Talk:Friedrich Nietzsche/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Is Nietzsche in favor of captalism?

'The will to a system is a lack of integrity'

The article talks about the free market, and how it is interpretated by modern philosophers as a modern system for Overmen to establish themselves. However I think the laws of supply and demand are reinforced by the entire economy, every lackwit consumer. This makes a system that isn't necessarily in favor of Overman, capatilism with what works, not what is needed. The overman isn't a busniness man. The laws of supply and demand are that, laws, and likewise another barrier to overcome. I think this should be highlighted in the article, capatilism isn't the only interpretation of Nietzsche's political system.

move "Master and Slave morality" to a new page?

Maybe, to make the article smaller, most of the section on Master and Slave Morality could be moved to the red link near the top to start a new page, similar to the Overman section. Bill Sayre 01:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The best part of the article is the biographical material. Other elements are misleading. The tendency is to see Nietzsche as a version of oneself. The nazis saw a nazi in N., the later Marxists, a revolutionary, the modernists a hater of the past, and the postmodernists see a po-mo in him. Heidegger the metaphysician saw a metaphysician in him. The list goes on and on. The main idea seems to be that one recruits N onto one's side in the culture wars (and does it by ignoring his works). This makes the question of Nietzsche's influence very dicey indeed. Heidegger is not at all like Nietzsche, and Niether is Foucault, Derrida or Leo Strauss, but all of them claim as a forbear. From what I can tell, Foucault is incapable of reading anything honestly, but then so are Heidegger and Derrida and Strauss. The lot of them are liars from the very heart, but Nietzsche was all about reading for the meaning (philology) and telling the truth.

I believe the article should be shortened by saying that his influence is untracable until his thinking is finally understood. Not2plato 03:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)Not2plato

In certain respects that is a veritable assertion, but this is only possible, to be sure, by way of neglecting the basis upon which "influence" itself is formulated—to be influenced by the elements of another's thought does not necessarily presuppose a kind of understanding in finality, which, you may be inclined to admit, is absurd to confer, since nothing is "understood" from "first" to "last", and rightly so. Invariably, I say his influence is there, and it will not be removed from the article or from historicity regardless of how widespread these "misunderstandings" of his work are. If anything, these are stronger indications of his influence rather than not, and every difference of interpretation is of markedly profound interest, for which I am extremely glad you have posted Conway's considerations (below) for all to witness, though the particulars of his argument (if there is one at all, that is, if the argument itself is not yours, with regard to them being "liars" in this manner) are missing, not to mention prospective criticisms of such an assessment (such as the one I propose). Be that as it may, I agree the biography in the article is outfitted nicely, whereas the other sections are severely lacking in both scope and depth, which seems to be the article's enduring and disappointing disposition.

Another note about Nietzsche's "truth"-mongering, you must realize, as he himself said, that was mere seduction, and holding his thought to such an absolute (e.g., "truth" as it is typically interpreted) is possible either by way of infirmity of thought or abuse toward what Nietzsche said, that is, by ignoring what he said. Although, this is not to say Nietzsche abandoned the notion of "truth", but rather that he revised it into a more suitable fashion, the form of which is perspectivism and is very deserving of consideration by philosophers.

^—IGNIS_SCRIPTA—

05:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you are right. But does that mean that Hitler was influenced by Jesus as much as Heidegger was influenced by Nietzsche? Not2plato 00:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Place in Ethics Rewritten

Just rewrote the ethics section in a fairly proper fashion. Each of the subtopics could use some elaboration. All comments here, please, this discussion page is getting very long. Not2plato 05:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

proper? you left out all the reference, the reader now has no way of verifying your claims. you also managed to somehow remove most of ther the pertinent common-sense parts and replaced them with specifically philosophical terms. the article isn't for philosophers. perhaps this section should be moved to nietzschean ethics or something, then there could be room to have the citations, the common sense interpretations, and the philosophy. --Buridan 11:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

What references? It does mention N's books. The old material was terrible. Obviously written by a person who does not know anything about the history of ethics. Two paragraphs of it were about God, for crying out loud. I have no idea what you mean by "common sense parts." The terms used by me are not "specifically philosophical" any more than the terms idealist and hedonist are. I would call them historical. The title of the section mentions ethics, by which I assume it means the very things I discuss there. Those are the main elements discussed by ethics. So, I don't think there is anything wrong with using them. Most of this article is apparently written by literary hacks who don't know much about philosophy. Now there is a section that is supposed to discuss philosophy and actually does so. And lo! somebody is unhappy about that. The ingratitude! The darkness of minds! The happiness in insolence!

I see few references anywhere in the article. Not2plato 13:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

for several sections of N's book, 'god' is core to the problem of ethics. perhaps you've not read it. remember this is an encyclopedia for everyone, not an encyclopedia for philosophers. ethics also are for everyone. if you want to write a philosophically specific article or to enforce philosophical language, then there will be pov problems. there was nothing in the old section that was misleading about his ethics, now though it is summarily unclear. you see few references elsewhere in the article, but there were references in the ethics section. repair, revert, or create a new page. or I'll revert it. --Buridan 14:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Where on earth is god a part of Nietzsche's ethics?Not2plato 22:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

in beyond good and evil and on the geneology of morals, he discusses god and god's portrayal and the effects on morality and thus ethics.--23:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Threats to revert are uncouth. They are also silly since I can revert it right back, sir. Why don't you explain what you mean there? N discussed god someplace and he discussed ethics in the same book, so they are related? Baaad argument. Even if it was a good argument, it would not justify putting a sniffy interp of the death of god into the ethics piece because it doesn't tell us how that death of god interp has anything to do with N's place in contemporary ethics.

I don't recall god in the Genealogy except at the end of the second essay, where god sends his son to make up the debt of the humans. Nietzsche is clearly an atheist, who, by the way, did advance arguments for atheism. I will provide a list of them if you need it. He was also decidedly anti-clerical, of course.

I also removed some utterly uniformative, bad writing that perports to explain a few contrasting attitudes involved in the master/slave distinction. That material was "summarily unclear" Mr Buridian, sumamrily. Do you want that opaque little bullet list back?

What is your problem with what you call philosophy words? Deontology is in the Wikipedia, and so is Axiology. So, if this is not a philosophy encyclopedia, then those must not be philosophy words.

I might agree with you that there was in the end little that was "misleading" in the old section on the grounds that there was almost nothing about his thoughts on morality.

The quote from the Genealogy about resentment becoming creative in the slave morality seems like it ought to go to the article on master/slave morality.

Having taught ethics in universities for 16 years, I would say, and so would most of my peers, that theory of value, theory of obligation, theory of agency (free will or not), theory of motivation and theory of assessment pretty much comprises the entire field -- whether one is doing descriptive or normative ethics, this is what must be discussed. I have indicated what seem like Nietzsche's positions in each of these areas. I would also say that an article that does not address one of these topics, as the previous one did not, fails to tell us anything about N's place in contemporary ethics.

Cheers Not2plato 23:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Copyright infringement?

The sentences: "In Ecce Homo, Nietzsche stressed his Polish ancestry repeatedly--which became very uncomfortable for the Nazis. A retired major named Max Oehler, who was a relative of Nietzsche's, wrote even a work to prove that Nietzsche was racially pure from the Nazi perspective called "Nietzsches angebliche polnische Herkunft" ("Nietzsche's alleged Polish descent"))." are a possible copyright infringement. It seems that they are taken from the website http://www.pejmanesque.com/archives/008028.html --Klingsor 17:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll rewrite the passage so it conforms to Wiki's copyright standards --Marinus 23:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Well done! --Klingsor 11:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I also appreciate Marinus' rewriting of the passage regarding the alleged Polish ancestry. There has been a discussion about this in the German article talk page some time ago, where I also quoted passages from Janz' biography which underline the point.

Moreover, in Nietzsche-Studien No. 31 (2002), Richard Frank Krummel and Evelyn Krummel published a document called "Nietzsches Vorfahren" from the estate of Hans von Müller. Müller was a genealogist who had researched Nietzsche's ancestry already in the late 1890s. I must thoroughly suggest that anyone who is interested in Nietzsche's ancestry read this text, which summarizes not only the known history of the Nietzsches, but also the short debate about it - in which Elisabeth would support (!) the myth of a Polish ancestry by some crude inventions and frauds just of the kind very common to her (I must admit: I had to laugh reading the text, e.g. the 1716-1706 changing - read it, it is good!)

