Talk:On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Philosophy: Literature / Continental Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophical literature
	Continental philosophy

Added the 'Overview,' as is. An acknowledged bias to considering his relationship with romanticism over the epistemological and--perhaps most important--lingusitic issues. Further editors might wish to move much of my comment to a section on his 'Relationship to Romanticism,' but I hope these comments are adequate until then.--Dean Hunt (talk) 10:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, thanks for expanding the stub. I wonder though where you got the content you added from? You have cited only primary sources (Nietzsche's works), not secondary ones, which makes it look like original research. Skomorokh ^incite 11:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right--it would appear that way. I've added some citations, in particular to Nietzsche's work and criticism by Kaufmann and Rorty, but I don't think anything here would be too foreign to accepted interpretations; not that I'm, of course, terribly well-read in the field. (Much of the text comes from a short paper I presented earlier this year; I've tried to cut the non-netural stuff.)--Dean Hunt (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this page could use some focus. As it is, it seems to discount the article as youthful naivete, when it is arguably some of Nietsche's most prescient thought. Also, I would characterize it as more skeptical and post-modern than romantic. Mdenvir (talk) 04:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the false claim that space and time are categories and replaced it with the statement that they are concepts (which is accurate enough for this context). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.44.33.220 (talk) 03:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Kantian philosophy, space and time are pure intuitions, not concepts. The article has several errors and is an idiosyncratic, subjective interpretation of Kant and Nietzsche.Lestrade (talk) 04:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

Need for reconstruction

The article, at present, is uninformative, dismissive, and subjective. This sentence, "It appears that this early Nietzsche is often rewriting Kant's description of perception and experience to emphasize the aesthetic over the conceptual..." asserts what "appears" to the writer and, also, uses the adjective "aesthetic" incorrectly. Here is a personal judgment regarding Nietzsche's work: "Nietzsche’s argument is nuanced but immature, and does not seem so much interested in refuting, or even deeply arguing with Kant on Kant’s terms." Another speculation is expressed as "This is perhaps why he turns away from this early romanticism…." Here is a left parenthesis with no matching right parenthesis, ending with the writer's admission of being unable to distinguish between "intuitive," "romantic," and "Dionysian": "(After all, his rejection there of Kant is even more indirect than in the earlier essay; but, just like the earlier one, compares the actual lives led by the ‘rational’ or ‘intuitive’ man and comes in favor of the intuitive (or ‘romantic’ or ‘Dionysian’--it is hard to say)." With all of this, there is no discussion of the very important topic of truth and lie in an extra-moral sense. In order to correct these problems, I will present an alternative article. I ask anyone who is interested in this epistemological problem to please join with me in a reconstruction of this important Wikipedia article.Lestrade (talk) 14:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

Revised

Since the above comments, the article was severely stripped down (as it should have been) and I've just built it back up a little bit, stressing the key ideas in the essay about truth and language and the like and the fact that the essay has been very influential among postmodernists, which I think is likely its key legacy in the history of philosophy. A lot more could still be added, perhaps starting with reactions Derrida (I'm not totally sure but I assume he must have written about "On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense") and other similar thinkers had to this essay and the effect it had on their thinking. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]