Talk:Friedrich Nietzsche/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Petrejo's changes

I've reverted these.

The first, 'later called' and comment about not getting a degree in phil - the sentence is already quite long, and N's claim to being a philosopher is to do with his books and the people he influenced.

The N quotes I've removed because they were a typical selection of the strength and master-race bits, edited to distort:

The homogenizing of European man 'is the great process that cannot be obstructed ... blah ... as soon as it is established, it ' requires a justification: it lies in serving a higher sovereign species that stands upon the former which can raise itself to its task only by doing this. Not merely a Master Race whose sole task is to rule, but a Race with its own sphere of life, with an excess of strength 'for beauty, bravery, culture etc etc'...strong enough to have no need of the tyranny of the virtue-imperative.'

— Nietzsche, The Will to Power, sec. 898, trans. Walter Kaufmann'

'If one translates reality into a morality, this' morality is: the mediocre are worth more than the exceptions...[several lines omitted] 'I rebel against the transaltion of reality into morality: therefore' I abhor Christianity with a deadly hatred.'

— Nietzsche, The Will to Power, sec. 685, trans. Walter Kaufmann

You can't take sentence fragments you like and bung them together with any writer, especially not Nietzsche.

The one about women is not sec. 184

--Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 08:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Squiddy, for the updates and suggestions for sections 685 and 898. I'll add your updates -- the text still makes my point about Nietzsche. As for the quote about women, I didn't say it was section 184, I said section 864, which I maintain. --PETREJO SUN21MAY06

I've just noticed that you (Squiddy) keep removing Petrejo's additions (who tries to add the same thing over and over again) and I'd just like to say that you're right with that. Nietzsche's use of irony makes it almost impossible to quote him like that without distorting his views. Btw, I've added a notice to the section "The Will to Power" to emphasize that it was not Nietzsche himself who has compiled that particular work (from which Petrejo took most of his quotes) but his sister, who was married to a well known anti-Semite. 80.104.12.185 09:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I've had a lengthy debate with Petrejo about Nietzsche as a philosopher via email, which has sadly now moved onto sheer irrelevance with Trejo accusing me of ignorance on matters not relevant to the issue at hand. Nevertheless, my solution below is to focus on a scholarly consensus (of which Petrejo opposes based on his Hegelian view of philosophy, elaborated on in my emails to me) and objective facts:

1. Nietzsche was not trained as a philosopher, much as Socrates wasn't either, nor Leibniz or Descartes.
2. Kaufmann writes that some may not think of Nietzsche as a philosopher in his book, but that does not discount him as a philosopher, but it should be stated in the article (with ref) so as to maintain a neutral point of view viz. that others think he is not.

1. Scholarly consensus the world over deigns Nietzsche as a philosopher (one look at his inclusion on the SEP is but one example). --Knucmo2 15:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

About Nietzsche not being a philosopher: he was a philosopher but not a professional one; and advocating how he went against previous philosophers' methods in no way debases this claim (ref. Petrejo's talk page; also under the sway of the parti pris that "philosopher" has only a single, immutable ("scientific [i.e., analytic]") meaning, which is false, for the practice of philosophy is itself free to various, contrasting interpretations in relation to how such activity is characterized and thereby the epiderm and bowels of philosophy), even though the claim is widely accepted, but where it is not—such objections will be rooted in those individuals' presuppositions about philosophy—may be mentioned as well. — ^ignis _scripta 19:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, Knucmo2, you willfully ignore you're certainly ignorant (ignore-ant) about a wider view of Western philosophy as shown by your one-sided advocacy of Friedrich Nietzsche. Even Walter Kaufmann, cited often in this article, admits that a segment of philosophers exist who decline to name Nietzsche as a philosopher. They are *not* all Analytical types or Logical Postivists. Hegelians, for example, follow Hegel when he says, "...Philosophy possesses no opinions, for there is no such thing as philosophical opinions. When we hear a man speaking of philosophical opinions, even though he is an historian of philosophy itself, we detect at once this lack of fundamental education. Philosophy is the objective science of truth, it is a science of necessity, conceiving knowledge, and neither opinion nor the spinning out of opinions." (Hegel, HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY, 1830, trans. Haldane, vol. 1, p. 12)

Nietzsche is a genius at opinion. But his criticism of Kant, for example, isn't cited by others for the simple reason that it's comedy and sarcasm, and his attempt at a philosophical point fails to hit home. Nietzsche is a great writer, a great wit, a poetic journalist, but not a philosopher, in the scholarly opinion of many philosophers. Read some Walter Kaufmann for yourself before you insert your pro-Nietzsche POV.

It's entirely secondary that Nietzsche didn't earn a philosophy degree. However, in the systematic definition of Western Philosophy --that it includes a science of Logic, a science of Nature, and a science of Ethics (and all the humanities) cogently and comprehensively cohesive in a System -- Nietzsche simply fails to qualify. He offers opinions, but not any efforts at building a science.

Also -- did Nietzsche himself claim to be a Philosopher? Where is that stated? He claimed to be decadent, that I remember. If 20th century philosophers tend to follow him, then no wonder the science of dialectics is in such poor repair.

Also -- it's not enough to include one sentence from Kaufmann that some philosophers don't include Nietzsche in their number (a sentence I added to this article a long time ago, after several deletions by whomever). The topic is significant and requires *further* elaboration.

But how can anybody add elaboration to that point when simply stating the proposition in a single sentence is promptly erased by the POV Nietzsche-advocates?

This article, as it stands, lacks NPOV. Nietzsche-advocacy is rife within it. For example, as regards Nietzsche anti-Semitic colors - his long relationship with the composer, Richard Wagner, should be lingered upon. Wagner was one of the most outspoken, even boisterous anti-Semites of all time. Now -- one can argue that anti-Semitism is invisible in musical notes. I'd agree. But one can hardly argue that anti-Semitism is invisible in journalism.

This article needs a good, healthy dose of NPOV -- showing Nietzsche in truth, warts and all. --PETREJO SUN21MAY06

Your vindications of Knucmo's ignorance simply collapses on all levels pertaining to your assumptions of him holding "POV" clauses and such (not to mention juxtaposed with a petty attack against him thoroughly lacking civility: "ignore-ant"), in my view, but he'll have to answer to you himself on that matter. In any case, your statement about Nietzsche not being "a philosopher, in the scholarly opinion of many philosophers" simply does not exclude the claim he is a philosopher, so that in the very least is POV, your other derogatory remarks aside, but it can be phrased neutrally with references which are thoroughly wanting, so by all means give us references and not reasoning based on your views. Your "Hegelian" touting of a denouncement of Nietzsche within the tangent he was merely writing "opinions" does not function at all for Nietzsche does pose arguments against various philosophical concerns (by implication he participates in philosophical discourse) that many find to be veritably significant and not mere "opinion" whatever that may be. Moreover, it is also a commonly-held view that there is much in Nietzsche's writing (in his Nachlass in particular) that would suggest he never finished his ultimate, philosophical aims, and yet these writings are of no small substance. Thus my post above regarding the nature of Nietzsche's philosophical professionalism still holds, even excluding the previous sentences. As for: "The topic is significant and requires *further* elaboration", what sentence do you mean? Nobody here "advocates" anything except the need for regulated methods of assertion by way of referencing others and not by your original and shoddy methods of citation from Nietzsche's writings that do all but remain "NPOV" as you proclaim (see my statements in "Please do not…" below). As that would have it, it is true Nietzsche, to appeal to Wagner, at one time revealed a slight anti-Semitism (as it may be viewed), but that is thoroughly discredited by his later writings, and thus one cannot cogently hold it against him in this light. Your baseless, sardonic remarks about journalism, however, need no response. In summa, you must present a genuine issue and not misguided, delusional claims, which is one accountable reason among many for the deletion of your edits to the article, which I recently did. — ^ignis _scripta 23:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, OK, so now *you're* the one who erased my contribution? You want civility, but you don't care how much hate Nietzsche spews? Right. Also, you're welcome to your OPINION that Nietzsche is a real philosopher, and nobody wants to prevent you from saying it -- we only want the opposite view to be heard. But you guys keep erasing it. So, you're being one-sided and censoring your opposition. That's POV. As for Nietzsche offering formal arguments about ANYTHING, you're mistaken. He loves to ridicule, he loves to be witty, he loves to pontificate, he loves to condemn, he loves to laugh. He admits all this. He also openly said he 'mistrusts Systematizers' because 'they lack integrity.' Cute. But not philosophy. In fact it's Literature. It may be great Literature -- but it isn't Philosophy. Get over it. As for "regulated methods of assertion", you obviously exclude yourself from that acceptable criterion. You say what you want about Nietzsche like DOGMA, and that's all it is, clearly. And as for Nietzsche's "former anti-Semitism" allegedly being "thoroughly discredited by his later writings," that's ambiguous at best. Like saying he loved Christ but hated Christians. It's just abstract -- no distinction between the dozens of different kinds of Christians, etc. Try this one on for size...