To exclude a misunderstanding: I do know that Max Oehler - as you can read in the German talk page, I had my own doubts concerning his researches - was a devoted Nazi and that the Nazis were highly interested in "proving" that Nietzsche was of so-called "pure German blood". Still, in this case they were lucky because as far as his family history can be traced back (which is about 1650), he was of German ancestry. Of course it cannot be excluded that some time before that, there were non-German ancestors (keeping aside that the farther you go back in time, it becomes unclear what to call "German" or "non-German" in mid-Europe); and it should be noted that not even Max Oehler excluded this (however, everyone discussing this possibility has suggested Sorbian rather than Polish background). The thing is that the family legend or myth presented by Nietzsche (in KSA 9, 21[2], some letters, Ecce Homo and implicitly in BGE, 264 - Müller presents all the texts) and his sister (in quite different versions, also to be found in Müller's text) is disproven. Therefore, I deleted the parts of the text recently added which claimed a big sensation, and still did not even get it right: his sister wrote "Nietzky" and later "Nicki" (reason for this change also to be found at Müller, also funny), never "Nietzschy". As I have said already, I think that Marinus' text sums up the whole thing very well.--Chef aka Pangloss 23:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

will to power

Quote: « The Will to Power, a book attributed to Nietzsche and published in 1894 (after Nietzsche’s death) by his sister » .. but Nietzsche died in 1900 ! Is there an error ? I did not modify it myself cause i dont have the information about when this book was in fact published 1234! 04:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

think will to power the book and the whole account and concept needs to be moved  back onto its own wiki entry.  thoughts? --Buridan 03:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I will agree and was about to suggest the same. John T. Reuter 22:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I made the change. Moved all of the book info to the book page and left the concept under concepts. Also, added a note about the book at the end of the concept section. All information still exists, but I think it's better arranged now. John T. Reuter 22:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree re: moving this to a new section. The contents of the Will to Power are often quoted as if they represent the core of Nietzsche's philosophy. In fact the book, as the section you removed makes clear, is largely the result of Nietzsche's sister's revisionism.

We would be doing a disservice if we allowed the misapprehension that this was largely Nietzsche's own work to persist by removing this information.

However, if this section instead of, say, the Place in contemporary ethical theory section, absolutely has to be removed then a summary of the key points of that section should be kept, along with a direct link, in the article to the subpage where a more detailed explication can be found. noosphere 03:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

there should instead be a direct link to each of his major works, each with its own clarifications. shouldn't there? that is the basis of my suggestion. that book and its related concepts need to be thoroughly explained and linked to, but not on the main page. The article is too long anyway, so this is one way to solve that. move the concepts off and into the individual books. --Buridan 04:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I understand the need to keep articles trimmed of unnecessary excess. However, as I've noted above, I think this is quite important information without which it's easy to get misled about the core of Nietzsche's philosophy. So, at the very least, there should be a prominently placed, brief explication of the issues regarding the authenticity and origin of the WTP, with a link to the main article on the book clearly placed in the WTP section (not buried in the "See also" section).

Also, I do not object in the least to improving the main WTP article, nor to linking to articles on Nietzsche's other books. But my main concern at the moment is for this article to provide a clear statement about the nature of the authorship and authenticity of the WTP. To just have the article launch in to the ideas in the WTP without a disclaimer (as it does now, since the information was removed) gives the impression that these are Nietzsche's unadulterated ideas, which is highly misleading. noosphere 05:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the disclaimer is necessary. I had it at the bottom of the section and I've rewritten it to now go at the top. The section needs further rewriting for flow (largely because of my move and slapped on intro) and also to more fully convey the variety of opinions concerning the will to power.

I think it is problematic to completely move the key concepts sections (although they should definately be shortened) because many of the ideas are covered in several (if not all) of Nietzsche's books, so it would be difficult to determine where exactly to farm them out to. John T. Reuter 07:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Eternal Recurrance and other Key Concept Sections

Fixed lots of typos and combined what was previously written in the section with parts of the entry that can be found at Eternal Return (eternal recurrence is directed to this article) in the Nietzsche section.

This edit helped decrease the article size, put forward a better written section (I think) and corrected typos (particularly the repeated misspelling of Nietzsche's name - there are probably more I missed).

I suspect that this section can be further reduced in size by moving some of the information to the Nietzsche section of the Eternal Return article.

Also, I took out a significant portion concerning the Will to Power. As we've discussed here in editting the section on that topic, it seems irresponsible to cite the book without noting its controversial nature. Also, I think I managed to preserve most of the core content that caused the book to be invoked.

Over the next few days (or hours depending on my will to power) I'm going to try to tackle reducing the other sections and outsourcing to other articles whatever can be reasonably outsourced. Help, suggestions and critiques are, of course, welcome. John T. Reuter 01:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I have never found it believable that Eternal Return was a very important philosophical concept to Nietzsche. Nor do I find it credible to believe that Ubermensch or Amor Fati was. Isn't this just a lot of bowing to Heidegger and Kaufmann?

The central concern of Nietzsche was naturalism.

The idea that a philosopher of any importance had nothing better to think about than the mastubarory fantasies those three concepts represent is simply untenable. If Nietzsche was a philosopher, he must have had something to say about something that mattered to somebody other than himself and a bunch of dreamers.

Continuing this delusion in a location like the Wikipedia is probably just immoral. So, let's fight it out. Why on earth is Eternal Return a central concept in Nietzsche when it is mentioned only in Zarathustra, and then only a little bit? Don't tell me about how many commentators agree: they can all be as wrong as Reagan. I ask the same question about Ubermensch and Amor Fati.

This article does not discuss Nietzsche's thinking on the free spirit, which IS one of the central concepts of his thought, if not THE central one. It does not discuss his thoughts on the prejudices of moral thought. It does not discuss his thinking on regression and decadence. It does not discuss his thoughts on intellectual conscience. It does not discuss his positive view of science, nor his endorsement of the middle class, nor his easy acceptance of aristocracy. It is silent about his disdain for German Philosophy, for Hegel, for obscurantism, and for what are basically all of the elements of postmodern philosophy.

So, the article is misleading at best.

not2plato

The Eternal Recurrence concept was important to Nietzsche because it epitomizes the attitude of a person who absolutely affirms life. See the section on "Schopenhauer and the Eternal Recurrence," below. Nietzsche struggled continuously with Schopenhauer's description of life as something to be abhorred and denied. As a young man, he was strongly influenced by Schopenhauer's eloquent descriptions of asceticism and the denial of the will to live. This is not evident to readers who have never read Schopenhauer's writings, especially the fourth book in the first volume of his main work The World as Will and Representation.Lestrade 20:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

At best you argue that the concept had meaning to him. But it is not mentioned in Ecce Homo. There he talks about his significance and mentions no eternal return, no ubermensch and no amor fati. He does not mention will to power either. Rather, he discusses his analysis of moral thought, in particular his analysis of Christian moral thought, as his most important contribution to history. It is that analysis, he says, which breaks history in two. The eternal return is a tiny, small, insignificant idea belonging mostly to metaphysics in substance, though perhaps to ethics in its effect on character. 71.33.147.121 02:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)not2plato

Consider a report from Daniel Conway on the things that have been said about the small topic of eternal return in Nietzsche’s works:

