Talk:Friedrich Nietzsche/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Friedrich Nietzsche. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Neutral articles on Nietzsche's views on gender and politics: do we even need these articles?

if we do include articles on nietzsche's views on gender and politics, i propose a section "controversies: Nietzsche on..." and then a subsection each for gender, nazism, etc. each which promotes a neutral argument/displays teh arguments on both/many sides.

otherwise just have nothing. the apologies that have been up for the past few months in these two sections are atrocious... please keep them deleted!

Oldseed 08:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that Nietzsche's views on race, gender, and politics should be addressed in the article, but not as they are now. The problems of the current section are that (1) it isolates these ideas, which had a significant context in Nietzsche's works, and (2) it fails to present Nietzsche's views, rather how they have been read by a few other people.

I would integrate a discussion of these views within the will to power section or within a discussion of Nietzsche's constructive ideas. What strikes me as most important is: (1) the relation between the critiques of religion and the critiques of 'feminism' [not necessarily our feminism], liberalism, and socialism, and (2) the reconciliation of the criticism of Jews/Jewish culture [also praised] with the rejection of anti-Semitism.

Nichts ausser Zeit 11:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Whoever just made some changes RE: "will to power, overman, nihilism etc, December 1 2005

I have deleted and changed most of your entries. Frankly, they read like a 1st year university philosophy paper, not an encyclopedia. Please read the guidelines for how to write wiki entries.

1. To use phrases like "it is a common misconception" or to talk about a paradox in Nietzsche's writings, without evidence, is very bad form. Our task isn't to dispel misconceptions, but to show the various interpretations that are out there.

2. And for god's sake don't throw around words like "Ubermensch". This is an English encyclopedia, and "overman" suffices.

3. if you're going to talk about the overman and the will to power, don't make a new section. there's a section already called "will to power". you can clean up that section or add to it.

4. Please remember this is a collaborative project. Deleting "herd instinct" in place of "master morality/slave morality" is just plain wrong. _incorporate_ the work done by others. In this case, you could and should have incorporated "herd instinct" into the conception of slave morality.

Sheesh.

Oldseed 16:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Notes on "Key Concepts" Section, Big Changes, Rewrites, Experts

I have just undertaken the task to "re-write" the page. I have left completely intact the story of his life (which is well written!) and placed after it a series of sections entitled "key concepts". I think in this way we can add a comprehensive, malleable list without coming down with a end-all-be-all take on, for example, what his ethical viewpoint is. This allows for further explication, for example, on his take on Christianity, or his take on the eternal recurrence, etc., without arguing about what the impact of these concepts have on his "ethics", or any other comprehensive philosophical claim. I think this allows for a more neutral viewpoint. The cost is that that it makes it less feasible to have a section about his ethics, politics, religion, etc. -- but I think the benefits are well worth it. I really hope this is a strong foundation we can all work from again.

I'm a graduate student in philosophy (does that count as an expert?) but firmly believe an "expert" is not necessary, and experts are hard to define and come with their own baggage anyway. We can avoid the whole need for it by tackling this on a concept-by-concept basis.

As such I have deleted the call for experts, and believe we can continue to add on new concepts now (like perspectivism/relativism, which I'm just too tired to do now...)

Oldseed 13:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I have been translating the biographical section from the German site and integrating it with what existed here already. I hope that my text is only an intermediate and stimulus toward a more carefully planned revision. I am glad to hear there is energy toward development.

My challenge for the concepts/themes/ideas section is to give a sense of chronology and development -- perhaps discuss the ideas with the books. An example outline for such an approach could be:

1. art (Birth of Tragedy)

2. Greek philosophy (BT, unpublished writings and lectures from Basel)

3. history (On the Use and Disadvantages of History for Life, Human, All-Too-Human)

4. skeptical tendencies, perspectivism (HH)

5. nihilism (Gay Science, Zarathustra)

6. death of God, the laugh, will to power (GS, Z)

7. critique of the morality of religion -- Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism (BGE, Genealogy, Antichrist)

8. übermensch, celebration of life (Genealogy)

It is impossible to fasten the chronology and the themes too tightly -- some themes are developed upon later, some appear earlier -- but I think some coherence can introduced by showing a path and history.

Nichts ausser Zeit 20:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

glad to hear bout your work too! i think what you're calling for can be integrated in the concepts section. we just need that section to be more comprehensive and, as you say, indicate the works within which each concept draws from. chronology seems a bit more difficult. twilight of the idols and zarathustra, for example, could be used for virtually any topic (and so i would hesitate to do it say that an idea like nihilism could be chronologically traced)... add to that the fact that many of his works were within the 2-yr pre-insanity period; chronlogy is not THAT important, except with maybe his remarks on history and art. Even then, the birth of tragedy has tons of stuff that's developed in later works. anyway, i'm in agreement. we need each concept to contain more info with regards to what works contributed to the concept and some indication of chronology.

Oldseed 21:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I think the whole conceptes section should be rewritten according to some plan like that above. Before writing it I think we should at least work out a reasonable plan first. In the plan above I think a number of concepts are lumped together when they shouldn't be, for example, I wouldn't separate the 'Death of God' from the 'Will to Power' section and add it to the Nihilism section (as it already is within the article.) Even better, although I doubt many will agree with me, the 'Death of God' doesn't really warrant being put forward as a title for any of the section in 'concepts'. Nietzsche mentions the 'death of god' a few times but I think that phrase has been overused in explanations of Nietzsche. In my opinion, it would suffice to include the quote in the section on Nihilism as an example of that process.

well, it's not up to you decide whether a concept of niet's is overused. the fact of the matter is there is a very strong and common association with nietzsche and the phrase "god is dead". it would be ridiculous for an encyclopedia not to contain that reference and at the very least explain its context and use by nietzsche. as for the concepts section, it's being written roughly according to the plan, and has been for several weeks now

Oldseed 08:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course it isn't up to me, as you will see Oldseed, I put up removing the 'god is dead' from the title as a SUGGESTION, and already admitted that most people probably wouldn't agree with me. However, the reason I said that it is overused is because the phrase figures mainly in introductory books about Nietzsche, and in popularizations of Nietzsche, whereas it is not of huge concern in acadamic discussions of Nietzsche, and largely takes a back seat to wider discussions of nihilism. So, it was not up to me, but I was putting the suggestion forward on the basis that it is not considered hugely important in Nietzschean scholarship. In fact, I can only think of one article that focuses entirely on the meaning of this phrase, and I believe it was written in the 60s (but I will have to check that.) Also, I still don't see why that particular phrase should be placed in a section with the Will to Power (as it is in the plan above). Lastly, I didn't say that the quote should be removed from the page altogether, only that it didn't warrant being mentioned in the title of a section because I think it already comes under the umbrella term 'nihilism'.Plug 13:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the 'death of god' discussion should not be a part of the 'the Will to Power' section (as I had originally suggested above). Rather, as you suggest, I included it with the section on nihilism. I understand your concern about overemphasizing terms that are more 'popular' and less 'scholarly', but I think the 'death of god' concept has had a significant impact in literature and continental philosophy, even if not to such a degree in analytic circles. Nichts ausser Zeit 22:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I would also suggest a section on 'Breeding and Training'. This section could include all his work that resituates humanity in the animal world, show how he explains Christianity as a means of training humans (that is, make them weaker). Include his comparisons between the 'noble' races and the 'blonde beast' (which I take to mean the lion, the wild animal.) Also, show how he provides a biological basis for the Overman through recommendations for the selective breeding of humans. I would point you to Twilight of the Idols, 'The Improvers of Mankind) for perhaps the most obvious evidence of his position on this (although it runs through his whole work). I could write this section if you a few of you agree that it would be useful. Plug 18:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

brief summary of his thought section

As an overview of his most important contributions and central concepts, it needs serious reworking.

Many of the comments are unsubstantiated ("God is dead" is agreeably often misunderstood, but lumping this quote into a section called "attack on Christianity" commits the same impropriety).

The a-rationality statement is easily misunderstood. (He was not strictly a-rational, as anyone familiar with his works knows, but he admittedly has some mystical/heroic leanings. He does tend to view strict pedantic rationality as soulless and restrictive. On the other hand, he did say that all material progress in Europe has come as a result of systematic doubt and rational investigation).

There is no mention of pluralism/relativism, and his denial of an absolute truth (which many postmodernists, etc say Nietzsche was the first western philosopher to expound upon).

the "will to power" receives no attempt at explanation. I don't feel qualified to undertake this, but Nietzsche saw 'the will to power' as the primary force behind all life, and this was the basis for his (weak) criticism of Darwin (why would things already alive struggle to be alive? they struggle for power).

a little too simple, but: Nietzsche viewed world history (religion and philosophy included) as part of an enormous power struggle (here's where the will to power ties in with the slave/master morality). Christianity was a movement of the weak and marginalized to resist their more straightforwardly violent/oppressive rulers. Nietzsche wanted a healthy restore to the 'natural' order, where sickly religions/philosophies of resentment and prudery did not determine the future of Europe.

Also very central: Dionysus vs. the crucified one. Celebration of LIFE versus living for the afterlife (borrowed images from the only life we know). Dying from excess rather than from suffering. Living without resentment and without pity.

does anyone else agree that this section deserves a second look? Some of these comments could be edited for the main article? Maybe I'll just do it myself and see where you all take it next?

Nietzsche as Composer and Pianist

I recently attempted to add that Nietzsche was also a composer and pianist, both of which are true, but for whatever reason they were shortly removed. His musical output was quite high early in his career, though it decreased rapidly as he focused more on philosophy. If you won't take my word for it, read any biography on Nietzsche, or simply do a cdnow.com search to find recordings of his piano compositions. For instance, here is a link:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0000049P9/qid=1114779368/sr=2-2/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_2/102-3515731-3519321

Someone says this "goes to far" which is frankly ridiculous, as nothing within the realm of truth can go too far in biography.

Excuse me, but isn't including a list of Nietzsche's compositions a little bit like including a list of Einstein's table tennis scores? --Philopedia 8 July 2005 17:09 (UTC)

No, it isn't. In his philosophical writings, Nietzsche often incorporates his ideas on other fields of human endeavours, like philology, psychology and music. One of his works, "Der Fall Wagner" (which is mentioned in the article itself) even explicitly expresses Nietzsche's viewpoints on philosophy by taking Wagner and his music as an example (of a philosophical stance). I am very much for mentioning Nietzsche's involvement with music in general, as well as noting the specific cases of his own works in that field. 84.137.0.107 15:53, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: The German Wikpedia article on Nietzsche does list up his engagement with music: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche#Musik 84.137.0.107 16:02, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd be happy to see Einstein's table tennis scores in wikipedia. --Sunnan

unnecessary memetic term

The term memetic-virus which appears in this article both violates the NPoV policy and is unnecessary. On many other pages I have argued that any memetic terminology violates the NPoV as memetics is still hotly debated as both it's accuracy and usefullness is still yet to be seen. For a perfect example of such an exchange see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Meme

For a philosophical discussion regarding meme theory see: http://www.ephilosopher.com/phpBB_14-action-viewforum-forum-4.html

In fact, even Wikipedias page of a list of alternative, speculative and disputed theories correctly places memetics alongside other controversial subjects such as Intelligent Design and Bible codes. Maprovonsha172 22:34, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but I don't think that the inclusion here is intended to bolster strength or claim validity for memetics. Rather, I think its saying "this is how we might phrase it now". Like memetics or not, 'meme' is a fairly commonly used word in the 21st century. -Seth Mahoney 23:16, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Then perhaps it would be alright if I changed to to "this is how some might phrase it now."

Maprovonsha172 12:46, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Change away. -Seth Mahoney 19:39, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

I did change it, and now someone has changed it back. I'm going to change it again, and whoever would change it back should post here why exactly they are doing so.Maprovonsha172 22:31, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Announcing NPOV proposal

I know this may seem a strange place to announce this, but Nietzsche was an interesting fellow so I assume people who follow this page are interesting and always capable of expressing an interesting view. Here goes: This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view. In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I rather object to the use of BCE and CE on the whole. I am an atheist myself, but I don't see how using BCE and CE effectively dispose of Christian bias in chronology. "Common Era" is still determined by the supposed birth of Jesus; likewise, "Before Common Era" refers to the time before Jesus' life. The introduction of BCE and CE (not only in an article on Nietzsche, but in every case) fails to present a NPoV; even though I believe the dates for "Common Era" supposedly begin at about 6 BC, we still say that we live in the year 2005 CE (which is just the same as 2005 AD), so nothing is changed and no religiously neutral chronology is established. I don't love the fact that we use a Christian dating scheme, but there is really no way around it (since no one would go for a redating movement that relocates today relative to the birth of the universe at December 20, 15,000,000,000, or establishes a rather arbitrary historical date, like the birth of homo sapiens).--12-20-2005

Ok, let's use geologic or biogeographic time. All dates are arbitrary, but the BCE & CE are commonly known, and therefore the use inhibits confusion. I could dig out the term used in biogeography (from 1950) but it seems esoteric.

