]

I've added an outline of the book: given how systematically Nietzsche presents his arguments in Beyond Good and Evil, this should also be a good way for organizing any kind of summary of those arguments in the future -- if anyone feels brave enough to make such an attempt.
--Todeswalzer | Talk 21:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

[edit]

Skomorokh recently tagged this page for containing original research, however, he/she failed to properly explain his/her concerns on this talk page. I've accordingly removed the tag from the article. --Todeswalzer|Talk 15:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly add more under notes? Surely there should be some work by Kaufmann listed that isn't a translation. There is also only a single footnote in the entire article. At the very least, here are some more sources.
Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist, Walter Kaufmann ISBN: 9780691019833
Kaufmann, W. (----) Nietzsche Between Homer and Sartre: Five Treatments of the Orestes Story. Revue Internationale de Philosophie; 18: 50-73.
Kaufmann, W. (1948) Nietzsche's Admiration for Socrates. Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 9, No. 4, (Oct., 1948), pp. 472-491
Maxxx12345 (talk) 13:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is also useful content by Kaufmann, other than translation, in his Basic Writings of Nietzsche, now added to references, otherwise the article seems to be open (original?) summaries of Nietzsche's text.Socratesart:talk 15:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia be gone

[edit]

I have removed an entire rancorous debate about trivia. I find it acceptable to remove trivia to its own section. However, a rancorous discussion about whether and how to edit trivia seems about as trivial as you can get. Too trivial even for trivia hounds IMHO. Wcmead3 (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:BeyondGoodandEvil.jpg

[edit]

Image:BeyondGoodandEvil.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quote

[edit]

Beyond good and evil is well know for one quote: He who fights monsters, should watch that he himself does not become the monster. As you gaze into an abyss the abyss gazes into you.

Now I know that isn't the full version but the full quote should be included in the first part of the article, just throwing it out there, not a pro' so i guess its up to you guys.

Well known by whom?Lestrade (talk) 14:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]
section number (Nietzsche paragraph number) for the quote should at least be noted as per standard referencing of Nietzsche's texts. Not sure that quote is in "Beyond Good and Evil".Socratesart:talk 04:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's under §146 in Part Four: Maxims and Interludes; the translation given by R. J. Hollingdale is,
"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you." Wocky (talk) 11:17, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peeve

[edit]

Punctuation goes inside of quotation marks, not outside (see Quotation_mark#Punctuation). I found this excruciatingly distracting when attempting to read this article. There are people who disagree[1], and call the presentation used here, "logical." Corrected: "logical". My opinion: punctuation is convention. Unconventional usage distracts from the message. Dclo (talk) 03:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what do you do with parentheses? "(Put them in quotation marks like this?)", even if the brackets weren't in the original? What about dashes? What about if you're clarifying something someone stated, and would like to know why a person thinks that something is "distracting?" (Really? I thought you sounded more sure of yourself than that.)
In any case, I would hardly call the use of British practises -- when writing in English, that is, the language that originated from the British -- to be "unconventional". I'm sorry if you find the non-American standard to be "excruciatingly distracting", but Wikipedia's guidelines clearly indicate that "No variety is more correct than the others", so long as it is consistent thoughout the article. (Oh, I've also taken the liberty of correcting, in the colour red, your above illogical, though pardonable, punctuation offence -- you know, for consistency.) --Todeswalzer|Talk 02:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
just mark the article as british english. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cahmad25 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nietzsche & women

[edit]

Nietzsche's introduction begins: "If truth were a woman; what then?" This book is known for having supposedly "chauvinistic" aphorisms on women ("If you go to woman, don't forget your whip"). Now, I was wondering if the first sentence of the introduction means that N. is setting up "woman" to be used as an analogy for "truth" - he'd be suggesting that man's relation to truth is very similar to 19th-century man's relation to woman. It seems abstruse enough to be something Nietzsche would do - hide his true meaning behind an analogy.

Has anyone seen any scholarship that discusses this? I don't remember if I got this idea from reading Kaufmann or Danto, or somewhere else. And, if there is some scholarship addressing this, would it be a good idea to write a section on it? I'd write the section if someone knows of the scholarship. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, part of the problem would be that there is no scholarly consensus on what Nietzsche means here, whether that meaning is sustained throughout the book, etc. It is the sort of thing that every scholar would have to address, however. (Incidentally, the bit about the whip is from Thus Spoke Zarathustra). RJC Talk Contribs 15:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, I don't think I've even read that one. Oh well - all the other aphorisms on women, then. I was reading in the general Nietzsche article that some scholars have, indeed, tried to address this issue, so maybe I'll just leave it. That info will probably slowly migrate over into this article as time passes, anyway. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

N.'s metaphor was fully explained by N. and does not require scholarly interpretation. Dogmatists have been too forceful in their claim that they have found truth, but truth has evaded them. This is compared with a clumsy man's forceful approach to a woman, who is repelled by his manner.Lestrade (talk) 14:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]


The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was  Done. Should not have been moved as uncontroversial. A new, proper move request may be issued below this one by those who favour the "(book)" title (and in that case, it should happen by-the-book! What, that could have been funny). El_C 03:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move back to "Beyond Good and Evil"

[edit]
  • This page was moved to "Beyond Good and Evil (book)" after a request in Wikipedia:Requested moves#Uncontroversial proposals. The top of that section says "Do not list a proposed page move in this section if there is any possibility that it could be opposed by anyone." Well, I oppose it, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. The book is much more notable than any of the other entries on the disambiguation page, and all the other entries are, to the best of my knowledge, references to it. -- BenRG (talk) 02:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Very funny but ...