As Nietzsche might have predicted, twentieth-century readers have collectively advanced a plethora of ingenious interpretations of this gnomic teaching. Even a brief survey of the secondary literature yields a stunning array of diverse interpretations: the eternal recurrence as an approximation between being and becoming (Simmel); as a pedagogical-regulative idea (Ewald); as a muddled, inconsequential distraction from the doctrine of the Übermensch (Bäumler); as the repetition of classical antiquity at the pinnacle of modernity (Löwith); as a (failed) attempt to overcome subjectivistic metaphysics (Heidegger); as a heuristic Utopian fiction (Vaihinger); as a thought experiment for measuring the meaning of the moment (Arendt); as a form of cosmic therapy (E. Heller); as a differential centrifuge that expels all reactive forces (Deleauze); as an empirical cosmology (Danto); as a neurological hallucination (Klossowski); as a pagan alternative to the Christian conceptions of history and time (Kaufmann); as a model of Dionysian excess and disintegration (Bataille); as a model of Apollinian integration and self-control (Nehamas); as a bankrupt formula for political transfiguration (Strong); as an appropriate attitude toward existence (Stambaugh); as a selectively transformative, high intensity phantasm (Lingis); as a figure for the unbearable lightness of being (Kundera); as a sign heralding the end of the historical dominion of difference (Vattimo); as a mode of attunement to the historicity of human agency (Warren); as a self-consuming existential imperative (Magnus); as a matricidal wish never to have been born of a female other (Irigaray); as an unexplored alternative to the ascetic ideal and the will to truth (Clark); as a trans-discursive call to rethink the concepts of presence and absence (Shapiro); and as the founding doctrine of a post esoteric “immanentism” (Lampert). (Nietzsche’s Dangerous Game, 160)

Apparently, the exciting thing about eternal return is not what Nietzsche said about it, which about as "gnomic" as can be, but the fact that commentators can get away with saying absolutely anything about it. Not2plato 02:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)not2plato

The Will to Power

Shortened it as part of plan to reduce article described above. All information that was removed is still availible on The Will to Power article page. John T. Reuter 03:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Nihlism and the death of God

Shortened section as part of plan to reduce article described above. Removed quote from Will to Power as per earlier discussion here. All core ideas preserved, most content preserved. John T. Reuter 19:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Political views and Influence

Shortened poltiical views by cutting and moving some things to the Nietzsche's Influence and Reception. I'm going to try to start shortening them as well as the key concepts (also, I should start mucking around in the Gender views section soon). Content has been mostly preserved. John T. Reuter 22:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Could all but a cursory reference to the Nazis be removed from this section. This is a dead dog now, but Nietzsche's views had NOTHING to do with Nazism.

Style Section

Moved Style section to Thus Spoke Zarathustra article because it only concerned that book. All content is preserved on that page. This is part of my effort to help shrink this page to a reasonable length. John T. Reuter 00:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

POV remodeling

While I sympathize with the need to shorten this article, it should be done with an eye towards keeping a NPOV, and fairly summarizing any removed content. The removed content should also, ideally, be moved on to a seperate page so that the it is not lost. The need to make the article shorter should not be used as an excuse to rewrite the article towards any particular POV. noosphere 21:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. However, at the present time, I notice that some sections appear to be specifically worded to argue a certain point rather than present matters fairly and neutrally. For instance, the entire political views section was dedicated to pushing the view that Nietzsche has absolutely nothing whatsoever in common with the Nazis. -- Nikodemos 22:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

So you do have an agenda re: shifting the balance of the article to one that focusses more on Nietzsche's connection to the Nazis. Yet your edit summary stated merely "trimmed, as per tag on top of the page". This is not a mere trimming, but a POV edit.

If you think the POV of the article is unbalanced and want to shift it closer to NPOV, please indicate this clearly in your edit summaries.

If, on the other hand, the goal is to trim the article, it should be trimmed in such a way that the result is faithful to the existing article. And, as I suggested earlier, the details that are removed from the original article should go on a subpage.

Trimming the article while remaining faithful to the existing content should be relatively straightforward, and should not involve edit warring about the POV. Please, let's keep the POV edits seperate from the trimming. -- noosphere 22:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

My only "agenda" is to give all views equal space. I see numerous arguments in favor of the thesis that Nietzsche has no connection with the Nazis, but no arguments to the contrary. I also noticed a small number of openly POV sentences (such as one that began with "as the saying goes..."), which I removed. Initially I was planning to help with the trimming, but now it looks like I ended up focusing more on the POV issues. I see both as being partially interconnected - if the article did not go out of its way to support a certain side (that is, if the arguments for that side were trimmed), there would be less need for NPOV work. -- Nikodemos 23:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing POV sentences like the one starting with "as the joke goes". But I don't think the article's length is due to it trying to push any particular POV. Your insistance on changing the focus of this section to his link with Nazism, Objectivism, and Social Darwinism while removing parts of it sympathetic to Nietzsche (like the section regarding N's views on pain) are in themselves POV edits. -- noosphere 23:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Note: The fact that I did not discuss things with you in advance is not ground for reverting. You do not own this article. Also, if you had not started revert warring in the first place, my tone would be a lot friendlier. -- Nikodemos 23:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I reverted for two reasons. First, your edit summary made it look like you were merely trimming the article, while your edit in fact did not only trim but significantly shifted the POV balance of the article. Second, you did not justify your edit beyond saying that you thought the article didn't make enough of a connection to the Nazis. If you want to add content, such as the Neitzsche-Nazi connection, please don't call that merely "trimming". I'm actually not against adding such content. I think such a connection definitely exists, and needs to be addressed. However, this does not mean that it should be added at the expense of other parts of the section that might be construed to show a more sympathetic side of Nietzsche. This would create a POV bias in the article against Nietzsche, and that's what I object to.

As far as your tone goes, I don't mind. You're not personally attacking me. You're just understandably upset regarding your hard work in editing this section. I sympathize, but I believe you are, effectively, slanting this article towards an anti-Nietzsche POV, and I am doing what I can to keep it NPOV. noosphere 23:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for adopting a more conciliatory tone. From my experience, a lot more gets done this way. I apologize for my edit summary - it was indeed misleading, but I think it makes very little difference now. I did think of simply adding content at first, but then I took note of the warning that the article is too long and decided that I should not add to the problem. I have no personal POV regarding Nietzsche. I arrived here because of my interest in the Nazis and their roots. I do not wish to slant the article towards an anti-Nietzsche POV (I feel a burning desire right now to rant about the knee-jerk reaction of so many people in our culture to associate anything remotely related to the Nazis with pure evil, but I'll refrain from it). All I wish is for all views to be presented fairly, and in particular I want to see a discussion of the way Nietzsche's writings were used by the Nazis (without endorsing the idea that Nietzsche himself would have agreed with it). -- Nikodemos 07:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

One more thing I'd like to suggest is that perhaps the content you wish to add re: the Nazis and Objectivists being influenced by Nietzsche would be more appropriate in the Nietzsche's Influence and Reception section. -- noosphere 00:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. See below. -- Nikodemos 07:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

personally, i'd prefer to see some citations on some of the material that is currently in the nietzsche's politics and influence sections, without some substantiation, I'm inclined to say 'stuff about ayn rand goes on the ayn rand page' likewise with heidegger. people's opinions about nietzsche's politics are not necessarily representative of his politics. i'll try to make an edit this week to correct some of this, unless we have citations or arguments for why it should be on this page and not on other pages --Buridan 03:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I propose to keep only the first paragraph (the one noting the Nietzsche himself was apolitical) in the political views section, and move the rest to the influence and reception section. The reason for this is because much of the Nazi and Ayn Rand stuff obviously refers to Nietzsche's influence; any controversies surrounding his political legacy also fall under influence and reception. -- Nikodemos 07:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that suggesting that Nietzsche wasn't pro-Nazi is particularly POV. I've read several biographies (I'll get citations for these for you ASAP [as in before I undo anything anyone else has done or add more to the section]) and although they don't universally agree they all stated that it was unlikely (or impossible) that Nietzsche (particularly considering that he disowned his sister for being an anti-semite) would have supported the party.

I think general agreement among the experts on a subject needs to be regarded as NPOV. Who are you seeing as contending that Nietzsche supported the Nazis?

On a side note, I do believe it is unquestionable that Nietzsche's work (particularly the Will to Power) was used by the Nazis but that's already in the article.