Hoosier 01:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Rest asured, Slrubenstein, our potential citizenry is sufficiently ignorant of the meanings of BC/AD (not so in the, "urban school districts, where the student base is ignorant of,"enlightenment"). So for clarity (I do hope that you value clarity in this article. It would be so, "Nietzschian".) I think that AD & BC would foster clarity.

Hoosier 02:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, as an anthropological archaeologist, the use of C.E. and B.C.E. are deeply offensive to me. I'm no christian, but I have no problem using a dating system (like AD/BC) based on the rise of some religious figure, be it Christ or Confuscious or Julius Ceasare or whomever; if it is commonly known and used it is not a matter of accepting some religious viewpoint to refer to dates relative to the rise of a historical figure like Jesus or acknowledging the rise of a widespread religion. Calling something a "Common Era" is however espousing a viewpoint. To whom is this era common? The answer is - Western Imperial powers established and descended from Roman institutions. After all Europeans and Euroamericans are really the important people; really the only ones whe matter right? Those were thoughts typical of colonial mentalities. The term "Common Era" excludes most of the world and marginalizes everything that is not western history. It is rascist and bigoted and I respectfully suggest anyone who uses the term reconsider what it is they are saying and why.DHBoggs 14:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)DHBoggs January 27, 2006

This article is very bad

As a lot of articles of philosophy, this article is really very bad. --83.205.113.4

Instead of complaining, why don't you point out specifically what is bad about it, and maybe even fix some of it yourself, instead of simply complaining, and smearing alot of other articles as well? --maru 15:37, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

The introduction of this article is not neutral enough. The last sentence about Nietsche as a humanist is very dubious. Nietzsche is very pronounced in writing that humans shouldn't be pedestal. Nietzsche was one of the first to claim that the human kind would dissapear. He thought that humans would be replaced by a new specie evolved out of humans, but much more fittest in the battle for servival. He also thought that human behaviour is for a large part determined by nature, the animal instinct. Nietzsche can still be regarded as a humanist because he still sees a human as a single subject and he wanted to save the children from the slave morale, which is apparant in collective ideologees. He was in favour of unrestrained individualism and the building of a individual personality.--Daanschr 12:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The above statement makes it sound like Nietzsche was speaking to a philosophy of human demise and an alien race development. His philosophy was not Darwinian in nature - it is not survival of the fittest. There is no "superman" that is the fittest, but there is the ubermensch that overcomes nihilism. The lastman still exist. I suggest you read up a little more on Nietzsche and articulate your argument better in the future. -- Marsha

I agree that i'm not an expert on Nietzsche. The point i wanted to make was that the introduction of the article on 26 august was not neutral. I don't know what to think about the Übermensch. It seems too hypothetical to me.--Daanschr 15:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

To Marsha, the idea of the superman espoused by User:Daanschr is not entirely wrong. Nietzsche argues that the overman will have to be 'bred' into existence. He argues for selective breeding of a higher type of man. In this respect Nieztzsche did remove humanity from it's pedestal. He resituated humanity in the animal world, hence his arguments that consiousness is a weak reflection of intelligence (which is essentially instinctual.) His philosophy for the improvement of man does work in a sort of evolutionary way, he wants mankind to suffer so that only the strongest will survive, hence his call for mankind to continue building their houses on the slopes of Vesuvius (or some other volcano, I can't remember which), and to live dangerously. Lastly, this sentence: "I suggest you read up a little more on Nietzsche and articulate your argument better in the future." comes across quite harshly. Daanschr wrote his comment in an attempt to help improve the Nietzsche article not to criticize individuals. The sentence is insulting because it presents yourself as a Nietzsche expert while taking away Daanschr's right to comment.

Nietzsche on women

Response to 24.146.23.205 on "evidence of nietzsche's childish sexism". This is not Nietzsche's views on women and one or two women quotes will do, not five or whatever. This is a very minor and misunderstood aspect of the man's thought. This has been gone over before and will certainly be again. --DanielCD 21:46, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Pick one of the quotes and please give some context for it. There may be room to add one more women quote. But please discuss it and we'll work on it. Perhaps we should add a section discussing his ideas about women. That might be something we need. --DanielCD 21:52, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Anyone care to take a crack at writing a balanced paragraph about Nietzsche and his controversial views on women? I will try, but might not have time this week...--DanielCD 13:18, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I am attempting to add a section on women to temper the edits 24.146.23.205 insists on reverting to over and over. I don't have time to to the proper research so the section is prolly going to leave something to be desired. But what else can be done? People can come in here an just revert anything they want over and over into an article to make it fit their POV. The quotes are out of context and as such don't belong. Any help with this is much appreciated. I'm sure the anon will just revert any hard-won research I do anyway to make sure his/her POV remains. --DanielCD 13:36, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the additions were worse than useless. The current section can use expanding, but is certainly better. There are quite lengthy essays written by scholars about Nietzsche's views on women, so perhaps eventually this should have another page, because there are a lot of things to tease apart. For one, the 19th century in general didn't have the same views on woman as we do today in most of the western world, so it's necessary to separate Nietzsche's particular views from those that were merely accepted common wisdom. Also, there are arguments that his views on women are somewhat colored by his relationships (or non-relationships) with several women over the course of his life. --Delirium 13:46, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that response. I'm going to add to the section as I get time. I realize that this is important to many people, but I want to make sure what's said really reflects what N. meant (or as best we can determine what he meant). Many things he said he said at two levels, the shallower level was meant to get a knee-jerk reaction of emotion (e.g. anger), to weed out the shallower persons. But there is quite frequently a deeper meaning that can be missed and his quotes shouldn't be rushed into. Of course, like you say, he certainly carried some of the prejudices of his time and may have harbored some anger at women. There is a lot of controversy. But I think it needs to be done with care and with references. --DanielCD 14:01, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

"certainly" is unknowable (especially given what you wrote previously). "carried" doesn't necessarily mean believed or used or whatever. 24.22.227.53 23:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Meh. Don't apologize for his flaws because you admire the majority of his work - his views on women were pretty shitty and I think most scholars would agree (Kaufmann notes it with a sense of regret, as I remember). A minor part of his thought? Yes, this is true - it shouldn't be in a section about his philosophy, but discussed in itself as a controversy. --Tothebarricades July 2, 2005 03:33 (UTC)

Please ignore my below statement, inasmuch as his base statements on women are not a crux within, in any considerable manner, his philosophical thought and development. It is indeed not a theme within his main work. Nevertheless interesting in what manner these aspects may be related, as the below comment may indicate, insight into his polemical tone deserves careful examination with respect to his life in that era. Again, please pardon my reproach in that segment, you are wholly right wherein the mode of presenting it in a controversial light is best. However, with that said, it is more impending to begin with the crucial formulations that N developed before lesser details are expounded and redressed. I hope this statement may prevent any misinterpretation that would have otherwise come about. Full clarity is difficult to attain.--Glyphonhart 4 July 2005 04:17 (UTC)

It is important to observe that a great deal of Nietzsche's philosophy is in itself, too, a controversial revolt against traditional philosophy during that time, and, in that sense, within the framework of a biography that is to be developed here, it would be vastly limited to ignore the aspects in which his thought depends on his philosophical views as well--a fine demonstration of this can be read in his Zarathustra, Part I, Section 18, "Old and Young Women."--Glyphonhart 2 July 2005 04:17 (UTC)

My above comment also brings to light the trouble of Thomas Common's translation which is known to be in some respects unfaithful to Nietzsche's original layout in which he wrote Zarathustra; therefore, it must be carefully noted that Kaufmann's translation, which is easily considered truer and more accurate, must be used when providing citations if an honest depiction of Nietzsche is to be proffered elsewhere.--Glyphonhart 2 July 2005 04:24 (UTC)

I would like to note that I have made the section taut in form. Perhaps it is suitable but if fault can be found, then please do as will be needed.--Glyphonhart 2 July 2005 02:03 (UTC)

Nietzsche regarded all idealism as feminism. In his book "Daybreak" he writes: "for we are artists; hostile, in short, to the whole of European feminism (or idealism, if you prefer that word), which is for ever 'drawing us upward' and precisely thereby for ever 'bringing us down'. He regarded idealists as decadents; idealism as the product of physiological exhaustion. He had the profoundest suspicion of the creeping subterranean will to power of womanish men and the kind of unwomanly, unmaternal women that were the leading advocates of female emancipation in his day. In my opinion, he was entirely justified in this regard. You need only look at how feminism has destroyed the family unit in the West and made the most able women remain childless while many of the most unsuitable women living on welfare are having plenty of children and allowing them to grow up wild - to become feral - to see the truth of that quote from "Daybreak". Nietzsche thought well of femina natura. He was scathing about the kind of decadent men and women who were advocating female emancipation, because he rightly saw it as idealism - as a decadence movement. --unsigned comment by 62.255.0.7

Please sign your posts to talk pages by adding -~~~~ at the end.

While Nietzsche was no friend of feminism, I think you're getting hung up on some of his use of language. Perhaps a more clear translation would have been "idealism = feminization". -Seth Mahoney 14:09, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

62.255.0.7's interpretation of Nietzsche as an 1990's style anti-feminist a la Rush Limbaugh is completely untenable. "Drawing us upward" is here of course a reference to the last lines of Goethe's Faust Part 2. --goethean ॐ 14:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I have no depth of knowledge on Neitzche, however it seems that this section says "N's views on women should be seen in light of X", then details X but not any of the controversial views. Are there any controversial passages (which are the bases of the accusations of sexism) which could be included? Leon... 09:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Nietzsche's thoughts on races

It is stated in the politics section that Nietzsche "was also far from being a racist, believing that the "vigor" of any population could only be increased by mixing with others." This statement is misleading and one-size-fits-all POV (especially the word *any* when he only spoke of European Christians), because it represents someone else's interpretation of Nietzsche and thus not Nietzsche's own thoughts. Nietzsche did not promote ethnic mixing per se. He advocated what he considered "true" Aryan mentality, which was characteristic of the pre-Christian/pagan warrior folk. In Zarathustra, he suggested that Christianity as re-evaluation of what is Aryan was responsible of making Aryan culture rotten and degenerate. He suggested that the mixing of Jews and Aryans could free Europe from the slave morality by creating a new people. This is his only motivation why he advocates ethnical mixing, or at least contrary to what the statement above includes, he did not advocate mixing on any biological and genetical grounds. He condemned such grounds altogether on his objection to moralism, as he also called the ethnocentric proto-Nazis "moral masturbators". Also, from many of his statements I'd perceive him as an anti-egalitarianism, in some ways a supporter of eugenics (though in no way eugenics on racial grounds). --Klaviermannen

Your views, stated briefly, ignore, or simply do not divine clearly, the vast, manifold literature already established that addresses well in what way Nietzsche presented himself (e.g., Kaufmann who can in repose be alluded to more than nonce). However, I will later provide an elaboration on my propounded rejection of your statements when it is adequate for me to do so. Before then, I will shortly state that N's view is based on a cultural ground whereupon the characteristics of an individual are grown, embellished, sculpted, for self-control, etc., indicating that such mixing as you say, although in a different sense, is conducive to such developments.--Glyphonhart 7 July 2005 07:46 (UTC)

I urge you all to read The Antichrist, #4, second paragraph. Nietzsche states that quite frequently, in all cultures, an exceptional man arises that proves himself to be superior than the rest and thus he is able to influence his culture into representing his ideology. Therefore, he suggests that any man of any "race" is capable of superiority. 24 July 2005 Edher

Why yes, this seems to me quite obvious in The Genealogy of Morals:

"[The aristocratic men] enjoy their freedom from all social control, they feel that in the wilderness they can give vent with impunity to that tension which is produced by enclosure and imprisonment in the peace of society, they revert to the innocence of the beast-of-prey conscience, like jubilant monsters, who perhaps come from a ghastly bout of murder, arson, rape, and torture, with bravado and moral equanimity, as though merely some wild student’s prank had been played, perfectly convinced that the poets have now an ample theme to sing and celebrate. It is impossible not to recognise at the core of all these aristocratic races the beast of prey; the magnificent blonde brute, avidly rampant for spoil and victory; this hidden core needed an outlet from time to time, the beast must get loose again, must return into the wilderness — the Roman, Arabic, German, and Japanese nobility, the Homeric heroes, the Scandinavian Vikings, are all alike in this need. … The profound, icy mistrust which the German provokes, as soon as he arrives at power, – even at the present time, – is always still an aftermath of that inextinguishable horror with which for whole centuries Europe has regarded the wrath of the blonde Teuton beast (although between the old Germans and ourselves there exists scarcely a psychological, let alone a physical, relationship). … Granted the truth of the theory now believed to be true, that the very essence of all civilisation is to train out of man, the beast of prey, a tame and civilised animal, a domesticated animal, it follows indubitably that we must regard as the real tools of civilisation all those instincts of reaction and resentment, by the help of which the aristocratic races, together with their ideals, were finally degraded and overpowered; though that has not yet come to be synonymous with saying that the bearers of those tools also represented the civilisation. It is rather the contrary that is not only probable — nay, it is palpable today; these bearers of vindictive instincts that have to be bottled up, these descendants of all European and non-European slavery, especially, of the pre-Aryan population — these people, I say, represent the decline of humanity! These "tools of civilisation" are a disgrace to humanity, and constitute in reality more of an argument against civilisation, more of a reason why civilisation should be suspected. One may be perfectly justified in being always afraid of the blonde beast that lies at the core of all aristocratic races, and in being on one’s guard: but who would not a hundred times prefer to be afraid, when one at the same time admires, than to be immune from fear, at the cost of being perpetually obsessed with the loathsome spectacle of the distorted, the dwarfed, the stunted, the envenomed? And is that not our fate?"