Unpleasant, even dangerous, qualities can be found in every nation and every individual: it is cruel to demand that the Jew be an exception. In him, these qualities may even be dangerous and revolting to an unusual degree; and perhaps the young stock-exchange Jew is altogether the most disgusting invention of mankind. '

— Nietzsche, Human, All Too Human'

It's LITERATURE, Igni, but nothing else. My claims are neither misguided nor delusional -- they represent views of several others (will some of you finally read Kaufmann for yourselves?) besides myself. So, Igni, you're clearly being biased and censoring. As for Knucmo2, I presume he can speak for himself, although he simply disappeared from our e-mail exchange, and I had no idea he was hiding out here. Hi, Knucomo2. Read any good books lately? --PETREJO SUN21MAY06

I see nothing implicitly "hateful" with the quote (from sect. 475 of Human, All-Too-Human: he's stating, in an extremely broad context, it is possible that man as nature ("Homo Natura") must be realized as such, and is inherently immoral. Here's how it appears in a fuller context, giving a much more particular vantagepoint, from the selfsame section:

Incidentally, the whole problem of the Jews exists only within national states, inasmuch as their energy and higher intelligence, their capital of spirit and will, which accumulated from generation to generation in the long school of their suffering, must predominate to a degree that awakens envy and hatred; and so, in the literature of nearly all present-day nations (and, in fact, in proportion to their renewed nationalistic behavior), there is an increase in the literary misconduct that leads the Jews to the slaughterhouse, as scapegoats for every possible public and private misfortune. As soon as it is no longer a matter of preserving nations, but rather of producing the strongest possible mixed European race, the Jew becomes as useful and desirable an ingredient as any other national quantity. Every nation, every man has disagreeable, even dangerous characteristics; it is cruel to demand that the Jew should be an exception. Those characteristics may even be especially dangerous and frightful in him, and perhaps the youthful Jew of the stock exchange is the most repugnant invention of the whole human race. Nevertheless, 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 human being (Christ), the purest philosopher (Spinoza), the mightiest book, and the most effective moral code in the world.

(My emphasis.)

In any case, that he is a philosopher, as I said very clearly, is not my "opinion" but the overwhelming view of others. Your additions to the article are intrinsically flawed and attempt to invite views that are skewed toward an ignorance of his writings in their entirety. I've thoroughly read Kaufmann's view, and it is acceptable, but your methods of explicating these views are not permissable, and baselessly supercilious, as I've already stated. I'll repeat the conclusion in my previous post: "In summa, you must present a genuine issue and not misguided, delusional claims, which is one accountable reason among many for the deletion of your edits to the article, which I recently did [again]." — ^ignis _scripta 03:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

You had the *temerity* to erase my contribution *again*, Igni? In that case I'm morally obliged to escalate and include more and more of Nietzsche's hate-crimes in subsequent posts. If you can't see the hate in that quote you cited, then you're too pro-Nietzsche (POV) to see it. The assertion that Nietzsche is a philosopher may even be the OPINION of the majority, yet that doesn't give you the POV right to *erase* the viewpoint of the opposite school, which merely seeks a fraction of the space that you grab for your dogmatic POV. Your repetition of your claims doesn't make them stronger -- but weaker. --PETREJO SUN21MAY06

By all means make a caricature of my texts, it looks more humorous than convincing. At any rate, your repetitiveness certainly does not equate to strength. Whatever the case, please cite more distorted passages, they will be shown as such every time; meanwhile, try to make a serious claim not an illusional one bloated into a delusion. — ^ignis _scripta 04:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

You haven't *shown* that the passages I quote from Nietzsche himself are distortions -- you merely assert it and erase them. Your POV is obvious to anybody but to yourself and your fellow Nietzsche advocates. --petrejo Mon22May06

I will not, at any time, accede to the garrulousness with which you intend to supplant my previous statements under the pretext I hold a kind of point of view that somehow, although the nature of this you have not conveyed clearly, precludes all negative interpretations of Nietzsche whatever nature they may be. By way of once more compounding the absurd nature of your claims, you yourself seemingly object to any possible view that would show Nietzsche according to his own terms, and this does not at all validate the peculiar behavior you have demonstrated hitherto. For nothing is suggestive of that which you have denominated in tactlessly vilifying terminology, insofar as no one with whom you have discussed holds a particular view over all others apropos Nietzsche, and therefore your various allegations do not serve you well as a crutch against their statements, which have their origin in regulative considerations (such as Wikipedia:NOR and Wikipedia:Cite your sources, which you have also failed to acknowledge; even in terms of simple scholarly methodology, you have employed such ludicrous schemata comparable to the deracination of Nietzsche's texts, destroying the first, genuine implications connected to these texts, thereby inviting any interpretation, usually according to your misguided assumptions, that would be assertained by them—as my exemplification validates four posts hence among others) that are axiomatic, serving a basis you cannot readily disregard. Now that these extrications have been established, the matter appears quite clear: In brief, you must address these guidlines appropriately and in like manner elaborate a contention that may be considered, therewith formulating a means toward the improvement of the article, which does indeed beg for how others have interpreted him (a formulation to which no one objects), and, as I and others have already stated, you have failed to do precisely this.

I will say it once more: the whole host of your premises have no basis at all as thus far indicated—what is more, I have indeed "shown" the absurdities of your snippet-mongering (and not only myself: did you read Kaufmann on this point? many others, Schacht et al., agree with him here)—and these have been and are essentially refuted. And at any rate, keep in mind this place is an encyclopedia, not a playground for your prejudices. — ^ignis _scripta 20:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

In fact, Ignis, you suppress and censor the anti-Nietzsche perspective, which only wishes a small voice in this article. No matter how you insist otherwise, the facts are clear and self-evident. My claims are not absurd -- they rest upon the demand to publish Nietzsche's own words -- words which you, as a Nietzsche-advocate, find objectionable. It is you, not I, who refuses to see Nietzsche according to his own terms -- his own words. It is your behavior of merely erasing these quotations by Nietzsche, so far 35 times, that is tactless. Your arguments for your own POV are non-extant. You *insist* and you *repeat* and that is what we hear from you. And it's entirely immaterial that nobody else here agrees with my opinion about Nietzsche -- I'm not publishing my opinion, I'm publishing Nietzsche's own words. It's absurd that you all disallow Nietzsche's own words in an article about Nietzsche. My sources are clearly stated -- Nietzsche himself and Walter Kaufmann. Nobody has disputed my sources. My schemata are reasonable, rather, it is the irrational erasure of my post, 35 times, with no effort to edit the post, that is unaccountable. The words of Nietzsche himself are presented in their context, with thanks to Squiddy for his editing update, and no thanks to you, Ignis. You charge my posts with being 'misguided' but you don't say how. You claim that your posts are 'axiomatic' but that's easily disregarded as sheer arrogance. Nothing has been established on your part -- you simply insist, demand and repeat yourself. No arguments are forthcoming. You insult my contribution irrationally, as Nietzsche might do -- but that doesn't make it an argument. It certainly isn't philosophy. I don't need to ask how you others interpret the writings of Nietzsche -- it is self-evident that you are all basically apologists, otherwise I would have found more support here. My post is well-supported, no matter how much you indict it with your emotion and repetitions. You have *shown* nothing at all, nor made a single argument in defense of your irrational erasure of these quotations by Nietzsche himself. And it is you, Ignis, who should try harder to bear in mind that this is an an Encyclopedia, not a playground for your prejudices. —-PETREJO WED24MAY06

No, you do not appear to understand. A criticism of Nietzsche section should be criticisms from eg Max Nordau onwards, and the uses to which N's name and philosophy have been put. It does nothing to balance the article to include selected snippets suggesting that N's views on (eg) the Jews can be adequately represented by a couple of lines edited by you. That is why your addition is unlikely to stand. It is your own selection, and an encyclopedia-type article is supposed to reflect published expert opinion. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, Squiddy, I disagree fundamentally that a few well-chosen quotations from Nietzsche would be out of place in an article about him. The current POV writers are allowed to post *their* favorite quotes by Nietzsche -- why not the other side? It's POV. For NPOV you need balance. (Also Max Nordau, like Nietzsche, merely expresses his own opinions and doesn't rise to the higher discipline of Philosophy.) Nietzsche's own words are tautologically topical in any article about him. It's only because *these* quotes are among the *hundreds* that could embarrass Nietzsche-advocates -- that's why they're being ganged up on. All right -- I'll omit the Aryan/Semite quotations for the time being and see how all of you Nietzsche-advocates deal with it. --PETREJO WED24MAY06