Thanks. John T. Reuter 22:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I have come to the conclusion that any statement about what Nietzsche would or would not have done clearly belongs in the section dealing with other people's interpretations of him (see my proposed move above). The sole authority on Nietzsche's political views is Nietzsche himself; thus, the political views section cannot and should not discuss Nietzsche's possible views on political ideologies he never encountered (e.g. Nazism). Those discussions should be moved to influence and reception. I believe the main point of connection between Nietzsche and the Nazis is that Nietzsche influenced Nazism, not that he himself would have necessarily become a Nazi. It's a common fate of great historical figures to influence things they would have probably opposed if they were alive. Jesus and the Inquisition, Muhammad and Islamic terrorism, Marx and the Soviet Union... and Nietzsche and Nazism. -- Nikodemos 07:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I think noting that Nietzsche was vehemently (to the point of disowning his sister) opposed to anti-semites is important. Also, that the Nazis were particularly influenced by -- and understood the rest of Nietzsche's work based off of -- the Will to Power, a book that is at best questionably authored by Nietzsche. I have no objection though to getting rid of the political views section entirely. I think that sorting all of these issues out in the influence section will help shorten the article and make them make more sense. So: Go for it, Nikodemos. John T. Reuter 02:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

AntiChrist

Did someone delete the article of his book "The Anit-Christ"?

Some remarks concerning biography section

Hello, I have got some remarks concerning the biography section. Sorry for any mistake, English is not my mother tongue. Since this section seems to be based on the one in de:Friedrich Nietzsche to which I have contributed, I will try to localize possible misunderstandings.

• ... under the guardianship of a local magistrate, Bernhard Dächsel.

de:Bernhard Dächsel was Friedrich Nietzsche's Vormund after Ns father had died. de:Vormundschaft seems to be a judicial term not exactly to be found in Anglo-American law, although Legal guardian seems to be the most fitting circumscription. Still, Bernhard Dächsel seems to have been a more formal guard for Nietzsche: he administered Nietzsche's money and was asked for approval to N studying philology/theology, but he did not play a vital role in young Nietzsche's life. They did never live in one house, Dächsel even moved away from Naumburg in 1852. (An interesting detail is that many years later, in 1884/5, he would give legal advice to N in his troubles with publisher Schmeitzner.)

• In 1854, he began to attend a Catholic preparatory school

The de:Domgymnasium Naumburg was Protestant (Lutheran).

• during his time at Basel was a frequent guest in Wagner's 'House of the Masters' in Tribschen

Seems to be a misunderstanding: in the German article, we have "Gast im Haus des 'Meisters'", which is "guest in the 'Meister's' house". "Meister" (master) was and is a common title referring to Wagner, used with admiration by the Wagnerites and irony by the anti-Wagnerites. (Btw, the relationship to Wagner (or Wagners, as Cosima is important too) is something which needs deeper insight in both de an en wikipedia).

• and also began a friendship with Paul Rée, an influence for the pessimism in his early writings.

No, Rée is commonly seen as an influence on Nietzsche's dismissal of his earlier Wagner-Schopenhauerian pessimism.

• Nietzsche undertook more experiments, attempted to find a wife, and pursued Malwida von Meysenbug to no avail.

Does this imply that Nietzsche thought to marry Meysenbug? This was not the case. In fact, Meysenbug urged Nietzsche to find a young wife, herself being ten years older than Nietzsche's mother. Btw, an en: article for Malwida von Meysenbug (de:Malwida von Meysenbug, fr: Malvida von Meysenbug, sv:Malwida von Meysenbug would be good.

• Peter Gast (born Heinrich Köselitz), became a private secretary.

"sort of". Although Köselitz was arguably the man who saw and corresponded with Nietzsche more often in the 1880s than anyone else outside the family, he was of course never officially employed by him (which makes him more or less a slave-disciple). This should be clarified if it could provoke a misunderstanding.

• chaperone

Nothing wrong, I just like this word formerly unknown to me :-). But:

• Through various avenues of intrigue, Elisabeth broke up Nietzsche's relationship with Rée and Salomé in the winter of 1882-83. (Lou Salomé eventually came to correspond with Sigmund Freud, introducing him to Nietzsche's thought.)

It's true that Elisabeth's intrigues played a role in the tragic end of the "trinity" Nietzsche-Rée-Salomé, but they were not the single reason. AFAIK, the whole story of their friendship and breaking up is complicated, and Nietzsche's own letters from this time appear as cryptic to many Nietzsche scholars today as they did to Rée and Salomé back then. It should at least be noted that in the end, it was Nietzsche who broke with them - and, for some time, with his family too. - As for Freud, is there a source that Salomé introduced him to Nietzsche? I'm not that familiar with Freud and would like to learn more about his reading of N.

• he sent short writings to a number of friends, including Cosima Wagner and Jacob Burckhardt, which showed signs of a breakdown.

I personally think that this is an understatement - they are obviously written in a state of madness - but I know this is a controversial point especially among Nietzsche 'followers'. Also, I do not see why the apocryphal story of the horse should be retold here again (except for the purpose of clarifying that it is apocryphal), or why one of the madness letters - and then, why exactly this one - should be quoted here.

So much for now, thanks for reading and regarding.--Chef aka Pangloss 22:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Because noone complained, I tried to change these points myself. The last one ist still open.--Chef aka Pangloss 17:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Gender Views

In the section upon Nietzsche's views on woman's role in society, it is noted that "...both [sexes] are capable of doing their share of humanity's work, with their respective physiological conditions granted and therewith elucidating, each individually, their potentialities." I find this to be misleading somewhat to Nietzsche's views. He (as far as i can tell) was very resistant to any speak of 'humanity' as a whole, and would have seen any moralising in terms of 'for the greater good'/'for humanity' as rather Christian and part of the slave morality he speaks so strongly against. While i understand the writer's desire to provide a more balanced interpretation of Nietzsche's writings on women, i feel that comments like the one quoted above, and some others in the article sacrifice a good understanding of his philosophy for the sake of what ends up reading as apology. Does anybody have any suggestions for ways to remedy this? I feel we need to give a well balanced reading of Nietzsche's views, but need to stick to the 'facts' as much as is possible (somewhat difficult with someone like N.) metro.tramp 15:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

This whole section is pomopous and deceitful. Nietzsche is no feminist. Yes, he had SOME progressive views on women. He also held, however, that woman should be silent about women; that women should be playful and lusty companions for the men who have the harder time in life; that women dislike science due to the fact that their world is built on lies (like the artists); that women were unlikely to learn to be just; that women have little credibility among other women for good reason; and so on. If you want this article to qualify as anything other than a dutiful salute to existing postmodernist interpreters (that is, liars), then drop the women section. Woman is not a central metaphor, or whatever this silly article says it is. Woman is a secondary or tertiary concern for Nietzsche the philosopher. For Nietzsche the social engineer, they count no more than any other group.

The truth and woman metaphor has been entirely overplayed. Not2plato 03:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is this article in both Category:Wagnerites and Category:Anti-Wagnerites?

Wouldn't those two things be condsidered mutually exclusive?-PlasmaDragon 17:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

No, because a person can change their mind (as Nietzsche did). — goethean ॐ 17:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

As goethean (sort of) points out: Nietzsche was first a Wagnerite then changed his mind and attacked his former friend thus becoming an Anti-Wagnerite. Mikker ^... 20:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

JA: Sounds rite to me. Jon Awbrey 16:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Morality

In light of Nietzsche's proclamation that he was himself an "immoralist", and he advocated for the disestablishment of mainstream religious morality, did he even have any concrete provisions for any condemnation of something like murder? It seems that if one makes his own morality, then it ought to be beyond anyone else to condemn such actions (even if they allow/encourage something like murder or rape). I guess what I'm basically asking is if Nietzsche would have objected to say the adoption of his philosophy by Leopold and Loeb. Would he have been justified by his own philosophy if he condemned or pushed for prosecution of their acts? - 3-25-06

There's a difference between being an immoralist - that is, against traditional moral values - and being a nihilist - that is, against all values -; while Nietzsche certainly held a fight against morality, it is important to note that he also held a fight against nihilism. Thus, even if we can't ethically condemn actions such as rape, murder and misappropriation, we can condemn them based on other values - be them pragmatic, aesthetic or simply life affirming.Daniel Nagase 18:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Eternal Recurrence

The article says that the idea of eternal recurrence is central to Nietzsche's thought. To me (an admittedly unscholarly reference), it seems like Nietzsche is simply using the eternal recurrence as a weapon against the nihilism he foretold. Since there is no reason to think that such a concept is truthful (I know, that's a tricky word to throw in when talking about Nietzsche), are we actually to believe that it is any better than the foundations of European culture which he so emphatically impugned? Isn't eternal recurrence just another hollow religion then? At best it is hopeful thinking; it is suppposed to be life-affirming (because if one is doomed to repeat one's existence indefinitely, then one would have motivation for making his life good and worth reliving), but it seems like it gets a person no further than Christianity. They both dangle before people the hope of an eternal hereafter, so what distinguishes one from the other? --gikar, 4-3-06

Nietzsche's Eternal Recurrence is at the pinnacle of his aesthetic-philosophic thought, it is the heart of the justification of the world as an aesthetic phenomenon, so in that sense it is a weapon against nihilism but not only. A foundation to which he again and again refers is art. And no, ER is no religion. Read my statements below under "Nietzsche's atheism" which do more to illuminate your questions. The Eternal Recurrence does not posit an eternal hereafter... you must read his Zarathustra in the context of his work. As the article says, it is indeed central.