However, I would like to see the writings where Nietzsche describes the universal virtue of race-mixing, since the statement "the vigour of 'ANY' population could only be increased by mixing with others" implies its usefullness to be universal rather than particular to the Germans. (I am so far skeptical to whether there is a writing where Nietzsche describes that the only way to save Europe is through race-mixing, as well. Can anyone point me to the text?)

--Klaviermannen

culture mixing, not race mixing. He talks and praises other cultures and religions (but, only to make his point against the church, nothing more). All in all, he's got nothing but flowers to throw to germans and if he were to compare races, you bet your ass he'd place the german race as the leading one.

Actually he is quite critical of germans. Spacenookie 10:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Nietzsche does mention the breeding of a new European, mixing both German and Jew. For this I point you to Beyond Good and Evil, section 251, in the chapter Peoples and Fatherlands. In this passage he mentions that England, Italy and France are already countries attempting such a mix with the Jews.

A New Tide of Changes

My previous changes are essentially, as it now seems to me, a prelude, for I have noticed some deficiencies in some of the topics of this article that are greatly detrimental (e.g., the will to power was quite basically an assumption to Nietzsche that was developed in contrast to a higher, non-existent entity (viz., a "conjecture" or "god") placed, as it were, beyond this world wherein Nietzsche's eyes it was a severe bane for the plight of man, impalpable, un-createable, and an article of faith that long died away: hence it was an apparent account of nihilism on the whole that pushed him to develop new means for man. This too is largely addressed in God is dead.) or lacking substantial flesh as minute. Meanwhile I make these new raiments to better dress this wanting article (to convey his thought more clearly) I shall also stylistically give it something of a facelift, but it will require time afterward perhaps for it to heal gradually to some extent (surely others out there know their Nietzsche? aidant hands and eyes would do well here), but in that light it will still be legible--and better--best? In any case, how long it will require is not certain, but I will proceed for some time until I feel I have sufficiently done my part.--Glyphonhart 2 July 2005 00:09 (UTC)

Another note, I'd like to direct others' attention to Leonig's talk page wherein I address some significant points in my response to Leonig Mig. Please read it, for it is highly relevant here.--Glyphonhart 7 July 2005 04:26 (UTC)

If my previous edits do not in the least hint, I will openly express that we are as yet far from getting this article straight and cleaned to pristine glorifications!--Glyphonhart 7 July 2005 05:14 (UTC)

I will possibly delete these reckless statements, unless someone can present a reasonable objection. Also, the statement that Nietzsche "detested nationalism" is odd since Nietzsche seems to have been part of a nationalistic group. See this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/http://www.wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=Conservative_Revolutionary_movement --Klaviermannen

Did you even read the article that you just linked to?! It says: "The Conservative Revolutionary movement was a German nationalist literary youth movement, prominent in the years following The First World War." Nietzsche died in the year 1900! So obviously Nietzsche was not a part of that movement. That they, like the Nazis, used Nietzsche as their inspiration is irrelevant. And any casual reader of Nietzsche's books knows that it is blaringly true that he detested nationalism, especially German nationalism. --goethean ॐ 6 July 2005 14:54 (UTC)

(moved to right place) No, I merely glanced at it. Misunderstood "chief philosophical mentor". Perhaps it is best to ignore this side-note of mine. I've just made the observation that while it is very true that Nietzsche detested GERMAN nationalism, there seems to be some kind of Aryan or pagan nationalism especially related to Greeks and Romans recurrent through his works, though I myself have not read enough to judge their severity. --Klaviermannen

I don't mean to be snippy but it might be best to leave the judgments to people who have done the necessary background to make these kinds of edits. --Malathion 7 July 2005 05:11 (UTC)

Nietzsche is wrong

"There's something missing in a life with no pain."

Nietzsche did'nt say the above but it does accord with his view on the role of pain in life. I disagree with him and think that he used the wrong word: instead of pain - which humans and all sentient beings will go to great lenth to avoid - he should have said effort. test

Just a thought. Fergananim

That misses the whole point. --DanielCD 4 July 2005 04:01 (UTC)

So what if Nietzsche believed in the above quotation? Without pain there is no pleasure, without one, the other would not exist. To what would one compare one's life if not 'pain'? The point is, things can be worse, right? The point is: to live. In a Sadean gesture, I would say, pleasure is natural, as is pain. --Trtskh 05:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Interpretation and NPOV

I'm reverting a number of Glyphonhart's recent edits, and think I should say why. S/he is devoted to getting Nietzsche right, whereas this is an encyclopedia: at the most, it can represent opposing views, but it is not meant to supplant Nietzsche Studien. This is especially so when the POV foisted upon the article here is, as best, contentious: Walter Kaufmann is respected more for his translations than for his interpretation. There also appears to be some disagreement about what constitutes proper English grammar, including the meaning of certain words.

I am reverting the deletion of the existentialist and atheist philosophers categories: people looking for the former will expect to see Nietzsche, while the dominant view among scholars is that he was indeed an atheist.

It is a fact that Nietzsche is often listed as the forebear of existentialism and postmodernism. That we disagree with the interpretations of those who make this identification (which I do) cannot be cause to deny that it is made.

If Santayana's criticism is mistaken, then post another in addition. We don't need a discussion of it attached to a link to an article of his.

The Will to Power entry in the list of his works doesn't need to re-assert that the degree to which it represented Nietzsche's thought is disputed. What I've deleted is also something of an exaggeration.

--RJC ^Talk 7 July 2005 13:09 (UTC)

I heartily thank you for your response to my edits. From now on I will follow a more suitable approach to how I go about editing and the like.--Glyphonhart 7 July 2005 17:00 (UTC)

I think that the following text should be moved to the article body:

some see Martin Heidegger's as the greater influence.

--goethean ॐ 7 July 2005 14:50 (UTC)

I thinking keeping it in the introduction will mollify those who would remove the sentence about Nietzsche's link to postmodernism entirely, condescending just enough to tell us that we've clearly misread Nietzsche if we think the link is even plausible. --RJC ^Talk 9 July 2005 17:41 (UTC)

A crucial counterpoint to RJC's criticism of Kaufmann above and in my talk page is this uncovered and thoroughly well-formulated essay that leaves dispelled such extraneous influences that would otherwise prevent the pursuant development of the main article on Nietzsche. In short, Kaufmann is not to be relegated to a minute influence nor censured in any respect, insofar as the validity of his interpretations were not put into proper interrogation and under scrupulous scrutiny, and that was the case here. Please read: The Walter Kaufmann Myth: A Study in Academic Judgement by David Pickus for the belaboured particulars.

--Glyphonhart

I'm not sure I fully understand how this Wikipedia article has been censored to exclude Kaufmann's interpretation. I was merely reverting some edits you had made which struck out substantive content in the article because it conflicted with his views: this is different from declaring that Kaufmann is to be striken from the memory of the human race. For anyone interested, I have criticized David Pickus' article on Glyphonhart's user talk page. But to reiterate my initial post, the crucial point is not whether Kaufmann is correct or not, or whether he has been accorded the respect he deserves or not, but whether an article on Nietzsche in which his interpretation dominates reflects the consensus among experts (or in this case, where there is no consensus, the field of major viewpoints). --RJC ^Talk 9 July 2005 18:46 (UTC)

Since I have replied to RJC in his talk page, I will copy a portion of my descant that here also responds to what is stated above simply to elucidate any misunderstandings:

"Your [latest] statement does indeed answer why Kaufmann has been paid the attributes that you elaborated, with which I was unfamiliar. In any case, my statement in the discussion page [above] was not about that Kaufmann was censored [nor has been] but, in lieu of Pickus's essay, that certain conditions should be heavily considered before such attributes are accorded to Kaufmann thoughtlessly. In sum, I think this has been resolved quite nicely with additional material that does us some great benefit in allowing us to fix the article."

--Glyphonhart 20:04, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

What???

Hello friends,

The text includes the passage:

In April of 1873, Wagner incited Nietzsche to take on David Friedrich Strauß, whose book Der alte und der neue Glaube Wagner found shallow and who sided with the composer and conductor Franz Lachner who had been dismissed on account of Wagner.

Sorry, but I don't grasp what this is about. Does take on DFS refer to a duel? The sentence could also do with a good parsing for readability. Alternatively, what would you think about removal?

--Philopedia 8 July 2005 16:31 (UTC)

The text at question refers to Nietzsche's first Untimely Meditations: David Strauss, the Confessor and the Writer. The text should definitely be documented, if possible. --goethean ॐ 8 July 2005 16:36 (UTC)

The article describes the Will to Power as a theory of matter and inatimate objects. It seems like the author was confused with Schopenhaeur's notion of Will, which included inatimate matter as a manifestation of "Will". Nietzsche may have made a passing comment in his immature work to this effect, whilst still under Schopenhaeur's influence. However, I'm quite certain that Nietzsche never meant the Will to Power to describe any thing other than life - only, "life is will to power." Also, calling it a 'Theory of Everything' is not true to Nietzsche's spirit - "The will to systematize is a lack of integrity" - Twilight of the Idols. What evidence is there of the Will to Power being more than a theory of all life?

My Sister and I?

I know it's probably a hoax, but shouldn't this text be mentioned in this entry? It is certainly notable enough, if a hoax (2 published editions, supposedly translated by Oscar Levy)--csloat 12:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

It's definitely a hoax . . . it first appeared in 1951 in English and it is notable enough for my college library to have carried it. I think it should be mentioned that it was an insipid fake. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arundhati bakshi (talk • contribs) .

Nietzsche's sexuality

Does anyone know what sexuality Nietzsche was, straight/bi/gay/bicurious?

I somehow get the feeling from his works that he has a very homo-erotic masculine theme. I heard a rumour on the internet that the night he visited a brothel he was involved in a chain orgy of both sexes. Raddicks 07:40, 23 July 2005 (GMT)

Some believe that an older man named Ernst Ortlepp was attracted to Nietzsche, when the German philosopher was in his teens: http://www.virtusens.de/walther/ortlepp_vortrag_e.htm Fulcher 05:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

From his works alone—at the very least you would have come to the conclusion, after reading his most prized work, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, which happens to be not infrequently "heterotic" (do pardon my risibility!), that he perhaps is most inclined toward heterosexual behaviour. And with regard to some comments en passant from Kaufmann in his Nietzsche, he too conveys in relation to some of the statements Nietzsche made whilst in the asylum near his closing years—desirous tendencies for women—would also support this hypothesis; whereas, the others remain as crude stipulations and are generally fallacious.--Glyphonhart 09:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

There was a book published in the last few years (I forget the title) that claimed that Nietzsche was a practicing homosexual and proceeded to interpret his thought in that light. I do recall that I did not see a single favorable review in the academic journals. The evidence for his homosexuality was scant (apparently, only gay men go to Turin), and, more importantly, it added nothing to our understanding of the man. Nietzsche's sexual life was either (largely) non-existent, or so well concealed that any statement as to its content would be conjecture. RJC ^Talk 17:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

My philosophy professor stated that Nietszche died a virgin. Where he got that, I do not know, and may ask.--Krovisser 17:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Was it "Zarathustras Geheimnis" by Joachim Köhler? Full ack to your other comments.--80.144.108.237 00:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)(de:Benutzer:Chef)

What about Lou Andreas-Salomé? --Klaviermannen

Köhler implies in his recent book on Wagner that the final break between Nietzsche and Wagner was that the older man tried to circulate a rhumour that Nietzsche was homosexual, which, if proven, could have caused him significant trouble, times being what they were. The suggestion seemed to be made (though I would have to re-read) that Nietzsche didn't publish his major criticisms of Wagner (Besides those in 'Richard Wagner in Bayreuth' - which was published before the threat was made, and inspired it) for fear that it would prompt the widespread release of this rhumour. The question mark over such a fear is about the strongest evidence of his homosexuality that I have come across so far. Prometheus912 00:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

My professor, Lawrence Lampert, implied that Nietzsche had, "known" women in the biblical sense. Did he have a marriage, experience? It is speculated that he died of syphallis...from his earlier encounters. "If truth were a woman, what then?" speaks volumes. What man who wants a woman is truely able to understand her? I've just accepted the mysteries as good.

Anyway, it seems that this talk section is more interested in interpretation rather than exploring those who have dedicated their lives to understanding Nietzsche. And like my first two philosophy classes, I think there are many, "philosopher wannabes" rather than professors of philosophies.