Nope, one of your POV gang just deleted it in a few minutes time. And whoever did that didn't have the courage to explain it here, either. So, Squiddy, let's get this straight -- when pro-Nietzsche writers post quotes by Nietzsche, that's 'published expert opinion', but when Nietzsche-critics post quotes by Nietzsche, that's simply not allowed. Isn't that what you're saying? That's 36 times these Nietzsche quotations have been deleted. Don't you guys see that you're running scared, and trying to hide something true and correct? --PETREJO THU25MAY06

OJERTEP THU25MAY06: Here are the passages Petrejo tastelessly chops whichever way they pleases to distort, presented chronologically and in full; and, like others have pointed out, Petrejo's edits are (obviously) no good. Whenever a writer cites a passage, I might add, that writer realises the entirety of that passage, not to mention the entirety of the work where they come from, is implied by it, hence Petrejo's are distortions (as are Petrejo's claims false), for they interrupt this process. But since Petrejo has no shred of thought or decency, this obviously never came to mind. Play pleople false somewhere else, Petrejo, because no one will buy it; you have not cited even one source for your nonsense, but none exist for the claims you have made, and whatever your pretensions would hope for is beyond me.:

By now you should admit that there are 'plenty of sources for my viewpoint about Nietzsche. If you don't, then you're drowning in your own POV. Petrejo 00:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Very well then, OJERTEP, let's post the *fuller* quotations that you so emotionally insist upon! Or perhaps your POV gang can't bear to see those either! Anyway -- your insults are weak and ineffective. I've cited Nietzsche himself as my source, as well as Walter Kaufmann -- but you POV types are so blinded and deafened by your POV advocacy that having eyes you don't see, and having ears you don't hear. Therefore! Let's post some of these quotes from Nietzsche himself! Will your POV gangsters be able to stand it? Let's see! --PETREJO THU25MAY06

OJERTEP FRI26MAY06: Have fun chit-chatting. No body cares for what you have to say, obviously. See you later, or never (preferably).

You've shown emotion, OJERTEP, crossing out all my text on this chat page. But you haven't demonstrated reason for your POV. This is more evidence that your group is a POV gang, as I've said all along. Your POV gang once again deleted all the quotes I posted from Nietzcshe himself -- even though I modified those that Squiddy pointed out, and some that you pointed out (and I even omitted the Jew/Aryan sayings, and have not yet even posted Nietzsche's 'crooked nose' remark about Jews). What's now clear, then, is that you'd really prefer to *hide* many of the things that Nietzsche really said! You'd like to cherry pick those sayings of Nietzsche that you'd like the public to see, to make your pro-Nietzsche POV heard -- because you know for a *fact* that if the public saw the *other* side of what Nietzsche said, your POV would be shattered in the public vision. So, my point is confirmed yet again -- 37 times in a row! So, until another recourse for the perdurance of my reasonable contribution becomes available, I'll simply re-post this latest version of those fearsome opinions by Nietzsche. --PETREJO FRI26MAY06

My, my, it only took *minutes* for your POV gang to delete those quotes again. That's 38 times now. What -- does your gang have a 24-hour watch for this article? I've little choice now but to seek mediation or arbitration. This only makes things more interesting to me. --PETREJO FRI26MAY06

You POV duders did it again. That's 39 deletions. This time it only took you 3 minutes. I'm beginning to think you've written a computer procedure to run 24-hours a day to seek out my IP address and delete anything I post. Well, I'm only beginning. Petrejo 05:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

This time I added only one quotation in the 'Reception' section to balance the all-too-common POV that Nietzsche was friendly to the Jews simply because he disliked anti-Semites. That's one-sided and naive. I have plenty of direct quotations from Nietzsche that show he *also* slammed the Jews. Yet every time I post even *one* of them, it's erased by you POV types. (This time it took you or your software only 2 minutes.) I also added *one* quote from Nietzsche to the 'Feminine' section to balance the POV there. It was erased in 1 minute. It's beginning to appear that the POV editors of this article are *terrified* that the Truth about what Nietzsche truly said might be highlighted. You want to cherry pick what you'll publish about him, and yet you accuse *others* of selective quotations? Given your POV, what advantage would Wikipedia have over an obsequious Encyclopeia? Petrejo 15:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, I added one quote to balance the one-sided quote that sought to absolve Nietzsche of his anti-Jewish remarks, and one quote to balance the one-sided quote that sought to make Nietzsche sound fair to the feminine gender. Both were deleted. That's 41 times, folks. You should know by now that I'm sincere about NPOV in this article. This POV article as it stands scrubs Nietzsche clean of any sort of hate-mongering -- and hopes to call it all a misunderstanding. But the POV editors who keep erasing my NPOV quotations from Nietzsche are clearly afraid of the truth. That's not a good enough reason to convince me to modify my tactics. Let's try again. Petrejo 07:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Look at what you're saying: "You don't accept my changes, so you're afraid of the truth." Does that really sound like the words of someone sincere about NPOV? -Smahoney 15:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not what I'm saying, Smahoney. What I'm saying is that you don't accept my changes AND you're afraid of the truth. This article white-washes Nietzsche, and defends him carefully and assiduously against *all* of the charges made. The real Nietzsche, the emotional, bombastic, in-your-face Nietzsche, is tamed to the point of bourgeois morality. Why not admit that Nietzsche insulted Jews as much as he insulted anti-Semites? Why not admit he insulted Women as much as his political opponents? Why strain yourselves to defend a white-washed image? Petrejo 00:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, would somebody please explain how to remove those 'crossings out' of all my discussion above? *I* didn't cross it out, some pro-Nietzsche vandal did. It's probably annoying to new readers of this thread. Thanks. Petrejo 06:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I've removed some of the crossings out, but there are more. I looked through the last few edits in the history to try to find who did this, but it must have happened a while ago. You cross things out by writing <s> in front of them. Remove that, and the comments will go back to normal. mgekelly 13:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Mgekelly, that was kind of you to do and to explain. I'll see if I can clean up the rest on my own. Petrejo 11:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

A declaration of [intellectual] war on the masses by higher men is needed! Everywhere the mediocre are combining in order to make themselves master! Everything that makes soft and effeminate, that serves the end of the “people” or the “feminine,” works in favor of suffrage universel, i.e., the domination of the inferior men. But we should take reprisal and bring this whole affair (which in Europe commenced with Christianity) to light and the bar of judgment.

— Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power, sect. 861 (1884); trans. Walter Kaufmann'

The rights a man arrogates to himself are related to the duties he imposes on himself, to the tasks to which he feels equal. The great majority of men have no right to existence, but are a misfortune to higher men. I do not yet grant the failures [den Missrathenen] the right. There are also peoples that are failures [missrathene Völker].

— Friedrich Nietzsche, Ibid., sect. 872 (1884)'

I beware of speaking of chemical “laws”: that savors of morality. It is far rather a question of the absolute establishment of power relationships: the stronger becomes master of the weaker, in so far as the latter cannot assert its degree of independence—here there is no mercy, no forbearance, even less a respect for “laws”!

— Friedrich Nietzsche, Ibid., sect. 630 (1885)'

From now on there will be more favorable preconditions for more comprehensive forms of dominion, whose like has never yet existed. And even this is not the most importan thing; the possibility has been established for the production of the international racial unions whose task it will be to rear a master race, the future “masters of the earth”;—a new, thremendous aristocracy, based on the severest self-legislation, in which the will of philosophical men of power and artist-tyrants will be made to endure for millenia—a higher kind of man who, thanks to their superiority in will, knowledge, riches, and influence, employ democratic Europe as their most pliant and supple instrument for getting hold of the destinies of the earth, so as to work as artists upon “man” himself. Enough: the time is coming when politics will have a different meaning.

— Friedrich Nietzsche, Ibid., section 960 (1885–1886)'

Origin of the beautiful and ugly.—Biological value of the beautiful and the ugly.— That which is instinctively repugnant to us, aesthetically, is proved by mankind's longest experience to be harmful, dangerous, worthy of suspicion: the suddenly vocal aesthetic instinct (e.g., in disgust) contains a judgment. To this extent the beautiful stands within the general category of the biological values of what is useful, beneficient, life-enhancing—but in such a way that a host of stimuli that are only distantly associated with, and remind us only faintly of, useful things and states give us the feeling of the beautiful, i.e., of the increase of the feeling of power (—not merely things, therefore, but also the sensations that accompany such things, or symbols of them).