^—IGNIS_SCRIPTA—

13:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll waste no time in granting that my scant understanding of his work is at best immature, but (for the sake of not getting tied up in semantics) as I referred to ER as some type of eternal hereafter, I mean simply that it serves the same function as, say, heaven. One uses the "promise" of both as justification for so and so an action in present life. The way I see it, it can only be treated in a severely limited number of ways. To say that it is at the heart of the justification of the world as an aesthetic phenomenon is really only to herald in the question "Then what distinguishes the view of the world as aesthetic phenomena from the same fundamental structure as religion?" I guess it would be helpful to know if Nietzsche honestly believed it his fait accompli to repeat everything that he had done; I'm sure I'm being simplistic to a nauseating degree, but it seems unjust to deprive one of any interpretation that does not itself make sense within Nietzsche's aesthetic-philosophic thought. --gikar, 4-4-06

The only cogent response to you I can give is: you are to conduct your private research elsewhere. Though you are anonymous (e.g., not a member), you must be aware of the fact Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia, and naturally general concensus and common knowledge is the soil from which articles grow; and talk pages, like this one here, are meant for the furtherance of articles' nutriment and vitality, conducive to the dissemination of information, not for speculative generalizations. The path you tread is nowhere remarked, and I sincerely advise you brush up on more of Nietzsche's work, including what many commentators have said in order for you to reach a more grounded judgement with regard to the understanding of Nietzsche's work. In like manner, please reserve suchlike statements, focusing instead on possible or contentious contributions to the article according to sources, if you wish to contribute at all, per Wikipedia's specifications of conduct for prospective additions and changes.

^—IGNIS_SCRIPTA—

01:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I will continue to treat membership as the arbitrary and useless bureau it is; I need not to be lectured on the art of using Wikipedia. I respect those regulations worth respecting. I will strenuously contest that the question I am raising is of no relevance to the vitality or nutriments of the article. You appear to count yourself a qualified source in Nietzschean scholarship, and as such it seems not unreasonable for me to seek some betterment of understanding on a website that advertises informative and useful content. What I ask is a fairly simple question that ought not to require an exhaustive investigation into Nietzsche's work. If you have nothing better to bring to the discussion than a suggestion that I brush up on Nietzsche's work (which is precisely what I'm trying to do, you'll see), then I'll just as soon direct my questions to a more helpful Wikipedian. --gikar, 4-5-06

How presumptious of you to post a question and thereafter postulate the contingencies of an answer as "not to require an exhaustive investigation into Nietzsche's work"! Gikar, I assume you desire to be referred to as such, it is not my aim to lecture anyone here—this is not the formula by which I wish to address you or anyone else for that matter—a didactic approach is not the only one available. All I can truly say is, according to some views, such as Alistair Moles', ER is so intimately related to the whole of Nietzsche's work, it is simply absurd for me to give you an answer at the press of a button due to what it truly requires. By all means, do try to understand that this is much more complicated than you would like to believe and I will not go into it here. If you are so invariably flustered by this answer, do try to find someone else who would even dare so. Whereas it has, in fact, already been done, and you simply do not seem to recognize that this is the fundamental issue: you are not reading what others have said and further desire to press others here according to your demand that an answer be produced. This is not to say that I am mitigating your question's significance. This is simply not the place for it.

Nevertheless, what was Nietzsche getting at anyway—with all that writing and so forth?

My general task is to show how life, philosophy, and art can have a deeper and familial relationship to each other, without philosophy becoming shallow and the life of the philosopher becoming untruthful.

— Nietzsche

^—IGNIS_SCRIPTA—

23:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me spell this out in art-form: the article offers no distinction between something as ostensibly speculative, pragmatic, and hopelessly wishful as eternal recurrence and something as anthropologically and historically intelligible as religion. If I am to satisfy myself with your one stubborn argument (for you make only one--germane to the question, that is), then I am left to believe that Wikipedia affords its patrons no such luxury as the rudiments of an understanding of Nietzsche's thought. You earlier said "And no, ER is no religion"--well, that gets us nowhere, as that's precisely what I wish to understand. You have also said that context is invaluable in understanding Nietzsche's claims, yet this context is conspicuously absent from the article. It is simple enough for one to clothe all of one's statements in the aloof and condescending "Oh, it's too complicated for me to explain to you." If I am gullible enough to believe that you actually understand the distinction then I ought also to come away with the conclusion that you are too selfish to share that wisdom for the benefit of the article. --gikar, 4-5-06

I am glad to see you have become more descriptive with your concerns; and I will likewise do so, to shed further light upon the subtleties of my thought on this matter. As a general response to your unwarranted assertions tentatively derived from my previous statements, however, I argue it is essentially impossible for me to hide (and to deign in such a way), through whatever putative deviations (e.g., "selfish[-ness]" as you say), the various offspring constitutive of public knowledge, that is, considerations available to everyone.

Moreover, I have remained explicit about the general criteria by which I undergo various correspondences here. Thus by extension I countenance and abide by a domain of discourse that is present at Wikipedia so that any propositions thereby put into this formalization will retain coherence and worth. In sum, the consequences of oversimplification of a significant element represented within Nietzsche's thought will not be undertaken here or, at least, I will not do so, for I view it as fundamentally misguided. This notwithstanding, you may inveigh against these remarks without end, to which I will, however, respond again and again with referrals, wherein this state of affairs is treated adequately, that is, more fully than can be done here, since Wikipedia is not a philosophical roundtable and so on and forth. For me, it is visible that I do not want discussions here to be debased to insipid frivolity and declension but rather carried out with some level of discretion, which is precisely what is conditionally necessary at all times. To reiterate once more, the pertinent topic (the contingencies and intricacies of ER in "naturalistic"—indeed a provisional adumbration at the moment—"pragmatic", "aesthetic", and "religious" terms and in line with such designations mete out what validity ER has or at least to go into it more pervasively, all of which are as yet undetermined or are not clearly devised and stated within the article) indeed needs to be differentiated in general. (As a minor digression, I would like to mention however central ER is it must not be regarded as the center of N's work, since one does not exist here, but even more significant an element, I am inclined to say, is his inquiry into the problem of value, and this is yet another manner in which N's thought is interlaced, for ER is such an aspect of it.)—— Once more, this simply leads to what studies, as I already indicated, on Nietzsche have demonstrated in these terms, and they will eventually be cited and the article thereby changed accordingly later on; and, as I notice, here Not2Plato's post of Conway's considerations (above) is valuable to this end.