Hoosier 03:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Daanschr's edits

I'm inclined to revert User:Daanschr's edits as unencyclopedic. Does anyone want them salvaged? --goethean ॐ 16:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Reversion is probably a good idea. --RJC ^Talk 22:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to change my edit. What is it what you don't like about the contents? I know my english is pretty terrible now and then. My first language is Dutch. If you don't agree with the contents: all information is from a scientific book (Nietzsche in German politics and society 1890-1918, see references), which is written by a historian. He has searched in several archives in Germany on the subject. Some professors has helped him in the research. Maybe my summary of the book is not very good. I hope you will react on this.--Daanschr 11:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

The relevant facts seem to be the Subversion debate and the fact that he influenced a number of peole on the liberal (though anti-Marx) left. His being used by young men as an excuse to drink and a means to 'pick up chicks' seems off-topic (especially as young men tend to do these things with just about whatever they get their hands on). Listing every group that liked him is probably a bit much. Of course, these groups misinterpreted him, just as did the right-wing groups that followed. An account of his impact might be useful, but it would have to be rounded out before achieving some sort of balance. Also, it would have to go in a different section, not one where his politics is described. --RJC ^Talk 15:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm a European. Liberalism has another meaning on our continent. Marxism and liberalism are something else. Liberalism reverts to ideal of liberty and marxism to the ideal of equality. In many countries liberalism is regarded as a right-wing ideology. About the young men: according to the book, there was an increase in immoral behaviour according to the conservatives. Nietzsche was the most important writer who got the blame for it. I agree with you that all the groups misinterpreted him. Their theories about Nietzsche are contradictive. The reason i brought the information in the chapter about politics was because of the paragraph about Nietzsche in nazi-Germany. The book of Hinton Thomas counters the idea that Nietzsche helped the nazis into power. Because before the nazis, Nietzsche was mainly popular among left-wing Germans. I don't know someone can interpret Nietzsche correctly. What i don't understand about Nietzsche is that he gives an evolutionary explanation about consciousness and language and he still can come up with the Übermensch. I followed a course about Nietzsche, and the teacher said that Nietzsche tried to prevend atheist people from regarding life as useless. I think that Nietzsche is the most important atheist philosopher.--Daanschr 07:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I want to apologize for posting my comments on the introduction of the Nietzsche site under the chapter called: this is a bad article. I write this because i have a complaint about the manners of many people here on Wikipedia. Why should this chapter be called Daanschr's edits which is created to delete my edits. I was appalled because of this. At first i thought that someone wanted to delete all of my edits anywhere on Wikipedia. Some other incidents has happened as well. For instance, i wrote down the German election results between 1871 and 1933 in a wrong chapter about election results of West Germany. These results were copied and translated from a book. Someone deleted half of it, while he could have put them in another chapter. I couldn't recover the data anymore. I also wrote a friend on his own talk page in Dutch. Someone promptly deleted the edit. And i was wondering why he didn't send a message back. I think that there is a serious attitude problem with many people who have the power to delete. I hope that people will be more friendly and that this project won't become a political waspnest.--Daanschr 20:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Slavic ancestry

Is Nietzsche of Slavic ancestry? He was born in Saxony, furthermore his surname suggests this. Meursault2004 11:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

He would occassionally say that his name suggested a descent from Polish nobility, but there is no genealogical evidence to support this claim. If some ancestors were Polish, their existence has been lost; the idea of being descended from nobility is just pure fancy on Nietzsche's part. --RJC ^Talk 15:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Quotations

I am removing the list of quotations, as it has turned into a "cool stuff" place. 1) Several of the quotations are inaccurate, being things that were attributed to Nietzsche, but not the wording that he chose. 2) Several of the quotations are from bad translations. 3) All of them are taken out of context (all quotations are), and so don't constitute a further source of understanding his thought. 4) We have a Wikiquote page for this very purpose, linked to from the article. 5) Other biographies don't list random quotations, but instead have a link to Wikiquote; see John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, David Hume, etc. 6) At the very least: "quotes" is a verb; "quotations" is a noun. --RJC ^Talk 15:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

The Nationalist Militarist Right-Wing

(Comment to the removal of "In reality, Nietzsche was mainly popular among left-wing Germans instead of right-wing militarist nationalists before the nazis.":) What is it that makes a right-wing guy militarist and nationalist? Nothing else than that militarism belongs to the left side, makes any sense, as Hitler's national socialism was as socialistic and fascistic as socialism can be. Since there was nothing relevant to replace the sentence with, I simply removed the nonsense.

As a matter of historical context, the right wing in Germany was nationalist and militarist. The left was increasingly internationalist and loathed the military as it was dominated by the aristocracy. Socialism may have been violent, but it claimed to oppose a prominent place for the military in political life. The Nazis and their kindred parties had no support from the left in Weimar Germany; they were, however, supported by the right for their seeming ability to stop the socialist lawlessness that raged in the streets during the first few years of the Republic. -- RJC ^Talk 14:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

The right-wing Freikorps were lawless as well. What do you mean with socialists. The communists and the independant socialists wanted revolution, but the social-democrats (socialist majority), were lawabiding.--Daanschr 13:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Trivia

From the edit: "Trivia - Along previous lines, went to make more plain. Question: is this section worth anything?" 22:53, 21 September 2005 Glyphonhart

Yes. Thanks for the additions, I was unaware of them (Jung's work is only somewhat of interest to me).

Jung's base typology is somewhat fractured and incomplete.
He happens to be right (triangulating from what others have stated wrt Nietzsche) in this particular instance.
- For those wishing to understand the base axiomatic assumptions Nietzsche is making (pre-cognitive assumptions), in order to understand his philosophy/worldview/music, it helps knowing that it is emblematic of specific clusterable/categorizable personality/cognitive characteristics (and thus not unique to him: witness Trent Reznor).
- Even though his characterization is incomplete (in Psychological Types, though not necessarily other works), it's better than nothing (and is nice to base one's research on if one doesn't do an ab initio typology.
Philosophies (the only thing that makes Nietzsche worth remembering) always rests on the personality of the philosophizer. 24.22.227.53 03:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see the talk page before removing the section. What I agree with is that this section might just turn into the "Quotes" section again, i.e., without unifying purpose. What does Carl Jung's analysis add to the understanding of Nietzsche? If we had a section "Reception of Nietzsche's Thought," it might be appropriate, but wouldn't such a section just turn into a battleground over whose opinions to include and constant revert-wars over weasel words as each editor put in his/her two cents on his "true" interpretation and significance? -- RJC ^Talk 14:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Comparison

You should compare the introduction of the English and the German version of the Wikipedia: >>> Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (October 15, 1844 – August 25, 1900) was a profoundly influential German philosopher, psychologist, and classical philologist. Particularly aggressive, he was a severe critic of morality, Utilitarianism, contemporary philosophy, materialism, German idealism, German romanticism, and of modernity in general. He is among the most readable philosophers and penned a large number of aphorisms and varied experimental forms of composition. Although his work was distorted and thus identified with Philosophical Romanticism, Nihilism, Anti-semitism, and even Nazism, he himself vociferously denied such tendencies in his work, so much to point of directly opposing them. In philosophy and literature, he is often identified as an inspiration for existentialism and postmodernism. His thought is, on many accounts, most difficult to comprehend in any systemized form and remains a vivacious topic for debate. Contents <<<

While the German version simply says: "Was a German philosopher and classical philologist." Why is the English version so much longer without saying nothing more than the German one ? Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ )

I think the English version is perfect, I can find many examples of Nietzsche's misrepresentations and critiscisms. For instance Utilitarianism was slated when Nietzsche talked about his ideas of Master/Slave morality etc. I think the German edition needs more addition. --80.2.175.184 15:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

An Imbalance

In the biographical section, I believe there is a disproportionate amount on Nietzsche's breakdown. Though it is certainly a point of psychological interest, I dont think it should be given at the expense of other important details of his life. There is superficial coverage of his relationship with Wagner, which was highly important in shaping his early writings, and his break with Wagner, which had influence on a lot of the others. Prometheus912 00:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

There could also be more mention of Overbeck, Nietzsche's two marriage proposals (particularly the later one), the controversy with Paul Ree and Lou Salome, and the importance of his time spent in France and Italy. These are just a few suggestions - Basically I would like to see either the biography bulked up or the section on his breakdown reduced. I don't think Nietzsche should be made to appear as a philosopher who went 'too far' and thus insane, nor that his breakdown has much to do with his work or ideas. Focussing on the 'juicy' points of the 'decline' into madness, rings of certain celebrity/ gossip magazines, and is in bad taste - it distracts from what is crucial. Perhaps adding more subheadings would also reduce the impact of this little 'imbalance'. Prometheus912 00:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

The Section On Women, Again

Something obviously needs to be done about the section on women. Offering inaccurate generalizations about Nietzsche's views on women does him a great disservice. My suggestion is that we cull together a representation of Nietschze's views on women out of what he reveals about women in his major works. I, for one can contribute that Nietzsche's views on women need not be countenanced by locating him in a kind of maelstrom of 19th century mysoginy (see above). Rather, Nietzsche's views of women (specifically in Thus Spoke Zarathustra) are rooted in his conception of the ideal kind of philosopher. A philosopher is someone who is able to examine strains of thought with a critical eye, paying no heed to the bent of his emotions, at least where the argument considered is an intellectual one. Men are more priviligaed and more ready for being philosophers because they have had practice in standing on their own two intellectual feet ever since Plato; they have had the opportunity of being independent thinkers. Women, however, have not had this socio-historical benefit, and they do not know how to let their intellect subjugate their emotions. Men know how to love someone and yet disappove of the strain of his thoughts. Women don't, because they have been blockaded from entering the world of ideas. Thus, they need to catch up, and Nietzsche believes that they can: why else would he seek out a female intellectual companion like Salome, a woman who was clearly intellectually driven. I don't understand how one could label this kind of attitude towards women (as Nietzsche diseminates it in Thus Spoke Zarathustra) as mysoginistic. Indeed, some, including my existentialist professor, have seen it as progressive for the times in which he is writing.

I'm unsure. I find that when Nietzsche writes about women it is unclear whether he is talking about thier having "been blockaded from entering the world of ideas" or their biology being fundamentally weaker. Salome aside, my impression is that in his writings he does not have a high opinion of women, and does not suggest that their social position be improved. If you could refer me to any passages that directly imply the contrary...? Prometheus912 03:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

How can you get any higher reverance for women than (in Zara too) "Courageous, untroubled, mocking and violent - that is what Wisdom wants us to be. Wisdom is a woman, and loves only a warrior" (Something interesting is googling on just "wisdom is a woman" finds 2 very insightful articles on how the bible says that this is true [1] [2] as the top results) Oh, I see it as women have always been quiet philosphers. While the men have been more busy out hunting and thinking logical (remembering paths and how to kill animals), women have had more time to think.

(Apologies for sounding angry, and I might of misinterpreted you) Men know how to love someone and yet disappove of the strain of his thoughts. Men know nothing of love, men think love is sex. They can't control their urges. Thus rape. Thus buying sex. (It takes them real long to figure it out, thus the word "gentleman" [or in modern days - gays] - for guys who are not just out for sex, and are in touch with his emotions) {sjöar 213.67.90.98 13:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)}

In the current version of the paragraph it states "And, indeed, Nietzsche believed there were radical differences between the mind of men as such and the [b]mind[/b] of women as such." Florid language aside, I don't think this holds true - I refer to the aphorism in Beyond Good and Evil (number 144)

When a woman has scholarly inclinations there is generally something wrong with her sexual nature. Barrenness itself conduces to a certain virility of taste; man, indeed, if I may say so, is “the barren animal.”

What Nietzsche refers to his women's sexual, bodily nature. Concidering that he never clearly states whether gender roles are a product of nature or nurture, such a direct statement should be given some merit. I will edit the section to reflect this - we will see how well the result will survive public scrutiny --Marinus 12:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I've done a careful rewrite on the section of 'Gender views'. I ask that any editors hesitate before reverting or chopping too badly - the case of Nietzsche as an anti-feminist is overstated, as I hope I was able to show, which is partly why I placed the 'positive' side of his gender politics first, but mostly because his views only make sense in the context wherein he places them. I have tried above all to be fair to Nietzsche without being and apologist - the second to last paragraph is an attempt at an even-handed summary, not to wash Friedrich's hands, which I why I phrased the last sentence the way I did. I believe the length of the section is not a problem, concidering how contentious the issue is. The history page shows these edits to be anonymous - they were done by me, but my cookies had expired by the time I saved the final version - I took some time with the thing! --203.173.188.130 17:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

As you can see, I'm having trouble staying logged on in this computer - all the edits done by anonymous users on 10/1/2006 up until this post have been done by me --Marinus 17:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

'God is Dead'

I have a problem with the following phrase in the current article:

'This largely misunderstood statement does not proclaim a physical death, but a natural end to the belief in God being the foundation of the western mind. It is also widely misunderstood as a kind of gloating declaration, when it is actually described as a tragic lament by the character Zarathustra.'