Thus the beautiful and the ugly are recognized as relative to our most fundamental values of preservation. It is senseless to want to posit anything as beautiful or ugly apart from this. The beautiful exists just as little as the good, or the true. In every case it is a question of the conditions of preservation of a certain type of man: thus the herd man will experience the value feeling of the beautiful in the presence of different things than will the exceptional or over-man.

It is the perspective of the foreground, which concerns itself only with the immediate consequences, from which the value of the beautiful (also of the good, also of the true) arises.

All insinctive judgments are shortsighted in regard to the chain of consequences: they advise what is to be done immediately. THe understanding is essentially a brake upon immediate reactions on the basis of instinctive judgments: it retards, it considers, it looks further along the chain of consequences.

Judgments concerning beauty and ugliness are shorsighted (—they are always opposed by the understanding—) but persuasive in the highest degree; they appeal to our instincts where they decide most quickly and pronounce their Yes and No before the understanding can speak.

The most habitual affirmations of beauty excite and stimulate each other; once the aesthetic drive is at work, a whole host of other perfections, originating elsewhere, crystallize around “the particular instance of beauty.” It is not possible to remain objective, or to suspend the interpretive, additive, interpolating, poetizing power (—the latter is the forging of the chain of affirmations of beauty). The sight of a “beautiful woman”—

Thus 1. the judgment of beauty is shortsighted, it sees only immediate consequences;

2. it lavishes upon the object that inspires it a magic conditioned by the association of various beauty judgments—that are quite alien to to the nautre of that object. To experience a thing as beautiful means: to experience it necessarily wrongly—(which, incidentally, is why marriage for love is, from the point of view of society, the most unreasonable kind of marriage).

— Friedrich Nietzsche, Ibid., sect. 804 (Spring-Fall 1887)'

The strong of the future.— That which partly necessity, partly chance has achieved here and there, the conditions for the production of a stronger type, we are now able to comprehend and consciously will: we are able to create the conditions under which such an elevation is possible.

Until now, “education” has had in view the needs of society: not the possible needs of the future, but the needs of the society of the day. One desired to produce “tools” for it. Assuming the wealth of force were greater, one could imagine forces being subtracted, not to serve the needs of society but some future need.

Such a task would have to be posed the more it was grasped to what extent the contemporary form of society was being so powerfully transformed that at some future time it would be unable to exist for its own sake alone, but only as a tool in the hands of a stronger race.

The increasing dwarfing of man is precisely the driving force that brings to midn the breeding of a stronger race—a race that would be excessive preciesly where the dwarfed species was weak and growing weaker (in will, responsibiity, self-assurance, ability to posit goals for oneself).

The means would be thos history teaches: isolation through interests in preservation that are the reverse of those which are average today; habituation to reverse evaluations; distances as pathos [i.e., grand affect]; a free conscience in those things that today are most undervalued and prohibited.

THe homogenizing of European man is the great process that cannot be obstructed: one shoudl even hasten it. The necessity to create a gulf, distance, order of rank, is given eo ipso—not the necessity to retard this process.

As soon as it is established, this homogenizing species requires a justification: it lies in serving a higher sovereign species that stands upon the former and can raise itself to its task only by doing this. Not merely a master race whose sole task is to rule, but a race with its own sphere of life., whith an excess of strenght for beauty, bravery, culture, manners to the highest peak of the spirit; an affirming race that many grant itself every great luxury—strong enough to have no need of the tyrrany of the virtue-imperative, rich enough to have no need of thrift and pedantry, beyond good and evil; a hothouse for strange and choice plants.

— Friedrich Nietzsche, Ibid., sect. 898 (Spring-Fall 1887)'

Anti-Darwin.— What surprises me most when I survey the broad destinies of man is that I always see before me the opposite of that which Darwin and his school see or want to see today: selection in favor of the stronger, better-constituted, and the progress of the species. Precisely the opposite is palpable: the elimination of the lucky strokes, the uselessness of teh more highly developed types, the inevitable dominion of the average, even the sub-average types. If we are not shown why man should be an exception among creatures, I incline to the prejudice that the school of Darwin has been deluded everywhere.

That the will to power in which I recognize the ultimate ground and character of all change provides us with the reason why selection is not in favor of the exceptions and lucky strokes: the strongest and most fortunate are weak when opposed by organized herd instincts, by timidity of the weak, by the vast majority. My general view of the world of values shows that it is not the lucky strokes, the select types, that have the upper hand in the supreme values that are today [March-June 1888] placed over mankind; rather it is the decadent types—perhaps there is nothing in the world more interesting than this unwelcome spectacle—

Strange though it may sound, one always has to defend the strong against the weak; the fortunate against the unfortunate; the healthy against those degenerating and afflicted and hereditary taints. If one translates reality into a morality, this morality is: the mediocre are worth more than the exceptions; the decadent forms more than the mediocre; the will to nothingness has the upper hand over the will to life—and the overall aim is, in Christian, Buddhist, Schoperhauerian terms: “better not to be than be.”

I rebel against the translation of reality into morality: therefore I abhor Christianity with a deadly hatred, because it created sublime words and gestures to throw over a horrible reality the cloak of justice, virtue, and divinity—

I see all philosophers, I see science kneeling before reality that is the reverse of the struggle for existence as taught by Darwin's school—that is to say, I see on top and surviving everywhere those who compromise life and the value of life.— The error of teh school of Darwin becomes a problem to me: how can one be so blind as to see so badly at this point?

That species represent any progress is the most unreasonable assertion in the world: so far they represent one level. That the higher organisms have evolved from the lower ones has not been demonstrated in a single case. I see how the lower preponderate through their numbbers, their shrewdness, their cunning—I do not see how an accidental variation gives an advantage, at least not for so long a period; why an accidental change should grow so strong would be something else needing explanation.

I find the “cruelty of nature,” of which so much is said, in another place: she is cruel towards her children of fortune, she spares and protects and loves les humbles, just as—

In summa: growth in the power of a species is perhaps guaranteed less by a preponderance of its children of fortune, of strong members, than by a preponderance of average and lower types— The latter possess great fruitfulness and duration; with the former coes an increase in danger, rapid wastage, speedy reduction in numbers.

— Friedrich Nietzsche, Ibid., sect. 685 (March-June 1888), trans. Walter Kaufmann'

The states in which we infuse a transfiguration and a fullness into things and poetize about them until they reflect back our fullness and joy in life: sexuality; intoxication; feasting; spring; victory over an enemy , mockery; bravado; cruelty; the ecstacy of religious feeling. Three elements principally: sexuality, intoxication, cruelty—all belonging to the oldest festal joys of mankind, all also preponderate in the early“artist.”

Conversely, when we encounter things that display this transfiguration and fullness, the animal responds with an excitation of those spheres in which all those pleasurable states are situated—and a blending of these very delicate nuances of animal wellbeing and desires constitutes the aesthetic state. That latter appears only in natures capable of that bestowing and overflowing fullness of bodily vigor; it is this that is always the primum mobile. The sober, the weary, the exhausted, the dried-up (e.g., scholars) can receive absolutely nothing from art, because they do not possess the primary artistic force, teh pressure of abundance: whoever cannot give, also receives nothing.

“Perfection”: in these states (in the case of sexual love especially) there is naively revealed what the deepest instinct recognizes as higher, more desirable, more valuable in general, the upward movement of its type; also toward what status it really aspires. Perfection: that is the extraordinary expansion of its feeling of power, riches, necessary overflowing of all limits.

— Friedrich Nietzsche, Ibid., sect. 801 (March-June 1888)'

Why the weak conquer. In summa: the sick and weak have more sympathy, are “more humane”—: the sick and weak have more spirit, are more changeable, various, entertaining—more malicious: it was the sick who invented malice. (A morbid precociousness is often found in the rickety, crofulous and tubercular—.) Esprit: quality of the late races: Jews, Frenchmen, Chinese. (The anti-Semites do not forgive the Jews for possessing “spirit”—and money. Anti-Semites—another name for the “underprivileged.”)

The sick and weak have had fascination on their side: they are more interesting than the healty: the fool and the saint—the two most interesting kinds of man—closely related to them, the “genius.” The great “adventurers and criminals” and all men, especially most healty, are sick at certain periods in their lives:—the great emotions, the passions of power, love, revenge, are accompanied by profound disturbances. And as for decadence, it is represented in almost every sense by every man who does not die too soon:—thus he also knows from experience the instincts that belong to it:—almost every man is decadent for half of his life.