Retrospectively, I have done very little, in lieu that I am a new and scant contributor to Wikipedia, for this article, and I entirely agree—in the portions reflecting (poorly) upon Nietzsche's work and ideas—the vast, imposing context of his work is detrimentally nonexistent. That people suppose they can go any which way and uncritically pen something on Nietzsche according to their sentiments leads to many a difficulty in settling all of the inaccuracies within the article. Further, the recent and past vandalisms only meant to spread distortions and falsifications (already, for the most part, cleared away by late research), which apparently consists of anarchic, childish trolls, who oddly and ironically enough present Nietzsche's thought as some sort of estranged dogma entangled with their droll imbecilities, does not help to improve it either. And lastly, the sheer size of the article makes it overly imposing and cumbersome to deal with sufficiently. Please understand I do desire the best for this article, but a great deal of care and time is required for it, which is not always easy to spare. At first glance, this is my presupposition, we all here wish to present the consummate fruits of Nietzsche's thought as can readily be gleaned from commentators and from himself, and I think it is best for us to continue in light of this as collaborative partners. With this solidified, it must also be done appropriately for the benefit of the encyclopedic article itself, not permitting personal (or whatever) matters to detain us from accomplishing this. (Though, another gross problem is the reception Nietzsche has also had in the past and, in various corners, still does that does not regard Nietzsche with the proper attention he deserves, slowing critical examinations of his thought still further.) Needless to say, a great deal of patience must be borne in mind when contributing to Wikipedia, and so, let us sit down to enjoy a cup of tea, over the course of which matters may become more presentable for the (sub-)article(s) in a collective and substantive manner.

Another note in response, one particular case such as this correspondence cannot justify a complete rejection of the inception of Wikipedia itself, especially as one recognizes that every beck and call is an impertinence when there's one's responsibility to know the data towards which one must needs accustom oneself, and so a natural sense of dignity and respect should be conferred upon others if anything is to be done at all—I hope such a view may be reasonably agreed upon. Although, as it is not my purpose, I have not convinced you of Wikipedia's significance, it is notable also to see it as a coordinating system through which, voluntarily, individuals may contribute (even maliciously or innocently distort) data. As such, Wikipedia is merely soil in need of cultivation and, moreover, seeds out of which alone everything comes about, hampered or aided by weather, which goes, indifferent, its own unpredictable course to the dismay or joy of others. Therefore, I also hope you stay to contribute even though, as you may view it, I am stubborn to disclose information at this point. Given time, one would like to be rather optimistic, while remaining clearly aware of the dangers, that all of these difficulties will be surmounted is nevertheless anticipatable.

^—IGNIS_SCRIPTA—

05:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Very good sir--my apologies for any affront. Allow me to say that it is not my intention to indict the entire Wikipedia project on the basis of a few shortcomings here and there (I will say that overall I am impressed by the foundational informative allowance offered by this site). I have no quarrel with conferring the respect due to those qualified contributors, so I quite agree with your formulation of standards. With that said, I will add that we appear to stand in agreement on the vapory content related to the concern raised, so it wouldn't seem inappropriate to begin a new page geared specifically towards a more enlightened conveyance of this sensitive issue. I'm well aware that the literature for such an undertaking exists, though it should be added that any project begun hastily and haphazardly would certainly be pernicious, premature, short-sighted, and irresponsible, so I think we ought to be advised to use caution and discretion. Nevertheless, onwards and so forth, and if I can help in such a task in any way, I'd be more than happy to do so. --gikar, 4-13-06

Nietzsche's atheism

Hi, over at HuWiki there's a long-winded discussion about whether Nietzsche can be listed as an atheist or whether his atheism is being disputed by scholars.

Can you offer any good references to support either view?

Thanks, -- nyenyec ☎ 01:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I would say that Nietzsche can best be described as an agnostic. He was mostly concerned with the socio-cultural effects of the phenomenon of secularism, which he saw as a done deal. He called the Will to Power a metaphysical principle (although I can't provide a reference). At some points in Kaufmann's edition of The Will to Power, he refers to nature as "a monster of power", which sounds a bit pantheistic. He wrote so much in so short a time, that he is pretty much uncategorizable in several ways. — goethean ॐ 15:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

That is a fair assessment, goethean, that also seems to be much more along the lines of what Nietzsche himself said across the whole of his philosophical praxis. He is in no way a nihilist (he very clearly was in bout against it) but rather a very radical thinker in terms of value assessments and their sociological implications through comparative anaylsis of various, contested values—the whence and why of their inception, etc. The case however seems to lead to an exponential in terms of classifying him as being with agnosticism and atheism, that is, overfull to the point of nullified meaning of those terms in his case. Although it can be said equivocally that he withholds agnostic and atheistic traits. In the face of this problematic, I'm more inclined to say he is quintessentially unclassifiable (after all, he is a philosopher of life and knowledge and the attempt to arrive at this distinction is naïve, not to mention deriving a clear picture of this aphoristic philosopher's personal sentiments—which change, tend to be contradictory, and are intricately and profoundly related when viewed overall—is also misguided or at least very difficult) into either heading entirely and this is certainly interesting to add into the article. At this point, such a statement seems too unrefined for addition, however. Keep all eyes focused on scholars' statements; I have no available references at this unfortunate moment. Sadly it seems this does not fundamentally solve this contentious addition to the article itself but further feedback can easily solve this.— igni scripta 03:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC) and later on 08:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I think Nietzsche was a pretty strong atheist. If I remember correctly, there is a long discussion of the non-existence of god in Daybreak. Mikker ^(...) 20:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Nietzche's view leads to nihilism I think. If this is right then he is an atheist. I don't know if my 2 cents helps at all... FranksValli 02:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, he definitely describes himself as atheist. From Ecce Homo: "I do not by any means know atheism as a result; even less as an event: it is a matter of course with me, from instinct. I am too inquisitive, too questionable, too exuberant to stand for any gross answer. God is a gross answer, an indelicacy against us thinkers — at bottom merely a gross prohibition for us: you shall not think!" ("Why I am so Clever") Daniel Nagase 21:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that that is a perfectly acceptable interpretation based on citation, but that alone at face value is inextricably misleading, as are taking all his statements out of their context, with hidden attempts to press into him a particular reading. Even with that said, until a clearer assessment may be made, he is an "atheist" (mind the condom quotation). What I am trying to say is that in order to show he was an "atheist" by personal decree, it must be shown how his philosophical outlook shows this on its own terms, not summarily classified as such with little or no insight and by way of quotations. I say this because his writings demand intense scrutiny.

^—IGNIS_SCRIPTA—

21:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

We had a discussion on this on the de:Atheismus talk page. I dare to say, also from some knowledge of scholarship on Nietzsche, that he was personally an atheist in sense of not believing in the metaphysical existence of any god, but that this was not the main point of his writings. His main question is not whether a god exists but a) how the belief in gods or a god could develop and keep existing until today; b) whether what has been praised as god and god-like deserves to be praised as god or god-like (one could perhaps argue that just the act of raising these questions makes you, in fact, an atheist). Anyway, these questions themselves should be far more interesting for all theists, agnostics and atheists than the question which of these crude nominations you put to such a complex thinker.--Chef aka Pangloss 01:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I am extremely pleased to see someone who's well-aware of these things from the German Wiki—if only more cross-Wiki discussions would take place, we would be better off. What you say, at any rate, I find to be sound and certainly accurate. It is a shame that these designations (theist, agnostic, atheist, etc.) simply do not function properly but the case remains thus with Nietzsche in many ways (in order to pin-point him for ease of summary and in order to be done with him entirely—to get loose of him is extremely difficult in this manner). In short, I think it is fair to say in the article he is "atheistic"/"agnostic" but it must be written carefully, not sweepingly, keeping these things in mind.

^—IGNIS_SCRIPTA—

13:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by "atheistic/agnostic". Nietzsche, clearly, by his own words, did not believe in God. I did not even know there was a polemic about this. Considering that he condemned any belief which gives inherit meaning to reality, it follows naturally that he was an atheist (that is, he did not believe in God). Daniel Nagase 01:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Surely, as you say, he "did not believe in [the] God" of Christianity and its sects or of any other religion at the culmination of his life and work, but by contrast, in the attempt to be careful and conscious of the intent behind words, which is fundamental when understanding texts, especially Nietzsche's work, he does not outright "condemn any belief which gives inherit meaning to reality" (including the illogical syllogism of quoted premise that he is an atheist). For one of the most centrally emphasized aspects of his work was to show the importance of an aesthetic outlook towards life in order to give it a meaning according to an individual's perspective (e.g., his "perspectivism" and statments on art), that is, valuation itself. He even goes so far as to relate these things to physiology, saying that our perspectives toward the world are a result of our interpretations of our muscles and so forth.