This statement needs to be edited.

My first issue is, how do you know it's 'largely misunderstood'? Did someone take a poll? This qualification needs to be removed, it's strictly assumed. I never thought of 'god is dead' as a 'physical death.' I don't know anyone who has 'misunderstood' it as thus. I think the clarification of 'god is dead' is necessary (see second issue) and should stay, but the declaration that most people don't get it comes across as an unproven elitist urban myth. It doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. My second issue with this phrase is with the 'gloating declaration' bit. Who has interpreted in this way? Can you name an author or show an article that has done this? All this speculation needs to removed and reworded. (Btipling 01:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC))

You are right. Physical death? I've heard some eccentric, and perhaps overly superficial interpretations, but never anything like that. Actually, I think even the 'tragic lament' is a half-baked claim. There certainly are passages where there is an element of dispair about God's death (For example, 'The Madman' in 'The Gay Science'), but this is countered by the fact that Nietzsche encourages us to be cheerful about it, to look at it with a hopeful eye. I think the real point that needs to be qualified, the point that's most often 'misinterpreted' is that Nietzsche wasn't trying to 'kill' God (to run with the metaphor), he was describing what he saw in himself, and the souls of his contemporaries.

Look, I think it's plain that this whole article is very bad, just through observing all of the claims people have made above, problems which have not really been addressed. I think it would do well if someone would 'revaluate' it entirely. I am not experienced enough with writing encyclopedia articles, nor is my view of Nietzsche neutral enough for the task at hand. But I think the challenge needs to be posed. "Tell me, who will conquer it, O brothers? Tell me, who will throw a yoke over the thousand necks of this beast?" Prometheus912 02:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd say this is symptomatic of any Nietzsche page, his philosophy is not systematic, he can't be pigeonholed as a Romantic, Existentialist or a Nihilist. He found himself at odds with a significant portion of the Western philosophical tradition, and was desperately striving to try and solve the enigmas of life, hence his asystematic, introspective slant that is at odds with the likes of Hegel or Descartes. A "revaluation of all values". Furthermore, some of his ideas appear to contradict others he postulated, and sometimes the manner in which he wrote of things seemed to be quite ambivalent. It's going to be a difficult project rewriting this page, because of the poor man himself --Knucmo2 00:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

What's more, it doesn't first appear in 'The Madman', but in 'New Stuggles' (Also in 'The Gay Science'), which is also important, because it talks about the 'shadows of God', and how we must 'vanquish' them. Prometheus912 04:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

The Attention Warning

I am adding the attention warning for two reasons:

The failed feature vote - obviously the article wasn't good enough to be featured.
The inaccuracies that have been highlighted on this discussion page.

People have also suggested a substantial rewrite. I think viewers have a right to know about this when they visit this page and because of it I'm putting the attention warning on the page. This may also attract qualified editors for this page. (Bjorn Tipling 14:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC))

This article has only become worse, I especially dislike the additions by Pfistermeister. It's written terribly and it's more of a bizarre love letter to Nietsche than an objective article now. I wish I were qualified to edit this. We need help. (Bjorn Tipling 04: 22, 30 October 2005 (UTC))

"School/Tradition"

It is highly debatable if Nietzsche should be considered an 'existentialist' -- for both ideological and historical reasons -- , so I think it's wrong to put that as his "school".

Nietzsche was a precursor to existentilism before existentialism was recognised --Raddicks 00:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Right, same with Kierkegaard. But then what school/tradition do they belong to? The Anti-Heglians? Yorick, Jester of Elsinore 00:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

That is a difficult assertion to make, i know that Nietzsche is considered an existentialist but of course he wouldn't be aware of it himself as obviously the term didn't exist. pre-existentialism? --Raddicks 18:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Trying to find a "school" for Nietzsche is bound to fail, considering he pretty much considered himself the first real philosopher and thus denied any link with any philophy prior to his (even those he's been influenced by, so you couldn't call him a "Schopenhauerian" either). We should just accept that there is such a thing as philosophers original enough not to belong to any school. Nietzscheanism maybe?

"Major Works"

Looking at the philosopher profile box on Nietzsche, specifically the major works section, I think that perhaps "The Will to Power" ought to be removed. This work is in fact just a compilation and consolidation of Nietzsche's writings from his notebooks. Though the content is Nietzsche's, the work itself belongs to the editors (the original German editors, Schlechta, Kaufmann and Hollingdale). This is a relatively minor complaint, given that the entire article needs drastic revision.

Apologies for this section of the template - I am considering moving this out of the main philosopher template because the list can become very large or disputed where in other cases it would be clear cut. I'd appreciate more feedback on the philosopher template in general - I'm going to be massively revising it soon. Thanks. FranksValli 08:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Nietzschean Perspectivism

Cannot believe this article does not devote a proper section on Nietzschean perspectivism, since it does seem to provide some kind of loose, holistic framework of interpretation for the entirety of Nietzschean thought.

Also I think a paragraph on the various critiques of Nietzsche would be ideal -Kaufman, Mann, Nehamas, Deleuze, Wotling, Constantinides etc.

G BdeJ.

An early book discussing him

Paul Carus published Nietzsche and Other Exponents of Individualism in 1914.

Mr. Nietzsche has been a controversial person for awhile. TooPotato 13:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Is this article a supposed to be a defense of Nietzsche? Because it seems very much like that. It's embarrassing to see the parts that try to defend him against anti-semitism, racism, sexism, etc... on a wikipedia page. Also, the part mentioning "memetic virus" is really ridiculous. The popular positive attitude toward him as a "hero" philosopher is too obvious in the article.

I think we should put a POV warning label on the page, and, perhaps, do a complete rewrite of the latter parts?

Reminds me of what Foucault said in What is an Author: "The author is therefore the ideological figure by which one marks the manner in which we fear the proliferation of meaning." Alex 05:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

There are, I'm sure you're aware, lots of ways of reading Nietzsche, and privileging one (say, one that valorizes him, or one that condemns him, or one that claims he was a racist, etc.) over the others isn't going to make the article NPOV. This is one of those articles we're going to need to be careful on, since we can't assert one reading as the correct one. I'd be just giddy with someone incorporating other readings into the article, though. Go for it! -Seth Mahoney 05:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. What I meant was to incorporate other possible ways of looking at his writings, as you said. Maybe we shouuld add some quotes and criticism in the parts about women and racism that *might* be lead to charges of anti-semitism or racism etc., as well as the responses to those criticisms. The article right now is a one-sided defense of Nietszche. In some sense, we are changing many of his views so that they would fit today's world of anti-racism and gender equality and I suspect, in doing so, many of his ideas lose their meanings. Alex 15:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Just so its out there and there aren't any surprises, I tend to take the side of those who insist Nietzsche wasn't racist or particularly woman-hating (and, to top it all off, don't see myself as an apologist - as far as I'm concerned, its all there in Nietzsche's writing plain as day). So, although I wouldn't say that Nietzsche was like a giant care bear that just wanted to hug everything, I also wouldn't say that we are revising his views if we argue that he wasn't racist, etc. But I agree - the article is one sided and would benefit from, say, classic feminist positions on Nietzsche. On the other hand, there are two things I don't want to see happen: A criticism section longer than the actual article; and any of that "some say", "others reply" nonsense - sourced criticisms (and replies) only. Sound fair? -Seth Mahoney 17:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

This whole article is a big giant turd. You could write all over with Crayons and post arbitrary German folk-music lyrics for all I care. It's pointless to try and improve it, a never ending army of college freshen who think they know Nietsche only as God would will just ruin it again in time with their drivel and misunderstandings. (Bjorn Tipling 10:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC))

Hey, Bjorn, the whole idea here is that if you don't like it, you change it. Let's see your Nietzsche article and let the marketplace decide if it is an improvement.Lestrade 13:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)Lestrade

I agree with Bjorn completely. I'm happy the article is not a featured article, that would be a real shame on wikipedia. The only thing that the article demonstrates is the popular attitude among Nietszche "fans" who have read only some of his quotes and think he's the ultimate philosopher, a saing, and valorize and quote him in every possible way. The two sections "Nietzsche and politics" and "Nietzsche on women" are there not to explain something... they're outright defenses and apologetics. Not to mention the reference to "memetic virus"... is Nietsche's view on Christianity too complicated to explain? No problem, these days anything can be simply explained using memes. I recommend putting an NPOV warning sign, and a request of help from professionals on the page. A request for a complete rewrite, if anyone would take the responsibility, isn't a bad idea either. Alex 20:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Isn't this just a link to advertising?

I can't read German, but they appear to be selling something

Nietzsche's writing ball http://www.eberwein-typoskriptverlag.de/

--Jim 03:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Well they do, but the reason is: this book isn't available anywhere except through the author direct. Mr. Eberwein examined the typewriter of N. and puts his typewritings into a new order. This work is the only one of it's kind and should be mentioned. Jazi (German Wiki) 08 Feb 06

anonymous persons making questionable changes

To 84.188.193.167 Why was this: "Nietzsche received recognition during the second half of the 20th century as a highly significant figure in modern philosophy." replaced by this: "a highly significant figure in modern ideological and political struggles." Why remove philosophy? Are you implying he wasn't "a highly significant figure in modern philosophy"?

Also, when you make anonymous changes, there's no way to evaluate the source of the change. There is no way to IM, email you or leave a message on your talk page. Why not register since it is so quick and easy? If you give your email address it still remains anonymous to readers, but at least people have a way to contact you. It is natural to wonder the motives of those insisting anonymity.--Jim 19:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I see 84.188.193.167 was just a vandalizer and has been blocked. I wonder what motivates these idiots, since 99% of the vandalizim is corrected or reverted with in a few minutes? --Jim 19:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Nihilism

I understand that Nietzsche was about the general lack of meaning (Schopenhauer should be included), but he wasn't about nihilism. He agreed that the search for meaning was fruitless; however, it was Schopenhauer, not Nietzsche, that thought the only way therefore to escape the human condition was by nihilism (similar to buddhist enlightenment). This fact seems to be lost in the article.

Nietzsche was emphatically not a nihilist, he opposed himself directly to nihilism and says so explicitly a variety of times. In my view eternal recurrance can be understood best as a direct attack on nihilism (you're actions do not lead to nothing, but are in fact repeated throughout the infinity of time, one can imagine Nietzsche saying).--Marinus 12:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Nietzsche thought nihilism was a disease. But he also said that nihilism would be overcame by itself. Lapaz

That's a bit of an oversimplification, or giving undue weight to a statement made in passing. As I understood that section (we are talking about On the Genealogy of Morals, right?) he was saying that nihilism can itself be a manifestation of the will to power (and is thereby not nihilistic), and is exactly that in the strongest hands. Nietzsche certainly saw it fit to explicitely oppose himself to nihilism time and again - the entirity of Zarathustra can be read as a call to anti-nihilism.--Marinus 01:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Verbose wrtiing style of the article intro

I think the writing style for the intro paragraphs gets a bit heavy. Especially considering it is just the introduction.

...Why use reason where Irrationality is the stipulated alpha and omega?

Such a stance has often been charged with an intellectual indolence which absolves itself of the historic duty of philosophy to debate finer points of logic, science and ethics

How about: Why use reason where Irrationality rules? (though I'm not too fussed on this point)

and

Such a stance has often been charged with an intellectual laziness, contrary to the historic duty of philosophy: to debate finer points of logic, science and ethics.

Or something similar. I understood the meaning, but I don't think there should be long words where simpler ones suffice. It slow you down =)

I've put this as a comment rather than directly editing; style is a matter of taste. Let me know if you think this merits an edit to the article.

Ben Ben Gaskin 15:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

How to pronounce "Nietzsche"?

I was somewhat saddened to see that this article makes no mention of how to pronounce Nietzsche's name. I can't think of another name that has driven so many people insane with rage; it groups five consonants together for God's sake. One can almost picture Nietzsche cackling with glee over it. "'tzsch!' Let's see the English say THAT!".

I have literally heard over a dozen different ways of saying it. Is it possible to get a definitive answer here? --68.147.237.186 07:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. Although unfortunately, the irritating "Nee-chee" pronunciation was included. — goethean ॐ 23:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Goethean is right. Only buffoons say "nee-chee." In German, the "e" at the end of a word sounds like "uh" as in "duh". e.g., Ich gehe (gay-uh) nach Hause (howz-uh). Porsche is Por-sha not Porsh!!! Nietzsche is nee-sha!!! If only the buffoons of the world would die.

From what I've read, the long-e is a result of that being an accepted pronunciation in some localit dialects in Germany. But either way, nee-chee it is an accepted pronunciation, which merits its listing here, whether we agree with it or not.Gheorghe Zamfir 08:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not correct. "Nee-chee" is not a correct German pronunciation of Nietzsche. The name is pronounced by Webster's: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/nietzsche.

Right, if you look at that entry, both the soft and long E pronunciations are listed.Gheorghe Zamfir 20:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the little red phone symbol, and actually listen to the pronunciation, it's sha/cha, not ee.