Finally: woman! One-half of mankind is weak, typically sick, changeable, inconstant—woman needs strength in order to cleave to it; she needs a religion of weakness that glorifies being weak, loving, and being humble as divine: or better, she makes the strong weak—she rules when she succeeds in overcoming the strong. Woman has always conspired with the types of decadence, the priests, against the “powerful,” the “strong,” the men—. Woman brings the children to the cult of piety, pity, love:—the mother represents altruism convincingly.

Finally: increasing civilization, which necessarily brings with it an increas in the morbid elements, in the neurotic-psychiatric and criminal. An intermediary species arises: the artist, restrained from crime by weakeness of will and social timidity, and not yet ripe for the madhouse, but reaching out inquisitively toward both spheres with his antennae: this specific culture plant, the modern artist, painter, musician, above all novelist, who describes his mode of life with the very inappropriate word “naturalism”— Lunatics, criminals, and “naturalists” are increasing: sign of a growing culture rushing on precipitately—i.e., the refuse, the waste, gain importance—the decline keeps pace.

Finally:the social hodgepodge, consequence of the Revolution, the establishment of equal rights, of the superstition of “equal men.” The bearers of the instincts of decline (of ressentiment, discontent, the drive to destroy, anarchism, and nihilsim), including the slave instincts, the instincts of cowardice, cunning, and canaille in those orders that have long been kept down, mingle with the blood of all classes: two, three geneerations later the race is no longer recognizable—everything has become mob. From this there results a collective instinct against selection, against privilege of all kinds, that is so powerful and self-assured, hard, and cruel in its operation, that the privileged themselves actually soon succumb to it: whoever still wants to retain power flatters the mob, works with the mov, must have the mob on its sid—the “geniuses” above all: they become heralds of those feelings with which one moves the masses—the note of sympathy, even reverence, for all that has lived a life of suffering, lowliness, contemp, persecution, sounds above all other notes (types: Victor Hugo and Richard Wagner).— The rise of the mob signifies once again the ascendancy of the old values.

Such an extreme movement in respect of tempo means as our civilization represents, shifts of men's center of gravity: those men who matter most, who have, as it were, the tast of compensating for the vast danger of such a morbid movement;—they will become procrastinators par excellence, slow to adopt, reluctant to let go, and relatively enduring in the midst of this tremendous change and mixture of elements. In such circumstances, the center of gravity necessarily shifts to the mediocre: against the dominion of the mob and of the eccentric (both are usually united), and mediocrity consolidates itself as the guarantee and bearer of the future. Thus emerges a new opponent for exceptional men—or a new seduction. Provided they do no accommodate themselves to the mob and try to flatter the instincts of the “disinherited,” they will have to be “mediocre” and “solid.” They know: mediocritas [mediocrity] is also aurea [gold]—indeed, it alone disposes of money and gold (—of all that glitters—) —And once more the old virtue, and the entire dated world of the ideal in general, gains a body of gifted advocates.— Result: mediocrity acquires spirit, wit, genius—it becomes entertaining, it seduces.

*

Result.— A high culture can stand only upon a broad base, upon a strong and healthy consolidated mediocrity. Science—and even art—work in its service and are severed by it. Science could not wish for a better situation: it belongs as such to a mediocre kind of man—it is out of place among the exceptional—it has nothing aristocratic, and even less anything anarchistic, in its instinct.

The power of the middle is, further, upheld by trade, above all trade in money: the instinct of great financiers goes against everything extreme—that is why the Jews are at present the most conserving power in our intensely threatened and insecure Europe. They can have no use for revolution, socialism, or militarism: if they desire and employ power, even over the revolutionary party, this is only a consequence of the aforesaid and not a contradiciton. They need occasionally to arouse fear of other extreme tendencies—by demonstrating how much power they have in their hands. But their instinct itself is unswervingly conservative—and “mediocre”— Wherever there is power, they know how to be powerful; but the employment of their power is always in one direction. The honorable term of mediocre is, of course, the word “liberal.”

*

Reflection.— It is absurd to assume that this whole victory of values is antibiological: one must try to explain it in terms of an interest life has in preserving the type “man” even trhough his method of dominance of the weak and the underpriviledged—: otherwise, man would cease to exist?—Problem———

The enhancement of the type fatal for the preservation of the species? Why?

History shows: the strong races decimate one another: through war, thirst for power, adventurousness; the strong affects: wastefulness—(strength is no longer hoarded, spiritual disturbance arises through excessive tension); their existence is costly; in brief—they ruin one another; periods of profound exhaustion and torpor supervene: all great ages are paid for— The strong are subsequently weaker, more devoid of will, more absurd than the weak average.

They are races that squander. “Duration” as such has no value: one might well prefer a shorter bu more vfaluable existence for the species.— It would remain to be proved that, even so, a richer yield of value would be gained than in the case of the shorter existence; i.e., that man as summation of strength acquires a much greater quantum of mastery over things if life is as it is— We stand before a problem of economics———

— Friedrich Nietzsche, Ibid., sec. 864 (March-June 1888)'

structure of the article: Nietzsche's thoughts

Hi. I just wanted to make a little suggestion concerning the chapters 2 and 3. At the moment they give a view on many different thoughts of Nietzsche, but perhaps they should be merged. An outsider, who reads the text, would have problems to gain a general idea of Niezsche's work. I see two possible solutions, which would make things in my eyes clearer:

• a) We try to bundle up some passages to focus on Nietzsche's general thinking about basic topics like moral, metaphysic and science. For example the tiny chapter 2.4 about the master-slave-morality could merge with chapter 3. The problem I see about this way, would be, that in my eyes most of Nietzsche's concepts are closely related.
• b) I always like a historical view on things: First Nietzsche's view on the past is shown: That would concentrate on christianity, master-slave-morality and the death of god. Then the results are coming, what this brings to the world of modern man: Blind science and nihilism. And last Nietzsche's sometimes vague solutions for the future would be presented: The Übermensch and the fusion of science & arts. I'm not sure about the Ewige Wiederkunft, but I guess it fits in the part about the present. But I have no idea, what to do with the Wille zur Macht, because I actually don't know much about this concept of Nietzsche. --Kryston 22:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm in agreement with many of your points for improvement and they are quite sound. b) Seems to be a much more functional approach for we thereby accomplish much more that would make the article malleable and simpler to deal with—for future additions and whatever else. Der Wille zur Macht I think should go before Übermensch and Ewige Wiederkunft since U and EW represents a kind of culmination of his thought where WM represents its basis (indeed for all of his mature thought generally speaking). — ^ignis _scripta 22:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Any discussion of reorganizing ther article needs to take into account that the article is too long, and if no text is superfluous, then some must go to sub-articles. — goethean ॐ 23:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It is true much of N's thought is already partially treated here in piecemeal, and so I think a little reorganization will not do much harm—the main articles of the ideas themselves can give a much more detailed and integrated account of them, at least so it would seem. A simple trace of the development of the ideas throughout N's life (since this article aims to be biographical) would be a good basis from which changes could be made to this article. — ^ignis _scripta 23:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

And didn't N use a French phrase for the eternal return? — goethean ॐ 23:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not recall specifically any French term, but I do not think it is of much consequence (unless you indicate otherwise). Another important note is to observe how the French/German/Polish version of the article has been laid out. It seems the French have taken a structurally sound approach that both the German and English ones lack, which is fundamentally irremediable at first sight, and the Poles have done a very simple method of sieving the various occurances in N's life. Could it be possible the FA regulations are more strict on the en-Wiki (simply musing)?— ^ignis _scripta 23:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Position of Wille zur Macht: Well, that makes sense!
• Length of the article: I'm pretty sure, that a reorganization would rather shorten the article.
• French version of Ewige Wiederkunft: I'm no expert for that, but I think the first mention comes in The Gay Science, book 4, aphorism 285 - in German.
• Other wiki's structure: my French is practically non-existent, but I guess, that they use a structure like in the upper version A. The German site is in this point not very precise (although the site in general is really good!). First there is a presentation of Nietsche's thoughts on moral, science and metaphysics, than the 3 (in-)famous concepts are discussed. I don't think that this mixture is the best solution. But you have to know, that the German resources concerning Nietzsche went to the article about The Second Untimely Meditation (On the Use and Abuse of History for Life) in the last months.
• Help me! Don't know, what FA regulations are :(