Such a false statement, this assertion disproved by way of overviewing Nietzsche's works, is simply due to a gross ignorance of his work. From the very beginning, in The Birth of Tragedy he discusses a particular aesthetic and this is later contrasted with Schopenhauer, Christianity, Buddhism, etc. (refer to The Will to Power's Index on "nihilism" in particular and to the whole body of his work), as it was further ramified by his thought witnessed in his later works.

My modesty with the terms "atheistic" and "agnostic" is from an awareness of the conditions behind the characteristics of Nietzsche's thought, not from an allusion to an implicit scholarly polemic in academia, which can be rather languid, especially as it attempts to apply only analytic readings to Nietzsche that are essentially flawed when Nietzsche himself was not analytic in style or in manner. It is in addition to this, Nietzsche is also no nihilist in the meaning that there is "no meaning in the world", etc., but he at one point also illustrates the importance of nihilism for valuation. It is significant as we change our values from time to time, since negation is also necessary as a touchstone for affirmation.

^—IGNIS_SCRIPTA—

12:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

In "Human, All Too HUman" Neitzsche says "One level of education,itself a very high one, has been reached when man gets beyond superstitious and religious concepts and fears and, for example, no longer believes in the heavenly angels or original sin (...). Once he is at this level of liberation, he must still make a last intense effort to overcome metaphysics. Then, however, a retrograde movement is necessary: he must understand both the historical and the psychological justification in metaphysical ideas." Then, at some other point he says "It is true, there might be a metaphysical world; one can hardly dispute the possibility of it..", then goes on to state how that world would not at all be important to us because of our inability to access it. Thus one can conclude that he is a nilihist, but not necessarily an atheist. (Inside0ut37 19:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC))

It is truly misplaced to think inverse-synecdochically that a finger of Nietzsche's work somehow comprises the whole body of it, as if one statement could possibly account for all of them, not to mention absurd inasmuch as such a view simply does not know what constitutes a philosophical argument.

^—IGNIS_SCRIPTA—

12:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that one or two quotes from Nietzsche do not "comprise[.] the whole body of it [sc. Nietzsche's work]", but partly because there is no "whole body" of Nietzsche's work at all. Even if there were, there is no a priori reason for anyone to assume that you have definite knowledge of it, so you would still have to give some evidence for your statement, and not only reject evidence for the opposite case (even if you're right in this). - Not meeting with these standards of my own, I give my view in stating that Nietzsche did never think of "any belief which gives inherit meaning to reality" as true in the classical-philosophical meaning of the word. This does not necessarily mean that he overall "condemns" any such belief. He seems to do so in his middle period - InsideOut's quote is an example here - certainly not in his early works and arguably not in his later works. In the Antichrist for example he praises or at least does not oppose to the ancient Jew's belief in their nation's god Jahve, whereas he strongly condemns the Christians' belief in a universal, ghost-like and pitiful "good" god. This does not imply that he believed in the existence of the first one; it seems quite fair to assume that he did not in either case. (Neither does it imply, that to be clear, that he would suggest to modern people to rebuild the ancient belief in a strong, nation-bound god - he seems to be quite aware that this option does not exist anymore.) He is, my POV, far beyond the question. You can call this atheist, you can call it more atheistic than most atheists, you could also call this agnostic. But these words do not help to understand, they even put up a barrier to understanding, by putting an answer in front of a question. You have said this is necessary "in order to pin-point him for ease of summary and in order to be done with him entirely". But a summary is worthless when it gives rise to a misled understanding. And, being an evil reader: "To be done with Nietzsche entirely", well, this is something many have tried, many are working on, and many have succeeded with, but only by sacrifizing Redlichkeit and Wahrhaftigkeit. The more I get a glimpse of an overview I can state that we are not done with Nietzsche and will not be for a long time.--Chef aka Pangloss 07:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

How close we are in our opinions! Only I have failed to make this apparent for myself, which is frustrating, but as you've stated such for yourself this does make matters simpler. It is quite true Nietzsche's approach in philosophical terms changes abound, but it is safe to more or less presume his latest works dominate the entirety of it. It is also in lieu of these alterations that it becomes difficult if not entirely impossible to use "agnostic" and "atheistic" in order to categorize Nietzsche—his work sought to go beyond the merely normative and ordinary modes of thought (and I should say he succeeded to a remarkable degree). What then do Honesty ("Redlichkeit") and Truth ("Wahrhaftigkeit") represent for us anyway? these terms are not remotely applicable in their usual senses.

When I mentioned, as you say, "But these words do not help to understand, they even put up a barrier to understanding, by putting an answer in front of a question. You have said this is necessary 'in order to pin-point him for ease of summary and in order to be done with him entirely'. But a summary is worthless when it gives rise to a misled understanding", I am actually in agreement, because I also feel "he is quintessentially unclassifiable" according to the terms "atheism" and "agnosticism" (said above, by me).

In contrast, I hardly think that there is no body to Nietzsche's work, it is merely submerged from our sight, for a great deal lies within his Nachlass, and to say this implies neither that his philosophy is "systematically developed" which is obviously untrue (which means it can still be a "system" or "body") nor that the intricacies of his thought are in some way tenuously related. This instigates heuristically plumbing his work which has already been done by others elsewhere—hence I do not confer upon this discussion my "opinions" alone—therefore, I'll proceed with sufficient intimations of his work through quotations to show this:

Subject and object:

That a sort of adequate relationship subsists between subject and object, that the object is something that if seen from within would be a subject, is a well-meant invention of which, I think, has had its day. The measure of that of which we are in any way conscious is totally dependent upon the coarse utility of its becoming-conscious: how could this nook-perspective of consciousness permit us to assert anythign of "subject" and "object" that touched reality!—

— trans. Kaufmann, The Will to Power, sec. 474

Perspectivism:

"Everything is subjective," you say; but even this is interpretation. The "subject is not something given, it is somthing added and invented and projected behind what there is.— Finally, is it necessary to posit an interpreter behind the interpretation? Event this is invention, hypothesis.
In so far as the word "knowledge" has any meaning, the world is knowable; but it is interpretable otherwise, it has no meaning behind it, but countless meanings.— "Perspectivism."
It is our needs that interpret the world; our drives and their For and Against. Every drive is a kind of lust to rule; each one has its perspective that it would like to compel all the other drives to accept as a norm.

— trans. Kaufmann, ibid., sec. 481

Further epistemic relation of subject with substance:

The concept of substance is a consequence of the concept of the subject: not the reverse! If we relinquish the soul, "the subject," the precondition for "substance" in general disappears. One acquires degrees of being, one loses that which has being.
Critique of "reality": where does the "more or less real," the gradation of being in which we believe, lead to?—
...
The subject: this is the term for our belief in a unity underlying all the different impulses of the highest feeling of reality: we understand this belief as the effect of one cause—we believe so firmly in our belierf that for its sake we imagine "truth," "reality," "substantiality" in gneral.— "The subject" is the fiction that many similar states in us are the effect of one substratum: but it is we who first created the "similarity" of these states...

— trans. Kaufmann, ibid., sec. 485

[The whole of sec. 486 and 488]

Substance is not reified:

Equality and similarity.
1. The coarser organ sees much apparent equality;
2. the spirit wants equality, i.e., to subsume a sense impression into an existing series: in the same way as the body assimilates inorganic matter.
Toward an understanding of logic:
the will to equality is the will to power—the belief that something is thus and thus (the essence of judgment) is the consequence of a will that as much as possible shall be equal.

— trans. Kaufmann, ibid., sec 511

Anthropology of knowledge:

Not "to know" but to schematize—to impose upon chaos as much regularity and form as our practical needs require.
... [and so on]

— trans. Kaufmann, ibid., sec. 515

Will to power as pathos:

... no things remain but only dynamic quanta, in a relation of tension to all other dynamic quanta: their essence lies in their relation to all other quanta, in their "effect" upon the same. The will to power not a being, not a becoming, but a pathos [occasion, event, passion, suffering, destiny]—the most elemental fact from which a becoming and effecting first emerge—

— trans. Kaufmann, ibid., sec 635

As you can see quite readily, there is a body clearly active in his work, and I can go on with many more quotations to indicate how pervasive these trends are but I will not for sake of time and space.