Yes, you are correct in terms of the audio sample. Nevertheless, the entry you linked to, under pronunciation, does list both pronunciations as being acceptable, so we should here as well.Gheorghe Zamfir 23:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, as an aside, paranthesis are actually not standard for IPA, as paranthesis have a specific purpose in IPA usage (to indicate silent sounds).Gheorghe Zamfir 20:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC) -- EDIT: I see though that it is standard Wiki practice to format it as such, so sorry, my bad.

Removing the added t, as far as I can tell there's no pronunciation models where 'tch' is a symbol that means anything.Gheorghe Zamfir 00:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Someone who really knows the pronounciation could also add an OGG Sound File with the pronounciation, like it is done in Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. I wouldn't mind someone who also knows Søren Kierkegaard's name to pronounce his name (is it Soren or Sir-ren / Kierkeguard or Kierkegoord) Yorick, Jester of Elsinore 10:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

'Nietzsche despised anti-Semitism'

I have evidence to the contrary. I believe Nietzsche, in a very bold move, targets Judaism as that which extirpated all of the great and powerful in the world, due to their hatred of master morality, something which Nietzsche deeply cherished. Look at this quotation:

"Whatever else has been done to damage the powerful and great of this earth seems trivial compared with what the Jews have done, that priestly people who succeeded in avenging themselves on their enemies and oppressors by radically inverting all their values, that is, by an act of the most spiritual vengeance. This was a strategy entirely appropriate to a priestly people in whom vindictiveness had gone most deeply underground. It was the Jew who, with frightening consistency, dared to invert the aristocratic value equations good/noble/powerful/beautiful/ happy/favored-of-the-gods and maintain, with the furious hatred of the underprivileged and impotent, that "only the poor, the powerless, are good; only the suffering, sick, and ugly, truly blessed. But you noble and mighty ones of the earth will be, to all eternity, the evil, the cruel, the avaricious, the godless, and thus the cursed and damned!" ... We know who has fallen heir to this Jewish inversion of values.... In reference to the grand and upspeakably disastrous initiative which the Jews have launched by this most radical of all declarations of war, I wish to repeat a statement I made in a different context (Beyond Good and Evil), to wit, that it was the Jews who started the slave revolt in morals; a revolt with two millennia of history behind it, which we have lost sight of today simply because it has triumphed so competely." - Nietzsche, The Genealogy of Morals.

I do not mean to 'quilt' quote as Popper did when he tried to refute Hegel, I merely mean to provide some evidence that Nietzsche certainly didn't despise anti-Semitism. Correct me if I am wrong, Nietzsche elucidates that the Jews did significant damage to his envisioned world of aristocracy (everything else, assuming Christianity's contribution is 'trivial'). Given this fantastical claim, what does Nietzsche do to back it up with? Nothing. His argument his circular: I. Judaism inverts the values of master morality, something which is healthier than slave morality. II. Slave morality is weakening, like that of Judaism. I shall continue. Nietzsche characterises Judaism as a 'disastrous initiative' and it's just that we've got so used to Judaism's slave morality that we don't know that it was them that caused this apparent weakening. Well, I certainly would not say this is a glowing endorsement of the Jewish Semites at all, attributing full blame to the Jews for supposed endorsement of the 'impotent'. In short, Nietzsche here seems to reveal to us his somewhat plain hatred of the Jew. Here is another congratulation of Judaism by Nietzsche:

"From the tree trunk of Jewish vengeance and hatred -- the deepest and sublimest hatred in human history, since it gave birth to ideals and a new set of values -- grew a branch that was equally unique: a new love, the deepest and sublimest of loves. From what other trunk could this branch have sprung? But let no one surmise that this love represented a denial of the thirst for vengeance, that it contravened the Jewish hatred. Exactly the opposite is true. Love grew out of hatred as the tree's crown, spreading triumphantly in the purest sunlight, yet having, in its high and sunny realm, the same aims -- victory, aggrandizement, temptation -- which hatred pursued by digging its roots ever deeper into all that was profound and evil. Jesus of Nazareth, the gospel of love made flesh, the "redeemer," who brought blessing and victory to the poor, the sick, the sinner -- what was he but temptation in its most sinister and irresistible form, bringing men by a roundabout way to precisely those Jewish values and renovations of the ideal? Has not Israel, precisely by the detour of this "redeemer," this seeming antagonist and destroyer of Israel, reached the final goal of its sublime vindictiveness? Was it not a necessary feature of a truly brilliant politics of vengeance, a farsighted, subterranean, slowly and carefully planned vengeance, that Israel had to deny its true instrument publicly and nail him to the cross like a mortal enemy, so that "the whole world" might naïvely swallow the bait? And could one, by straining every resource, hit upon a bait more dangerous than this? What could equal in debilitating narcotic power the symbol of the "holy cross," the ghastly paradox of a crucified god, the unspeakably cruel mystery of God's self-crucifixion for the benefit of mankind? One thing is certain, that in this sign Israel has by now triumphed over all other, nobler values."

Again, the Jews are being accused of some sort of hatred and the need to avenge, quite a sweeping statement by the philosopher. In some sort of Hegelian negation, love has grown out of 'Jewish' hatred once more. Judaism is characterised as a delusion (something that fits in well with Nietzsche's wider critique of Christianity, indeed a very perspicuous critique in places). However, it seems to me that this malignance toward the Jew is seeping out again, with the characterisation of them as noxious or poisonous as in a 'narcotic'.

And another:

"In Rome the Jew was considered "guilty of hatred again the entire human race." And that view was correct, to the extent we are right to link the health and the future of the human race to the unconditional rule of aristocratic values, the Roman values." (different edition) - in the other edition which I have used to quote from for the other two quotations, it is translated differently, but the idea is the same:

"The Romans regarded the Jews as convicted of hatred against the whole of mankind -- and rightly so if one is justified in associating the welfare of the human species with absolute supremacy of aristocratic values."

The Jews hate humans. Thus they hate themselves? The funny thing is, Nietzsche, in his triumphant exaltation of the master morality, seems to pine for vengeance himself, the EXACT thing he despised of the Jews. Maybe the Jews wanted to be masters themselves, something Nietzsche can't object to. Inter alia, by calling the Jews evil, as the Jews called the Romans, Nietzsche may thirst for revenge over the Jewish dominance in morality - his outlet being his philosophical work (of course I do not mean he wanted to murder Jews - simply overthrow their morality - yet Nietzsche asserts that 'All truly noble morality grows out of triumphant self-affirmation' - not revenge which he calls, 'slave ethics'). I hope I am not seeing what I want to see here (in a sort of hermeneutic manner) but Nietzsche also accuses the Jews of hatred of humanity. I believe the Nazis and others have accused them of the exact same thing, through propaganda though, and in the Nazi's case it was clear that they have a problem with humanity of the Jewish form. That the 'future of the human race' depends on this rejection of the Jew, seems to have been what the Nazis thought, though whether Nietzsche would have approved of such a project is unfair for me to guess about. This aside, I think I have found evidence to the contrary that Nietzsche was a Jew-sympathiser, and I suggest that people answer these objections of mine or see to it that the remark in the Wikipedia article is reworked somehow. Whether or not this feeling of Nietzsche's is cynicism or hatred, it seems to me that he did not explicitly abhor anti-Semitism. --Knucmo2 19:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Concidering that his siter's anti-semitism caused a lifelong break between the two, it's a fair statement. The simple fact of the matter is that Nietzsche is not a qualitative philosopher - in that same book you quote so lengthily he eventually comes to the conclusion that even the slave-morality can become a tool of mastery, and he admits freely how the 'slave revolt of morality' was successful because it was the stronger of the two moralities, which means that even in the slave/master morality opposition Nietzsche did not exalt one side above another, no matter how it may appear on first glance. --203.173.188.130 12:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not realise I wasn't logged in when I wrote that comment. --Marinus 12:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

You generalise. Nietzsche's falling out with his sister was not on purely philosophical grounds. I know the part of the book where he says about slave morality as being creative enough to undermine master morality and create values of his own, but this is besides the point. What is praise of one thing is not necessarily praise of the other. Nietzsche's praise of the slave morality as you have said here is a far cry from praise of the Jews. Whilst I have found evidence to the contrary that Nietzsche despised Jews, my point is that it is not as clear as his defenders like it to be. If you are going to continue to defend Nietzsche from such claims, I recommend you give references. I am trying to discuss facts about Nietzsche, not personalities.--Knucmo2 11:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

This is not the place, and you do not have the goods, to overturn the consensus of contemporary Nietzsche scholarship. — goethean ॐ 23:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Well then I suppose that rules out Walter Kaufmann's prized scholarship or the reference to Santayana and Karl Jaspers which this article uses. And I will not be insulted for accusations of intellectual inferiority (or not having 'the goods' as you euphemistically put it - if that's not what you meant, then that is my mistake of interpretation and I won't ask you to retract that.) And if contemporary opinions are all that seems to be important then Mencken's views are somewhat irrelevant. --Knucmo2 23:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

What I meant by "the goods" was that you have failed to prove your case. Point me to a single Nietzsche scholar who disagrees with the sentence "Nietzsche despised anti-Semitism" and we can talk. Goethean 17:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Off the top of my head I can point you in the direction of Kelley L. Ross. His work is part of an electronic journal here: The Proceedings of the Friesian School. I do not think it is necessary that any scholars in question should be focussed only on interpreting Nietzsche as they see fit, philosophers such as Bertrand Russell have criticised Nietzsche but he is not specifically a Nietzsche scholar, as have others such as Deleuze. Since it is clear to only you in writing that I have failed to prove my case, I require that you provide evidence of this, rather than just saying that it is so.--Knucmo2 17:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

"Nietzsche even argues that anti-Semitism springs directly from ressentiment"[3] "He took the Christianity, nationalism, and anti-Semitism that dominated Germany at the time as signs of a degenerate culture lacking positive values."[4] "Among other things, Nietzsche attacks anti- Semitism, criticizes the English, and advances the concept of the "good European," who rises above nationalist sentiment to find true individuality." [5] "Yet his emphasis on individualism and contempt for German nationalism and anti-Semitism put him at stark odds with Nazi ideology." [6] "Most importantly Nietzsche denounced anti-semitism in a number of places."[7] "He rejected Wagner an a large number of grounds, most of which had to do with his [Wagner's] Anti-Semitism and his profound German Nationalism." [8]"Also Nietzsche did not accept the rising Wagnerian cult at Bayreuth, especially with its anti-Semitism." [9] "He disliked German nationalism and anti-Semitism." [10] "Nietzsche himself condemned anti-Semitism, writing that the word "anti-Semite" was another name for 'bungled and botched.'"[11] More here. And here. Now go waste someone else's time. — goethean ॐ 18:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I take my hat off to you Goethean. In a manner that your namesake wouldn't have admired, you randomly sprinkle your reply with links to at times, a sales pitch for a book at Princeton: [12], a quote taken completely out of context at the Friesian site I pointed you to [13] (Kelley writes afterward: "Nietzsche's sympathizers use these facts to defend him and explain how he would never have endorsed the crimes of the Nazis; but is creating a retroactive morality for Nietzsche really something that is conformable with his own thought? Clearly not. Nietzsche would have had nothing but contempt for such a project and for anyone who would think it necessary" so that nullifies one piece of your evidence), a range of google sites which you take as being proof that Nietzsche despised anti-Semitism [14] (If every scholar trusted Google for everything they research, it is unlikely that they would get that far - they have to rely on proper journals too, or you might well have used Google's own scholar project here: [15]), a snippet from a discussion forum for fans of Philip K. Dick, (I didn't know that all Nietzsche scholars congregated there), that is riddled with typos, grammatical errors, and barely an extract from Nietzsche's philosophical works (or indeed any secondary scholarship - something you treasure) to back up their claims [16] (The author's argument against anti-Semitism simply involves making the assertion that it is 'unfounded', backed up by the quote of "fallacious race swindle"). Hardly Verifiable! (If this is your definition of contemporary Nietzsche scholarship, then I feel sorry for the great philosopher's legacy being interpreted by hacks, and I doubt that anyone in contemporary scholarship wouldn't be able to 'overturn' it.) The discussion here: [17] isn't too bad.

However, it's nice to see, in being consistent with your laziness, that you quote from a diluted, summarized version of "Beyond Good And Evil" at Spark Notes [18], not even bothering to quote from a primary source, but relying again on a single quote from secondary material. Of course, these are only quotations and not a true examination of the veracity or strength of material from the SparkNotes. Not only that, you don't even bother to study the arguments at the links that you've offered (or if you have, there is no evidence of you having considered them here), you have simply selectively quoted from them, a truly lazy effort at trying to dispute my claim, a method which can make anyone's work appear contrary to the authors' intentions, or indeed make their works look better than they are. I could do the same, and while you might allege that I have in my first post, all I have done is demonstrate the difficulty of asserting absolutely that he wasn't anti-Semitic, with sources from the work of Nietzsche himself.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.40.5.175 (talk • contribs) .