--Kryston 23:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the reorganization, as you say, will yield the deletion of inessentials currently bound to the article. Yes, where the German's resources went—I'm well aware of that, which is good, and I suspect they'll go on to the other books as well. As for FA, this will be of interest, however, they are only criteria, or very serviceable suggestions, and not absolutes in any sense. Let's take this process step by step so as not to botch any material or inherent valuables. — ^ignis _scripta 00:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I suppose our primary model should be the German article, nonetheless. — ^ignis _scripta 02:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Let's take this process step by step: Well, I definitely second this! Such process needs time to breed. By the way I will have a little stress with exam the next 2 weeks, so I will only be of minor aid. And this will give me the time to learn more of the en.WP laws. Some of them are a bit strange to me at the moment, especially the 3RR. Perhaps in a while they will make more sense to me.
• de.WP article as a model: We can't do anything wrong, taking this one as a model. Pangloss, the godfather of the page, has created an excellent article.
• I have to stop using terms like German or French WP, so I don't help creating seperatism in Austria, Switzerland or Belgium.--Kryston 08:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Time is an unlimited factor, so that is no issue. After the reorganization, I'm sure we can also get around to substantiating this article with references that are conspicuously wanting, without which it is a useless article. — ^ignis _scripta 01:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

A quick comment about Nietzsche's lack of training as a Philosopher that I would like to point out, although many of the more knowledgeable people who have already posted may have already made this point. At the time Nietzsche studied works of Philosophy, Philosophy was barely recognized as a subject of serious study in the German Univeristy System due to the politics of that day. I quote Dr. John McCumber's own lectures in this. But it is true. That is why Friedrich Nietzsche became, at the request of his professor, a Swiss Citizen. User:StarShadow 02:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a telling remark and I think it should be mentioned in the article. Very good.Non-vandal 06:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. One thing about his citizenship: wasn't he actually "stateless" for quite a while? (I can't find support for this right now, but I've read something about it in several places.) --Cultural Freedom talk 07:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as a matter of fact he was. He applied for Swiss citizenship and was rejected. But I'm not sure of the dating on this, and I can't recall how long it lasted. Until then.Non-vandal 07:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

A word of caution

I am referring to the section "A Brief Introduction to the Dark Side of Nietzsche". These are the problems I see with this:

1. the use of the term "dark side" is POV. Unless a reputable source can be cited using this value judgement, it is not in accordance with WP content policies
2. The selective use of quotes. Anyone can make a selective use of quotes from any notable person to push a certain POV (pro or con). Quotes are better placed in Wikiquote. Selective use of quotes to support a specifc POV falls within the policy of WP:NOR. Unless a reputable source is found to have made such selection of quotes, this section is not compatible with WP policies. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that same applies to all other quotations peppered throughout the article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

That's quotations, and yes, Petrejo is not approaching this task in an NPOV manner, although he likes to think he is by scattering quotations from Nietzsche and placing them out of context in a manner which allows them to be refuted in a straw-man method. --Knucmo2 01:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe I can make a case that Nietzsche's 'dark side' is intuitively obvious, and not POV, when it refers to anti-Semitism, anti-Feminism, and outright, outspoken hatred. Nietzsche clearly enunciated these and more. Just because Nietzsche disliked some anti-Semites is no reason to conclude that he was always kind to Jews in his writings. He wasn't. I haven't even shown I could show in this regard. (As for the modern myth that he broke with Wagner over anti-Semitism -- please continue to omit it!) As for 'quotations,' I maintain that the Nietzsche-advocates are in control here, and *that* is POV. Why allow *them* to produce quotations that show Nietzsche's 'bright side?' Why not admit the one-sidedness of *that*? The themes of Nazism and Misogyny are dealt with apologetically, and that's not objective scholarship. Nietzsche is scrubbed clean of any controversy in this lopsided article as it stands today. That's the point of my additions. Petrejo 06:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Great. Go and make this point in a peer-reviewed journal and then come back and reference it in this article. Wikipedia is not a place to make points. mgekelly 06:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't you trust your own intuition, Mgekelly? Or your own sense of right and wrong? Do you have to resort to a committee to know that? Petrejo 06:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

That isn't the point of a peer review. Anyone can make a hypothesis. Show it is valid... yours is already weak. Go back to playing your video games.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by NotaDemocracy (talk • contribs) 19:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course I have my own ideas. But I put them in my blog, not on Wikipedia. Why don't you start your own blog or website as a repository for your theories? mgekelly 13:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not about opinions, it's about NPOV and the struggle against POV in a Wikipedia article. My quotations show a darker side of Nietzsche because the pro-Nietzsche POV supplies quotes to show only the bright side. Why do what average Encyclopedias do? One can do better with a NPOV and by being two-sided about the truth. Petrejo 11:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not about opinions, that's right, i.e. it's not about POV/NPOV - it's about OR, specifically yours, which is not allowed. If everyone else is wrong, Wikipedia is not the place to set that right. mgekelly 05:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for responding in this way, Jossi; it sets the stage for a crystallized view on the matter, through which we see the many-sidedness of what concerns us here on the talk page for the article. I have ceased any discussion with the person in question simply due to the faults at issue. In accordance with this, as my last post to Kryston would support, this article will be properly rooted by methods that are deemed acceptable by WP. — ^ignis _scripta 01:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I would support removing all quotations to Wikiquote. There is a large compendium of such already there. See: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I would omit all quotations by Nietzche himself if Nietzsche-advocate POV writers also omit them. Petrejo 11:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't this solution be too radical? For example, the passage from the Gay Science about the Death of God can represent Nietzsche's thoughts better that any explanation. Three or four longer sections of quotations could support the article very well. My problem with this: I don't know, what effect the translation has. The German original has in my ears an overwhelming effect on the lingual level (not speaking of the content). Perhaps a native speaker could better judge, if the translation has a similar effect.--Kryston 07:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

My sense has it deletion would indeed comprise undue haste whereby textual misapplication is the result. More particularly and first of all, the German- and French-language articles are not without direct reference to Nietzsche's work; secondly, doing without these would severely limit, even obstruct, the ability of this article to demonstrate the minutest scintilla of what appertains to the whole of his thought and philosophical development (i.e., the general reader is without understanding); and lastly, these quotations, unlike Petrejo's spurious and thoughtless misconstruals from a text never written nor assembled by Nietzsche, are at a level where the context is established by the article itself, and references to other interpreters (such as Kaufmann and scores of others) would be supplementary to and anneal this contextual framework; therefore, with these notions in mind, nothing may lead to an implicit characterization of Nietzsche by the authors of this article. I am of the opinion, as I've made mention numerous times, this situation, which includes all subarticles, necessitates au fond a thoroughgoing reformulation that is attainable, after which a peer review would be in order, therewith keeping, and potentially expanding, the range of quotations in question.

These elicitations aside, Kaufmann's translations are, as broad testimony may validate, such that very few ascertain a comparable level of correspondency to Nietzsche's tropical depth and underlying intent within the English-speaking world (of course, this is not to say others' are "bad" or his are "the best"—simply stated, Kaufmann's are widely considered to be the "standard" ones, e.g., as Schacht articulates in his Nietzsche, in academic terms), and thus they don't compound the issue at hand. I also suggest, Kryston, if you mean to contribute to the English article, reading Kaufmann's translations would be a great facilitation and in your best interest as regards to overall familiarity. — ^ignis _scripta 13:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Quotations by experts on Nietzsche should be allowed with a qualification -- for every pro-Nietzsche quotation, or a quotation that seeks to paint Nietzsche with a bourgeois morality, there should also appear an opposing quotation from another expert (e.g. Walter Kaufmann) on the same topic. Petrejo 11:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

That is not how articles are written. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia and its policies. I can't support jossi's suggestion either. This article needs to keep the Nietzsche (and secondary) quotations. Talk page negotiations are the way to decide which to keep. This worked well until Petrejo's appearance. A single editor should not be able to disrupt this article. — goethean ॐ 15:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone yet considered keeping Nietzsche quotes where useful, but leaving interpretation to the experts? That is, quotes from Nietzsche are fine, but not when they are intended to lead to a particular interpretation. In these cases, such interpretations should be cited to some author, and Nietzsche quotes within them would again be fine. -Smahoney 15:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course. All of my posts (a sizeable portion in the archives by now) point toward this, but a single crazed user wants to color Nietzsche and everyone else here according to his/her views (who now states no mention was made of the Nazi's appropriation of Nietzsche: this claim is false as the article clearly shows), which has led to dismay and to disruption of the potential realization of this process, and such behavior will surely not be grudgingly tolerated at any minimum. I will say it once more: As the article currently stands, it doesn't stand at all, hence—it needs a replete reformulation. — ^ignis _scripta 19:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