Through these inferences made more or less evident for us and to lay bare the extent at which the article currently stands, I must say it is far behind what heurmeneutic studies are currently doing, and we are well along the way towards making these things clearer—the immensity of Nietzsche's thought is again and again gleaned. We must take great care and caution with these proceedings.

^—IGNIS_SCRIPTA—

18:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Nietzsche was so clearly an atheist that if you don't know that you simply should not contribute to this article. Not2plato 03:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The contention is not wether he was one or not, but rather in connection to the whole of his thought, why and how he was one. I've clearly stressed this throughout my previous posts, and if the point was scarcely taken, I will gladly revamp my meandering statements cogently, simply. That he stated he was by instinct an "atheist", what do you suppose that instinct was? —— "Perspectivism". After all, he even mentions one of his highest skills is turning perspectives. And so you see these considerations on this are of a much higher fidelity to his thinking and should not so readily be dismissed or misconstrued as a sort of apprehensiveness while determining whether he was or was not an "atheist".

^—IGNIS_SCRIPTA—

05:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I must say I am puzzled. First you dismissed my claim that Nietzsche was an atheist because of his disdain for theories which tried to provide inherit meaning to reality. Now you reaffirm precisely that point, by claiming that Nietzsche was an atheist because of his "perspectivism" - which is just the academia term for the disdain I described earlier. So which is it? Daniel Nagase 06:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I dismissed your claim that he was an atheist precisely because of its falseness for stating that Nietzsche had a "disdain for theories which tried to provide inherit [sic] meaning to reality" (to say it more clearly, I am saying he does not have any such disdain for values that give meaning to reality since mankind needs values in order to live, this is at the heart of perspectivism). For Nietzsche, everything we do is concerned with such valuation based on our needs and utility (e.g., he called this "perspectivism"). I thereafter asserted Nietzsche is an atheist because of his perspectivism, that is, due to the way in which he understood valuation as such (as I said upon my rejection of your statement: For one of the most centrally emphasized aspects of his work was to show the importance of an aesthetic outlook towards life in order to give it a meaning according to an individual's perspective (e.g., his "perspectivism" and statments on art), that is, valuation itself.). I think you have simply misunderstood the underlying tenets of our entire procession, that is, what "perspectivism" meant to Nietzsche as it is seen in his works, hence your puzzlement. I will add an illuminating passage for musing in this connection:

But precisely because we seek knowledge, let us not be ungrateful to such resolute reversals of accustomed perspectives and valuations which the spirit has, with apparent mischievousness and futility, raged against itself for so long: to see differently in this way for once, to want to see differently, is no small discipline and preparation of the intellect for its future 'objectivity' - the latter understood not as 'contemplation without interest' (which is a nonsensical absurdity), but as the ability to control one's Pro and Con and to dispose of them, so that one knows how to employ a variety of perspectives and affective interpretations in the service of knowledge.

Henceforth, my dear philosophers, let us be on guard against the dangerous old conceptual fiction that posited a 'pure, willless, painless, timeless knowing subject'; let us guard against the snares of such contradictory concepts as 'pure reason,' 'absolute spirituality,' 'knowledge in itself': these always demand that we should think of an eye that is completely unthinkable, an eye turned in no particular direction, in which the active and interpreting forces, through which alone seeing becomes seeing something, are supposed to be lacking; these always demand of the eye an absurdity and a nonsense. There is only a perspective seeing, only a perspective 'knowing'; and the more affects we allow to speak about one thing, the more eyes, different eyes, we can use to observe one thing, the more complete will our 'concept' of this thing, our 'objectivity,' be.

— Friedrich Nietzsche, trans. Kaufmann, On the Genealogy of Morals, III, 12

^—IGNIS_SCRIPTA—

06:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe there is a misunderstanding here. I never said Nietzsche had a disdain for any life evaluation; that would make him a nihilist, a title he would have repudiated. What I did say, and you quoted, was that he had a disdain for theories which aim to show an inherited meaning in reality. We must invent meaning, not "inherit" one from above; the first is an artistic perspective, the latter a Christian one. Hence my puzzlement: such a position is perspectivist - even though I hesitate before using that label on Nietzsche -, yet you disparaged it as a misreading of Nietzsche, only to affirm the very same position later on. I think we are in agreement; if you read what I said more carefully, perhaps you will see that as well. Daniel Nagase 15:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You have remediated this small problem, to show, in fact, we are in essential agreement and rightly so. My problem, as I now see it, with your statement was the word "inherit", as you had first said, where I thought you meant to say "inherent", since "inherit" was grammatically incorrect in your first statement, which you now explicate as "inherited". A single word can be troublesome, lest the signified is to be conveyed imprecisely. I'm glad this was rectified—that you have restated your position within its own terms.

Furthermore, our human contributions to all that we perceive are not disregarded by Nietzsche: "your descent, your past, your training—all of your humanity and animality" are intertwined with everything we do and so forth (The Gay Science, sec. 57). Therefore, it cannot readily be assumed that Nietzsche is somehow advocating something irrespective of what constitutes us, merely classified as being "artistic", which is meant much more broadly, and so this inventive drive is indeed better recognized as an entirely human affair, tinctured by and suffused with the conditions of our existence, as the garner of our interpretive faculties, through which the world is "humanized" as we experience it (his views on science show this as well). His position is, nonetheless, much more complex than I make apparent, wherein he asserts, though aware that this too is interpretive, "truth" is inextricably perspectival and "knowledge" is interpretive; and his "perspectivist" views are partially elicited in this instance here.

For this terminus ad quem, the case here shows I am amenable to our statements characterized as coextensively being of efficacious similarity now that these omissions have been sufficiently filled. Conclusively, I accept this (revised) statement: "Considering that he did not cling to and even condemned any assertion which gives an inherited and transcendent meaning to reality and alone as being supreme (e.g., with regard to various, collective, moralistic interpretations), it follows naturally that he was, non-normatively, an atheist (that is, he did not "believe in" and essentially discredited the God of the Christian sense), in other words, an immoralist, since, as he viewed it, such values were epistemically erroneous and superficial"; through which, of course, I interpret (it as) your position, and even if this is not yours in all of its particulars, it is indeed my own.

^—IGNIS_SCRIPTA—

01:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

article length and sub-pagination

it is time once again to prune the article back and create sub-pages for those things that should be independent articles. Everything other than his bio should be 1 or 2 paragraphs at most, then link to the appropriate sub-page. like ubermensch and will to power. This page was a great page once before it was bloated to its current page, let's take it back to the facts about Nietzsche and move his philosophy, ethics, to the subpages.--Buridan 01:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Schopenhauer & the Eternal Recurrence

Nietzsche was impressed by everything that Schopenhauer wrote. In his The World as Will and Representation, Schopenhauer described the person who affirms life. Such a person would be one

...who desired, in spite of calm deliberation, that the course of his life as he had hitherto experienced it should be of endless duration or of constant recurrence (immer neuer Wiederkehr)....

— (Vol. I, § 54)

Lestrade 14:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

The article had claimed that Nietzsche first came across the idea of eternal recurrence in his reading of Heine. However, it then describes Heine's notion as that of a person in the future who has the same thoughts as a person in the past or present. This has very little to do with Nietzsche's themes. However, the passage from Schopenhauer that is quoted above is very close to Nietzsche's eternal recurrence. It relates to the unconditional affirmation of life, as well as the eternal recurrence of all events, not simply one thought.Lestrade 12:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Nietzsche was critical of Schopenhauer starting with Human, All Too Human.

Nietzsche criticized Schopenhauer, but was enormously influenced by him. Anyone who has read both authors would see the relation. Almost all of Nietzsche's writings were an attempt to oppose Schopenhauer's conclusion that the highest way to react to life's suffering is to deny the will to live. But you have to crack open Schopenhauer's book and actually read it in order to understand this.Lestrade 12:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

I agree Nietzsche's position conflated and contrasted with Schopenhauer's facilitates understanding of it further and should somehow be intermingled with the current article. Perhaps the Schopenhauer article needs some clarification in this regard? since it appears to say Nietzsche misrepresented Schopenhauer's views whereas the article itself seems to misrepresent Nietzsche's.

^—IGNIS_SCRIPTA—

03:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)