So, you have still failed to provide evidence against my claim, and in a desperate last resort, you've let other people in your links provided speak for your opinion parrot-fashion since you don't appear capable to form a coherent argument of your own, or at least build upon what they say. Truly Faustian. And, throughout your postings, you misattribute my motive. I never intended to overturn contemporary consensus on Nietzsche (a massive project given the range of people who have reinterpreted his legacy and the methods they use, also, the idea of you being able to decide on the consensus of contemporary Nietzsche scholarship is another unfounded claim, unless you are familiar with every single piece of contemporary academic work on him), but simply challenge the dogma that he outright despised Anti-Semitism. Nor, in your collection of links, do I see any active refutations of "my case" addressing my little piece on this site here, something I asked you to provide evidence of (However, I was expecting you to be able to do that yourself, since it is allegedly so poor, you shouldn't need others to do it for you - but you fail to read even my post correctly). Given your current responses to my posts, you seem unable to contest claims rationally, or even effectively. So I suggest you stop wasting my time replying to MY posts in an insulting, patronising and impolite manner.--Knucmo2 20:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I am being as polite as possible. Any uncensored evaluation of your argument would violate Wikipedia policies. — goethean ॐ 20:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Clearly implying therefore that you would otherwise have to rely upon abuse to contest claims of mine, something I believe is also contrary to Wikipedia policies and a well known tactic of those who are unhappy that they aren't getting their own way.--Knucmo2 20:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

You appear to be riding a hobby-horse, Knucmo2. Let's take the Kelley quote you wrote in response to the Kelley quote goethean posted: that doesn't negate the first (non-anti-Semitic) statement in the slightest, it explains why Nietzsche wouldn't explicitely defend himself against (baseless) claims of anti-Semitism. You cannot show me a case where he attacked Jewry - the quotes you gave are far too ambiguous to play that part, and the claim otherwise would be to fall into that same liberal fallacy that one must never even hint at danger (harmlesness as virtue). Yet Nietzsche repeatedly attacked the "genetic fallacy" (that a person can be judged by his origins rather than his actions) and explicitely named anti-Semitism as an example. Then we have the following quote, from Human, All Too Human (from 'The European man and the destruction of nations'):

"Every nation, every man has disagreeable, even dangerous characteristics; it is cruel to demand that the Jew should be an exception… I would like to know how much one must excuse in the overall accounting of a people which, not without guilt on all our parts, has had the most sorrowful history of all peoples, and to whom we owe the noblest of all human beings (Christ), the purest philosopher (Spinoza), the mightiest book, and the most effective moral code in the world."

I believe that settles it. --Marinus 06:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think not. You misunderstand the Kelley quotation also but I am content with the article now in relation to my post. The only reason I have been engaged in debate with others on here is that they've posted quite frankly ludicrous responses and alleging me of weird sorts of things. The matter has been settled already on the Nietzsche page, and again, I shall have to repeat this since Goethean deleted it (I concede that the unsigned post I responded to was becoming irrelevant to the article and was rightly abolished) that since the matter is settled on the page, any other postings to my challenge are effectively an attempt to defend the subject, not improve the article.

I have always had evidence to the contrary of my post's claim: "I am having all anti-Semites shot" from his Letters seems pretty straightforward, and also the fact that his malicious sister butchered his work after he became mad, of course the works she butchered have been admirably reworked by Walter Kaufmann. But I needed to be shown the stuff I posted wasn't important. But you've simply dismissed it as being ambiguous, as if the stuff you quote is far less ambivalent. Yet this is a mistaken view. I refuse to see how someone who called the Jews "poisonous", vengeful, guilty of hatred of the human race etc. is being ambiguous. If I said the same to you about a minority group, I don't think you'd accuse me of being roundabout. The quotes I give are anything but ambiguous. If Nietzsche is completely innocent of such crimes then why does he feel the need to refer to the Jews' "vindictiveness"? If he is merely talking about uprooting Judeo-Christian values, he has done that better in his other books: The Anti-Christ, so why does a stinging attack on the Jews need to be part of his overall strategy? So I have already shown you a case where he attacked Jewry.

Also, you misunderstand the Kelley quotation and simply assume that the claims in the passage discussed are those of anti-Semitism. If you read the passage, it says that the Nietzsche sympathizers use evidence of his contempt for nationalism and anti-Semitism to show he wouldn't have espoused Nazism, thus exculpating him from any sort of racism. Of course, since Nietzsche believed in being "Beyond Good and Evil" and in a world beyond morals, what Kelley is saying that attempts to defend him by modern scholars are creating an antiquated morality for him, which he would have dismissed. The conclusion of the passage sums this up neatly: "Nietzsche probably would not have liked Hitler, and certainly would not have thought of him as an Übermensch, but he could not have made any moral judgments about him." That is the meaning of the passage, not the way you interpret it.

You also seem to be wrong that Nietzsche explicitly argued against the genetic fallacy (Nietzsche had "declared this war on optimism of the logicians" (Will to Power, 362). Nietzsche believed in an aristocracy. And a quotation reveals that Nietzsche might not have been so egalitarian after all: "One has a right to philosophy only by virtue of one's breeding. One's ancestors, one's "blood" decides this, too." Nietzsche here seems to be judging others by their origin strongly here, indicating intellectual differences mainly. There's also another: "I don't deny that this triumph might be looked upon as a kind of blood poisoning, since it has resulted in a mingling of the races." This one speaks for itself - interracial sex results in a weakening of the human race. "Class distinctions are always indicative of genetic and racial differences". That the concept of race is now being discredited Nietzsche cannot be blamed for of course, but the last one seems to suggest that Nietzsche might be a fan of some sort of hierarchy. After all, he talks of the ideal aristocracy in one section as "good and healthy" and "an instinct for rank". Fair enough to Nietzsche, but I think that your claim that he was absolutely opposed to judging others by race isn't without complications. As regards this "liberal fallacy", I am not opposed to people hinting at danger at all; otherwise I'd be violently opposed to Nostradamus, and even Nietzsche himself! I'm not opposed to Nietzsche at all, I just don't try to apologise for his works. I think the quotations given hint at more than just harm. Also, I think "Do not do harm unto others" is a virtue for many people, especially pacifists.

I don't think you've settled anything, other than perhaps showing that you are a Nietzsche apologist. As such I am happy with the article since it has answered my post far better than any of you have, so I don't think I'll bother responding to any more complaints about my post anymore from Nietzscheans thank you. The matter is closed. --Knucmo2 12:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You are talking about suggestions and implications, but one swallow does not make a spring. You can not show me that Nietzsche concidered this "vindictiveness", this "hatred of man", a qualatively bad thing. Nietzsche was a descriptive philosopher, and he used inflammatory language for his goal. The concerns you bring up surrounding it shows that it offends liberal sensibilities, but not that he was an anti-Semite, especially not when the evidence to the contrary is so much stronger. This requires a deeper reading - it is meant to incense the reader, that is the style Nietzsche assumed - and to dismiss Nietzsche because of this is that typical democratic excess he spoke against so often - "It is not enough to have virtue, one also needs permission to have it" (Beyond Good and Evil) - and developed his style against. Such dismissals are plainly misreadings, and must be treated as such.

Your "Nietzsche wasn't so egalitarian" diatribe is misplaced - Not I nor anybody here claims that Nietzsche was a democrat. Erect that strawmen somewhere else. And I don't appreciate your falling into ad hominem attacks. --Marinus 14:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Photo of Nietzsche

I was thinking a more portrait style, rather than profile style, photo would be more appropriate for the initial photo-image of Nietzsche in the article. I am well aware the current one at the top is a very famous photo of him, but I believe a photo suiting to biographical encyclopedia entries should show a clear visage of the individual captioned. However, I'm putting it here for someone else to decide to make that step, or vote on whether it should be done before I go ahead with it. Nagelfar 21:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree Sounds like a good idea. (Bjorn Tipling 07:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC))

Agree looks good.

Hoosier 03:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Disagree Not a big deal to me either way, but of the two I like the one that's already up better.Gheorghe Zamfir 09:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree. This one is less stereotypical. — goethean ॐ 16:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Max Stirner

Anyone know if Max Stirner was an influence on Nietzsche? RJII 03:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

He almost certainly wasn't: Stirner made even less impact in his own life than Nietzsche did, and I've never seen a mention of Stirner in primary or secondary sources. Stirner was attached to the Young Hegellians, and Hegel and all in that vein is something Nietzsche simply disregarded entirely. The parallels between the two are, I think, like those between Nietzsche and Kierkegaard - both a product of their time, independently reaching similar positions in their own way. --Marinus 05:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hogeye, from another article here, found this source on Stirner/Nietzsche: [19] It reports, among other things, that Eduard von Hartmann actually refers to Nietzsche as a plagiarist. RJII 17:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... that's not a very good source at all. At all. It talks in extremely flowery language about things without making any argument for them, it conflates the very real mistreatment of Stirner by Marx with Nietzsche's position. Why would Nietzsche hide Stirner? Marx is well-known to have been domineering and a grandstander (the First International, anyone?) and seeked to form the entire Left into his project. Nietzsche, however, was constantly grapsing for people with whom to share his project (his close association with Wagner, the whole Reé/Salomé episode, how thankful he is, even in his published works, for his friendship with Peter Past). This is a whole kettle of fish altogther.

Now, it isn't even clear if Nietzsche ever read Stirner (who was a thoroughly marginalised figure). But it goes against what we know of the man to say that he 'repressed' Stirner - and that article goes no way to show that it happened. John Carrol's Breakout from the Crystal Palace: the Anarcho-psychological Critique; Stirner, Nietzsche, Dostoyevsky, a small book with a good reputation amongst both philosophers and anarchists, and this thesis are indicative of the commonly accepted history - that Stirner was a remarkable figure on the periphary of Romantic thought, a product of the same time that made Nietzsche and Dostoyevsky (and Kierkegaard and Ibsen and...) and an excellent example thereof, but without a direct link to Nietzsche or almost anybody else. On the face of this weight of scholarship, I'm going to strike that article from the External Links (its entry is entirely unencyclopaedic anyway) and oppose Stirner's entry as a influence. If anybody wants to add a passage linking Nietzsche to the spirit of his times, using Stirner as an example, you have my blessing. However, I seriously doubt the good faith on the part of RJIII, I suspect that he and some others are trying to force an extreme minority opinion into wikipedia, and they have severely compromised at least the Anarchism article on here with that attempt. --Marinus 01:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, thanks a lot. You're accusing me of bad faith. What the hell is your problem? I asked the question out of curiosity. I'm not trying to push it one way or the other. I'm simply trying to find out because someone made the claim in another article. How the hell is it going to affect me whether Stirner was an influence or not? I have no vested interest in it, but by your rude response, I'm guessing you do. So, you know what? Just because of this, I'm going push it now. I'm going to find sources and I'm going to add it to the article. Consider it done. If anyone has bad faith, it's you. You sure do know how to make enemies quickly. Consider me one. RJII 02:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

If I wanted to be rude, I wouldn't have taken the time to seriously answer your post. And I stated why I distrust your/Hogeye/et al's project - it has seriously damaged at least one article on here. Nietzsche appears on that little graph of yours, which is slightly disingenius - he almost entirely lacked a social philosophy (imagining one is another instance of that grave fault when reading Nietzsche - imagining him as a prescriptive philosopher), and Rand abandoned him quickly enough. And listing Stirner as a direct influence, perhaps even a major one, is pushing an extreme minority position, which is my main concern about this amendment to the article. But if you can unearth solid research showing Nietzsche's debt to Stirner (rather than what we have - a link between them in zeitgeist) you'd have done wiki a service. --Marinus 10:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about my/Hogeye et al's 's project? I have no association or coordinated project with Hogeye or with anyone else on Wikipedia. And, I did not make that "graph" and I never suggested putting Nietzsche, Stirner, nor Rand in it. I had nothing to do with it. I merely came here to question the claim that Stiner influenced Nietzsche, because it was claimed by Hogeye, but I wasn't aware of any such influence. You need to get your facts straight before you start throwing claims around like that ..especially claims of "bad faith." RJII 17:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Read Nietzsches initiale Krise, a rough translation in English Nietzsche's initial crisis or versions in French, Dutch, Danish -- Nescio (hapax@gmx.de), 19 February 2006

Epicurus as influence

Is this applicable? Nietszche mentions Epicurus, both for and against, but he mentions many, many people. It's much more plausible to have Homer, Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides up there than Epicurus. While I'm on the subject, why aren't Jesus and Socrates on the list? They are explicitely mentioned b Nietzsche as enormous influences, especially later in his life. --Marinus 15:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Socrates rather than Epicurus. — goethean ॐ 15:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

That is, I agree with inserting Socrates' name rather than Epicurus' — goethean ॐ 18:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Nietzsche is not above criticism

Certain contributors here (e.g., Goethean) keep deleting a link to Santayana's criticism of Nietzsche. I know how terrible it must be to have their Freddy, their God, criticized, but for those of us concerned about a fair and objective article, including such a link is important. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.104.183.247 (talk • contribs) .