In fact, the Nazi appropriation of Nietzsche rests in a significant measure upon Nietzsche's book, The Will To Power, which some writers in this discussion now "admit" was a forgery by his sister and brother-in-law. Anything to distance Nietzsche from the sorry Nazi period! Even removing one of his famous books from him! It's clear that this article can only continue to portray Nietzsche as purified if more and more quotes by him are banned from this article -- or simply disowned. But that book isn't the only source of this controversy. There's plenty more. Petrejo 04:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me as if there has been some tendency from both sides of this debate to lose sight of creating an NPOV article and instead focus on countering the other, which is understandable given the way we all respond, by just becoming more adamant, to heated situations. Since everyone seems to agree that the article needs work, or even a complete rewrite, my next suggestion would be that everyone participating here create a list of points (not quotes or exact text) that they would like to see incorporated into a final article, keeping in mind my first point. -Smahoney 04:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I cannot permit such an easily conveyed injustice to my character here. The situation has been grossly inflated far beyond genuine proportions, where suddenly "two parties" exist, which is not the case whatsoever. Petrejo overstates one comment by Kaufmann (who indeed thought of Nietzsche as a "philosopher"), by further stating that others may not view Nietzsche as a philosopher (But on what grounds? I shall quote Kaufmann without duplicity: "It is evident at once that Nietzsche is far superior to Kant and Hegel as a stylist; but it also seems that as a philosopher he represents a sharp decline—and men have not been lacking who have not considered him a philosopher at all—because he had no 'system.' Yet this argument is hardly cogent. Schelling and Hegel, Spinoza and Aquinas had their systems; in Kant's and Plato's case the word is far less applicable; and of the many important philosophers who very definitely did not have systems one need only mention Socrates and many of the pre-Socratics. Not only can one defend Nietzsche on this score—how many philosophers today have systems?—but one must add that he had strong philosophic reasons for not having a system." (Walter Kaufmann, Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist, Nietzsche's Method, II, p. 79) Here it is clear he is referring to the audience to which he hoped to address, the English-speaking world among other corners.) as though it were a solidified point to thereby fashion this hypothesis through baseless exegetical methodology via quotations of Nietzsche's remarks here or there, but not others that would possibly counter this view, in order to construct a spurious, incomprehensible, distorted perspective (something Kaufmann and others strongly discouraged). The post (in reply to my comment to your first suggestion) by Petrejo clearly shows the degree of his/her false portrayal of Nietzsche's work by nevertheless classifying The Will to Power as Nietzsche's own, contrary to the secondary literature and the very editor of Nietzsche's Nachlass, Montinari—including various other attempts of philosophical bastardization by him/her apt to vitiate Nietzsche and his philosophy through ad hominem representations and similar remarks against others here (yourself no less). As far as I'm concerned with this state of affairs, I do not even see a genuine problem so much as posed by Petrejo, who enjoys bullyragging this talk page with Hegel's ideologies, against many of which Nietzsche even criticized, that would be worth consideration in the vast context of Wikipedia's regulations, which have been for far too long disregarded as infinitely indicated by the constitution of the article hitherto. In like manner, I see no reason to object to citing other sources representing the variegated interpretations of Nietzsche, which is one of the most elemental factors of my reasoning behind the statement "[the article] needs a replete reformulation." Those that commented previously, such as Knucmo2, Squiddy, Mgekelly, and Goethean, in answer to Petrejo and on the issue proper add to what I have already noted but apparently this hasn't been taken at all too seriously, which is the essence of my objection that introduced this very post. At this time this is all I can provide for a comprehensive overview of the situation. e.g., all of Petrejo's allegations are inept and deficient, but it is nonetheless definitive. — ^ignis _scripta 06:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I did not intend to characterize one of the parties as you, solely. It is clear that there is an editorial consensus, which would make up one party, and Petrejo, who would make up the other party. The first problem that I see is that the discussion is focusing on the parties themselves rather than the article. My suggestion to both is to ignore any comments that do not directly relate to the article, which is why I think a good starting point would be to include a list of brief points (a bulleted list always makes a good start) everyone would like to see covered. -Smahoney 06:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I for one am a little shocked by the Kaufmann quotation that igni just posted, because it indicates that the Kaufmann quotation in the article stops mid-sentence. I went to place the rest of the quotation in the section and it says: "do not insert any more material in this section". Surely we need the rest of the quotation. Igni? — goethean ॐ 14:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Please, everyone, pardon my misplaced absence from this talk page, but it seems this weekend has become a time consuming affair and I will not be able to do much of anything. This is essentially my last five minutes. As that would have it, I strongly encourage the rest of the quotation be placed in the article—for it of course gives a false picture that may lead some such as Petrejo to believe, and this is not in any shape or form the genuine conditions regarding Nietzsche. Until next week, Später. — ^ignis _scripta 19:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

By all means, please include the rest of the quotation by Kaufmann, and add a little more. Unfortunately, that quote doesn't explain the "strong philosophic reasons" that Kaufmann alleges to defend Nietzsche's failure to have a system. (One needs to read Kaufmann's whole book to judge that for oneself.) Yet Kaufmann questions whether Kant had a system, and so did Fichte, but Kant rightly found that charge "incomprehensible." Kaufmann's quick inclusion of Nietzsche with the Greats of Philosophy justifies his book. But at least Kaufmann cited the other side. (Plato and Socrates, being the *founders* of Philosophy, may be absolved from the criteria by which we evaluate later Philosophers. After Aristotle, all proper Philosophers deal with formal systems. It's about Reason, not about Opinions.) It's not enough to just quote Kaufmann that little bit -- the *point* is that "men have not been lacking who have not considered him a philosopher at all." That fact wasn't the main point of Kaufmann's book on Nietzsche, but I'm glad he brought it up -- that speaks well for Kaufmann's sense of objectivity. In a NPOV Encyclopedia, those who regard the writings of Nietzsche to be merely literary productions that fail to stand up to the demands of Philosophy proper, should at minimum be cited once. Otherwise one falls into the apologetic mode of most Encyclopedia articles on Nietzsche (and Heidegger). We can do better. 66.143.165.1 11:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Look, he's obviously not biased against anyone that says "Nietzsche is not a philosopher", so you don't need to inject all of your reasoning based on Hegel/Aristotle/etc. It is important to note that Nietzsche did criticise philosophical tradition and in that move did things differently. So your inappropriate intensity to see him only as a non-philosopher is really taken too far, and I would say the same for those who thought of Nietzsche as "not a philosopher". But on that point I do think they should be mentioned, too.Non-vandal 21:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The list

Anyway, let's get back to the sound request for a bulleted list of objections by those who believe this article is POV.

* The article should state that Nietzsche isn't regarded by all philosophers as a philosopher. Nietzsche's lack of a published, formal work on Philosophy itself (and no, journalistic opinions don't count) is first evidence. His lack of a degree (e.g. formal study) on the topic is secondary evidence.

Agreed. Additionally, like all criticisms, these sections should be sourced to specific philosophers. -Smahoney 19:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed per Sethmahoney. mgekelly 10:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

* The article should state that Nietzsche is eternally involved in controversy over his hate-statements about Women, Jews (despite the fact that he disliked anti-Semites other than Wagner), and the weak and downtrodden.

Absolutely agreed. As above, citations to philosophers (not just leading Nietzsche quotes) are absolutely necessary here. -Smahoney 19:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, except that Nietzsche should not be described as making 'hate statements', unless this description is specifically referenced to a scholarly commentator, or unless Nietzsche actually made a comment of the nature "I hate x" (which he did not, and he explicitly repudiates hatred per se). It should be made clear that Nietzsche opposed anti-semitism, for example, as well. mgekelly 10:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, Mgekelly, what about this word-for-word comment from Nietzsche?

...This morality is: the mediocre are worth more than the exceptions...I rebel against the translation of reality into morality: therefore 'I abhor Christianity with a deadly hatred.'

— Nietzsche, The Will to Power, sec. 685, trans. Walter Kaufmann'

And there's plenty more where that came from, as I have amply demonstrated. Oddly, my critics now remove from me (and from Nietzsche) one of his most famous books, The Will To Power as they claim it was a "forgery" and can no longer be used against him. Therefore, I've now collected even more quotations of Nietzsche in the section on Sources below, and these new quotes aren't from The Will To Power. If Nietzsche used hate language (and I say he did) then it's POV to try to disguise the fact. Petrejo 04:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

* The article should state clearly that Nietzsche's writings were *widely* used as a support for the Nazi period by the highest brass in the Nazi Party. Further, using Karl Jaspers to argue against this is weak since Jaspers was also among the saluting masses of the period, and Jaspers was trying to apologize for the whole mess.