[edit]

The lead contains the following sentence which sounds rather like a comedy line ...


... Is describing Thus Spoke Zarathustra as "sunny and life-affirming" accurate? If it is, it certainly doesn't appear written in an encyclopaedic style. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 10:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The link in the third paragraph to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_and_evil is absurd. Nietzsche almost(?) certainly was referring to the dominant Christian Morality and not to the nonsense on that page. Heck, it doesn't even mention Christianity on that page. Sigh. I suppose I should be over there complaining except that I don't care about what wikipedia says about "good and evil". But, I do care about Nietzsche. Yes yes, the page does talk about the Greeks but that's still not what's up with this book. 75.88.234.224 (talk) 08:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Just go and delete the link. Be bold! Just make sure that you include an explanation for your change in your edit summary so that we all know why you made the change. Best regards and good editing! --PLUMBAGO 08:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How to remove a tautology?

[edit]

It is in the following sentence: A weak thirst for possession implies a weak will to power and ignorance of it because it does not produce a drive for self knowledge. This sentece says in other words "not knowledge because isn't possible knowledge" or more precisely "the same thing, which I don't know should provide me with means for knowledge." It appears tautological. Has anybody any suggestion how to remove this tautoloy? Chomsky (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that "the same thing, which I don't know should provide me with means for knowledge" is a property of self knowledge. The aforesaid sentence may appear tautological because the subject of knowledge is wrongly the will to power. It can be changed to "self" and tautological sound disapears. Chomsky (talk) 17:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that entire discussion is bad. It is misleading, unreadable, and concludes with original research:
In one of the central aphorisms (§194) in Beyond Good and Evil and the chapter of "Natural History of Morals" he describes the unrefined and refined types of possession. Nietzsche points that you can see the differences among men based on what they count as really having. Only the man with the strongest thirst for possession is capable of refined possession because it is based on knowledge and self knowledge and therefore has a stronger will to power. A weak thirst for possession implies a weak will to power and ignorance of it because it does not produce a drive for self knowledge. 'Modern' morality (transformed slave morality) finds its psychological origins in a "kind of slavery" of unrefined parental possession.
How about we move this to the end of the section, after the idea of "ladders" has already been broached, and say something like:
Nietzsche argues that noble and base are distinguished by more than what they value as "good." Even where there is agreement over what is good, what men consider a sufficient sign of possessing what is good differs (§194). Nietzsche describes love as the desire to possess a woman. The most unrefined form of the desire is also the most readily identifiable as a desire to possess another: control over the woman's body. A subtler desire to possess her wants her soul, as well, and thus wants her to be willing to sacrifice herself for her lover. Nietzsche describes this as a more complete possession. A still more refined desire to possess her prompts a concern that she might be willing to sacrifice what she desires for a mistaken image of her lover. This leads some lovers to want their women to know them deep down so that their sacrifice really is a sacrifice for them. A similar rank-ordering applies to statesmen, the less refined not caring whether they attain power by fraud, the more refined not taking pleasure in the people's love unless they love the statesman for who he really is. In both cases, the more spiritualized form of the desire to possess also demands one possess what is good more completely.
RJC TalkContribs 17:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please, do it yourself, though I am not sure, if it is a transcription of the original Nietzsche's ideas in §194, but it doesn't already sound tautologicaly. Thank you. Chomsky (talk) 09:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit, that your transcription of the Nietzsche's original text is very good. It made possible for me to understand even the text in my mother tongue. But I don't understand to your instruction above this transcription and therefore I can't incorporate it this transcription into the article. Forgive me. Thank you. Chomsky (talk) 09:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Beyond Good and Evil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 October 2019

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 09:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


– Proposing the move as there is no a clear primary topic compared to a 16 years old Beyond Good & Evil (video game) per the page views and it may per WP:ASTONISH surprise people who are looking info about the game. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: A video game that has been recently popular with 16-year-olds is not comparable in notability with this major historical work of philosophy by Friedrich Nietzsche (and this article gets more page views too). —BarrelProof (talk) 00:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, though the 16 year old statement was regarding how old the game was not the demographic that it’s popular with. I would be quite surprised if 16 year olds suddenly took interest In a 2003 video game.--67.68.29.177 (talk) 03:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Beyond_Good_and_Evil&oldid=1194717082"