I agree. Nietzsche was a controversial philosopher. Granted, many people who criticize him do not understand and often times have not even read his works. But criticisms and alternate points of view should be noted. Arundhati Bakshi 18:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all, external links go in the external links section. Second of all, the text that you keep inserting is a copyright violation of this page — a big no-no. And if you wrote that page, then you're linkspamming your own work — another no-no. — goethean ॐ 18:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

In fact, you seem to be inserting external links to philosophicalsociety.com in a large number of Wikipedia articles. Please see Wikipedia:Spam. — goethean ॐ 18:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Is just adding a link to another site with a conflicting viewpoint under extrnal links Ok then? I can understand using text from another website, but just a link? Excuse me for the possibly dumb question, but I am kind of new here. Arundhati Bakshi 18:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Not a dumb question. Yes, adding links under "external links" is fine. (68.104's link was already listed under "external links" last time I checked.) The best way of contributing to articles is to express the work of others in your own words, and to provide a link or a reference to a hardcopy book as a citation. That way you avoid both copyright violation and original research. — goethean ॐ 18:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, thank you. In general that is what I try to do, and just sometimes get confused about images. I was just wondering what the other guy above did wrong and wasn't clear on it and how he/she violated anything other than by being impolite. Thanks Runa 19:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I am allowed to add links to any site I choose. The "Santayana" link deserves to be placed under a separate section called "Criticism of Nietzsche." I will be glad to submit this issue to Wikipedia for arbitration.

Knock yourself out. — goethean ॐ 18:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Goethean, be careful about deleting links to other sites. Your own links might be deleted too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sagejr (talk • contribs) .

Please see wikistalking before you do anything rash. — goethean ॐ 18:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You might have a look at that page, too, mate. You have committed numerous acts of vandalism and harassment. The evidence doesn't look to be on your side. Do take that warning seriously. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sagejr (talk • contribs) .

Can't we all just play nice? :)... how about this compromise: 68.104.183.247 why don't you write a whole section on criticisms of Nietzsche citing the website in question? That is, write a comprehensive sub-section outlining Santayana's view (not just a small quote) and add other crits if you like (e.g. Russell, etc.). How about it? Mikkerpikker ... 19:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestion is good. The problem is, little Goaty doesn't want any criticism of Nietzsche on the page. He keeps deleting the link and the section "Criticism of".

Right... I've read most of Nietzsche but (perhaps scandalously, very little criticism) so I have no idea whether or not Santayana's view is notable "enough" to be included... If you have an argument as to way it isn't, would you care to enlighten us? Mikkerpikker ... 20:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Mike, for any of us to decide whether Santayana's criticism of Nietzsche is "notable" enough, would be like my barber offering a critique of Einstein's theories of energy and mass. I can see how the selected quote in question could be changed, but the REAL issue is getting Goaty to stop deleting the link.

Mikkerpikker, I will review the contemporary Nietzsche scholarship asap and see if Santayana is referred to at all. — goethean ॐ 21:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The "contemporary N scholarship" is almost free of any criticism of the man. Mike, try the Encyclopedia of Philosophy under Santayana's name. "Egotism in German Philosophy" will be referenced. 68.104.183.247 21:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

What should happen is that the most notable criticisms of Nietzsche are described. — goethean ॐ 20:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The quote is accurate. It comes from one of the most noteworthy philosophers of the past 2 or 3 centuries. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.104.183.247 (talk • contribs) .

The quote may be accurate but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminte collection of information so please do write a comprehensive section, don't just add a minor quote. Mikkerpikker ... 21:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Mike,I promise to do that if Goaty promises, once and for all, to stop deleting the whole section and link!

Forget it. It's a copyvio. — goethean ॐ 21:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Providing a hyperlink is not a copyvio. Only in your dreams.68.104.183.247 21:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Can we agree to resolve this on the talk page and not edit war over it? (68.104.183.247, if you're new you might want to read over WP:3RR so that you don't make the same mistake *I* did when I was starting out!! :). goethean, is your argument that we can't have a link to a webpage that is a copyright violation? If so can you please direct me to the policy page that says this isn't allowed? (I'm still quite new, I haven't come across that before...) Mikkerpikker ... 21:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Links to outside pages are NOT a copyright violation. Refer to the U.S. Code on this one. 68.104.183.247 21:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not what I'm saying. If you follow 68's link and search on the term "invalid", you will find that he has simply cut-and-pasted text from a website. This text is not in quotation marks, indicating that it is not quoted from Santayana. By allowing 68's edit, we are liable for effectively stealing the website's research. — goethean ॐ 21:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Up to 600 words can be quoted from any source and still be protected by law (look it up). Goethean doesn't know what he's talking about. He's obviously not a lawyer. 68.104.183.247 21:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think 68 might be right on this one, what he has done is done something along the lines of 'Santayana quoted in' (whatever). I.e. the words in question were written by Santayana then quoted by these guys and then quoted by us. I don't think there is anything wrong with doing this... That said, the section DOES need work & is a bit stubby to be included just yet. 68.104.183.247 would you object to moving it to the talk page until we had a chance of working on it (expand mostly...)? Mikkerpikker ... 21:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hold on, my mistake (just double checked). goethean is right that we can't have "belated prophet of romanticism" as this IS the work of the website but is attributed to Satanyana... Mikkerpikker ... 21:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

"Criticism of Nietzsche" section

"Santayana's Criticism of Nietzsche." According to George Santayana, Nietzsche was "the belated prophet of romanticism" who preferred "the bracing atmosphere of falsehood, passion, and subjective perspectives" to truth.

The above is the disputed addition to the article. Can we all please make suggestions of how to improve it and expand the crit section generally? (BTW if we ever want to get the article from "good" to FA we will def. need a crit section, it will never pass WP:FAC w/o one...) Mikkerpikker ... 21:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Mike, the text above can certainly be re-worded. But Goathead will have to stop deleting the link. The REAL issue here is that he doesn't want the page to be objective. He wants it to fawn all over Nietzsche. Well, that's not going to happen. 68.104.183.247 22:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Please try to assume good faith on behalf of other editors... I don't know goethean but I'm sure she/he knows enough about NPOV to know we can't have a fawning article. I think goethean's main concern seems to be copyvio & the structure of the article. (given what is written below, it does seem having "reception" and "criticisms" sections may be a bit awkward. Perhaps we could first discuss whether we want a reception section with positive/negative reactions or a crit section with just negative sections. What do you think? Mikkerpikker ... 00:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Please stop putting this passage in: paraphrase Santayana and come back with better entry please. Yorick, Jester of Elsinore 01:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, my intention for the "reception of Nietzsche" section was basically a history of nietzsche scholarship which would include short accounts of both his admirers and detractors. — goethean ॐ 21:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

That sounds the best idea. It's done on Hegel's page fairly well. --Knucmo2 21:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is, both by critics and fans alike in a single section. Yorick, Jester of Elsinore 01:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of FAC, I think that we should make this article shorter by moving some of the text on N's various doctrines to their own articles, and use the "Main" template. — goethean ॐ 22:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you on that point. Also, IMO all those big block quotes could be paraphrased and thus made much shorter... Mikkerpikker ... 00:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favor of a "Criticism" rather than "Reception" section, with a discussion of FN's strengths and weaknesses. The Santayana link should definitely be included, with others. 68.104.183.247 00:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of "overman" section

I don't know how to say this with tact. But the recently re-written section on the "overman" is horrendous. It doesn't even make sense. Reads like a 1st-year philosophy paper by an over-opinionated pompous ... How about a reversion or a re-write please?

Take a look at this hilarious snippet: "Rather than an individualist ideal, Nietzsche's concept of the overman hence represents a positive and temporary state of the multiple forces composing the human body, and, therefore, consciousness: health against illness - and Nietzsche never stopped from changing states, ill or in good health, in particular in the mountains, at Sils Maria [3]."

What the heck does this mean? Anyway, the section goes further to say overman has nothing to do with a person. Let's get real here. It is used everywhere in Zarathustra and other works in reference to a single individual, a person. The German "ubermensch" contains the word "mensch" which of course refers to a person. To stretch out all this to mean something like "positive and temporary state of the multiple forces composing the human body" is a tad out of line. Hell, I'm not sure Nietzsche himself ever even used words like "the human body" or "positive and temporary state" or even "consciousness". I strongly urge a reversion or a rewrite.

Oldseed 10:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

To think that the overman refers to a "single individual" or a "person" is, at best, a lack of understanding Nietzsche's main philosophical points (criticisms of the subject, substance and causality), at worse a perversion of his work. I don't take it at bad at all criticisms about my "style" of writing, but I'll like to remind you that philosophy is a complex matter, and Nietzsche all the more. I know we're in Wikipedia, but it is not a reason to maintain gross misunderstandings of Nietzsche's thought, which have led to Nazi appropriation and so on. The hilarious snippet may not be the correct way to present things, although it is more or less paraphrasis of Pierre Klossowski. This reading of the overman as a state is shared by Klossowski, Foucault, Deleuze, Derrida and others, notwithstanding differences between themselves. Furthermore, to state that Hitler or Napoleon may even be thought a second to be an example of the "overman" is utterly ridiculous, as Nietzsche despised this kind of hero (for the reason that has been written in the subsection; however, the simple idea of it is ridiculous). Artists is a bit closer, although it you read Nietzsche against Wagner, you will see that Wagner wasn't exactly Nietzsche's conception of an overman. I'm sure there is place for a philosophical debate between philosophers about the exact way Nietzsche does conceive consciousness and individual subjects: as Foucault for example has shown, if the subject is an effect of power and the ideological atom which passes the social contract, this does not mean however that he is unreal (i.e. ideology is not simple fiction, it is real and material). But the overman has absolutely nothing to do with an individual subject, and the important part in "ubermensch" is not "mensch" but "uber", if you had payed any attention to Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Lapaz 12:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

this is not a debate about how philosophers have interpreted nietzsche, nor even an elucidation of how philosophers have interpreted ubermensch. the word literally means overman. there are plenty of other words for consciousness, etc., none of which nietzsche chose. By the way, quoting Pierre Klossowski is ridiculous for any interpretation of Nietzsche. Either have a whole section dedicated to how other philosophers have interpreted Nietzsche, or have none at all, and use direct quotes from Nietzsche. I will remove this reference to P.K. soon, and we shall see how it goes if it gets reverted.Oldseed 16:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with you on presentation, I don't follow why you dislike quoting Klossowski. I for one think that "Nietzsche and the Vicious Circle" is a bloody good book. We also have to make some use of scholarship of Nietzsche - the man was in no hurry to explain himself, and while I've got quite a lot to say on the matter WP is no place for my opinions, it is the place for generally accepted scholarship. Am I misreading you? --Marinus 10:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

There is also Heidigger's insistence that neither Nietzsche's übermensch nor his own Dasein are subjects in the philosophical meaning of the word. Nietzsche nowhere describes what the übermensch actually is - he describes some qualities, but those are qualities in man that can be said to be "übermenschies" ("like the overman" - this translates even worse than "übermensch"). My view is that the übermensch is in large part a metaphysical trick to cement the material as the sole focus of human action, and if I could find the correct references I would rewrite the section to reflect that . --Marinus 01:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Moved personal comment here

" In another sense, modern notions of social justice may have emerged in response to historical injustices, such as slavery, or acts of genocide like the Holocaust."

Such personal interpretations have no place here. They are more than contestable. Beside, saying that Nietzsche admired Jesus is a bit getting carried away. As always, he had very mixed feelings about him. Hence replacement of "admiration" by "fascination". Don't forget that he finished by signing "the Antechrist"... Lapaz

Nietzsche's philosophy is certainly not teleological!

Moved this here:

"In contrast to the "theories of everything" attempted in physics, Nietzsche's was teleological in nature. However, Nietzsche's disavowal of teleology in general suggests that this might not be the best way to interpret what he meant by the "will to power.""

As it itself makes it clear, Nietzsche's thought has nothing to do with teleology (see Spinoza). Lapaz

German-Polish

The sentence "Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (October 15, 1844 – August 25, 1900) was a philosopher of German-Polish descent" is wrong. The "Polish descent" is nothing but a Nietzschean family-joke. The name "Nietzsche" seems to be Polish, but there are no real traces to a Polish descent in the history of Nietzsche's family. --Klingsor 18:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I see his continual referring to his Polish heritage in Ecce Homo as Nietzsche's attempt to distance himself from the rising German nationalism of his time, and in the style of Ecce Homo he does so through half-joking. Concidering that the Poles were stateless at this time (as was Nietzsche) he could gain exactly nothing from linking himself to them. I quite like what he did in this regard, personally. --Marinus 20:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Dissent: His features are distinctly Polish. It is especially evident in his youthful photographs. The view that this is a "family joke" is upheld as a matter of course, like the air, because it has become habitual, because reasons have been given, accepted, and ceased to be discussed as constituting a possible ground for dispute. In the simple sense, this is a prejudice of the recent tradition, possibly based on the desire to make Nietzsche a proper German, and so connect him to the Nazis. Nietzsche's unconstrained admiration for the several Poles with respect to scientific achievements is not a joke, but a sign of his own belief about his ancestry.