Agreed again. This entire debate, including addressing the issue of how deeply his sister was involved in this interpretation, varying views on his degree of anti-Semitism and misogeny (which are both by no means entirely black and white in his writing), needs to be better covered. As above, sources are key. -Smahoney 19:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Förster-Nietzsche withheld Nietzsche's Ecce Homo for years as one means of distorting the appearance of Nietzsche. There's a great deal she did to get the Nazi's on Nietzsche. But then without it, it is unlikely Nietzsche would have been noticed anyway. Kaufmann is a good source on her methods. It was also from Nazism's assosciation with Nietszche that led to a complete rejection of Nietzsche by the English speaking world. Of course, this guilt by assosciation was altered mostly through the work of Kaufmann.Non-vandal 06:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

No. Blaming Nietzsche's sister for all Nietzsche's sins is living in denial. The most telling connection between Nietzsche and Nazi was Adolf Hitler himself, who worshipped the ground that Nietzsche walked. Hitler honored Nietzsche long before he met Elizabeth -- she didn't have to sell anything to the new Fuehrer; he was already sold. Deal with the truth. Nor is this original research, it's well-known history, accepted by every objective scholar. Petrejo 05:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

"Sins"? Don't make me laugh. Your callow moralising of Nietzsche is utterly preposterous and it should be shoved up your arse. Other than that, everything else you said is "objective", except the "sold" part needs a disclaimer: the Fuehrer clearly didn't understand a word of Nietzsche's thought. -Some body

The Nazizeit connections to Nietzsche must be covered, but so must the conscious usage of Nietzsche by his sister and brother-in-law. There should certainly be a separate article on this issue, and it should only be covered in outline here. mgekelly 10:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

* The article should allow quotations from Nietzsche that show Nietzsche in his negative light, so that the real points can't be minimized or white-washed by apologists.

I'm more hesitant to agree here. Nietzsche is difficult to read with understanding, and quotes taken out of context can be misleading. Especially considering his rather gnomic style, it would be easy to construct a narrative using quotes from him that would support virtually any view (which, I think, is one of the problems you're having with the article as it is now). What I would prefer to see here is quotes or paraphrases from Nietzsche critics, sourced of course, and then use supporting quotes from Nietzsche where appropriate. -Smahoney 19:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you Smahoney, for it would simply be an "anything goes" situation, and that leads us to nowhere. A more preferable and precise method would be to cite Nietzsche's writings as examples only where necessary when dealing with someone's interpretation of him. — ^ignis _scripta 20:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

This is an inappropriate suggestion. Wikipedia is a tertiary, not a primary or secondary source. This is a matter of policy. Quotes to Wikiquote, not this article. mgekelly 10:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

That should do for now as an initial bulleted list. I reserve the right to revise and extend my list as the debate ensues. Petrejo 19:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course. For the most part it looks perfectly reasonable to me. I would like to state again that, given Nietzsche's difficulty and lack of transparency I would rather see more secondary sources used than Nietzsche quotes. This shouldn't be too difficult - I'm sure there are plenty of analytic philosophers deeply opposed to Nietzsche as a philosopher, and liberal philosophers opposed to Nietzsche's philosophy, in addition to many philosophers who embrace bits of Nietzsche. What I'd like to see is a sort of dialogue between various readings of Nietzsche, but not in the lame "Some say Nietzsche X, while critics respond, etc." style. -Smahoney 19:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is my short list/addition.

• All previous materials must (i.e., when it thereby increases the value of the article) be sacrificed for cited work. All new material must likewise be cited.

I'm not sure about sacrificing, but yes. Everything should be cited. -Smahoney 20:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand the meaning of this proposal. mgekelly 10:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• The concept of will to power must here be mentioned under Key concepts.

Absolutely. The article will to power apparently exists. The mention under key concepts should briefly summarize the concept and then link to that article (which should probably be rewritten). -Smahoney 20:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. mgekelly 10:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Master-Slave morality section needs to explicate the nature of this idea, involving how it is not a particular advocation by Nietzsche, but rather an analysis of morality itself (e.g., Genealogy of Morals).

Sure, though again, this should be sourced. -Smahoney 20:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it should be sourced. One thing, though: most Nietzsche scholars put this aspect of his thought under the rubric "slave morality," not "master-slave morality." Nietzsche was primarily interested in diagnosing the then dominant moral climate of Europe: slave morality. Master morality is just part of his genealogy. More importantly, here, in coming up with names of aspects of his thought: what precisly would "master-slave morality" refer to? --Cultural Freedom talk 07:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Nietzsche goes on to describe his moral climate as a sort of combination of these, hence leading to nihilism and all that. So, master-slave morality would refer to this contradiction of values. But this combination, as I think he said, occurred during his time under special circumstances.Non-vandal 07:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The combination is what leads to nihilism? The stress is almost always on the "self-annihilation" of (ultimately) Christian values (via the will to truth). More importantly, where does Nietzsche use the term, or a term like, "master-slave morality"? --Cultural Freedom talk 07:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Nihilism is a symptom and a part of it is decadence. He never actually refers to a "master-slave morality" as such. Even so, you are quite correct, but you cannot neglect his points on "European buddhism" etc that also play a part in this.Non-vandal 10:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, my main point is that the term "Master-Slave morality" should not be in any serious article about Nietzsche. --Cultural Freedom talk 08:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Nietzsche's influence and reception only deals with the English-speaking world's reception as if it were the reception. Essentially, the French-speaking world, e.g., Deleuze's Nietzsche & Philosophy, serves as an example of some of the first works/writings to begin an expansion of the reception of Nietzsche (a reversion of the Nazi picture without Kaufmann's aid, etc).

This is a great idea. At the same time, Nietzsche's reception in the English-speaking world should not be underemphasized. -Smahoney 20:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, that plays a huge role within the various attitudes toward Nietzsche. — ^ignis _scripta 21:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

This is important per Wikipedia:Countering systemic bias mgekelly 10:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Some of the new information gleaned by Friedrich Nietzsche and Weimar Classicism (by R.H. Stephenson and Paul Bishop) should be added. Another excellent source would be Nietzsche and Antiquity.

Maybe we should start another subsection on this talk page for compiling sources? -Smahoney 20:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

That would be excellent and easily help promote the growth of the article so that others may view what we will be working from in order expand it, etc. — ^ignis _scripta 20:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

There are more, but as progression is made these will be in purview. One last note, I will not be able to contribute much this week—only a few sparse things due to work and occurrences outside of this place. I'm not sure when these things will relent, but I will try keep an eye on how things develop here and help when I can. — ^ignis _scripta 20:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I must also ask for more time to formalize my own case here, due to work and other pressing obligations. In a week or so I'll offer citations from recognized scholars to help me form appropriate arguments against the apologetic, Nietzsche-advocacy POV. Petrejo 05:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The "traditional foundations"

The reason I changed the end of the paragraph (which you then reverted) was that it didn't make sense. Think about it: Here's the ending you want: ... the crisis faced by Western culture in the wake of the irreparable disturbances to its traditional foundations (i.e., "European morality" and values in Nietzsche's phrase). But Western culture includes morality; and "Western" means European, for Nietzsche. This means the ending you want is: ... the crisis faced by Western culture in the wake of the irreparable disturbances to its traditional foundations (i.e., "Western culture" and values in Nietzsche's phrase). So it sounds like Western culture is disturbed by its foundations, which = Western culture. So Western culture is disturbed by Western culture. Nietzsche has two genealogies dealing with the traditional foundations of Western culture: the one starting with Socrates, and the one starting the Jews and Jesus. (One doesn't need a reference for that!) That's why I made the change I did. Otherwise, the sentence doesn't make sense.Cultural Freedom talk 21:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I second guessed myself there and thought it was fine, only it needed a reference where it was treated closesly, such as Beyond Good and Evil. No problems here.Non-vandal 21:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Beautiful! A triumph of collective Willen! :) Cultural Freedom talk 21:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to get the term secularization in the paragraph somewhere. I think that it encapsulates the crisis of nihilism. — goethean ॐ 21:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that secularization has a lot to do with the crisis of nihilism, but speaking about secularization and nihilism in connection with Nietzsche is tricky. For Nietzsche, the seeds of nihilism were already in the Jewish/Christian experience of slavery, which led to "reactive" definitions of the Good, the will to truth, etc. The will to truth -- and as I noted before, there's the parallel genealogy that starts with Socrates -- then "turned against itself," and this lead to nihilism. But that doesn't mean we can't talk about secularization; we just need to make sure to highlight how, for Nietzsche, it's (at least mostly) an internal development within Christianity itself. Cultural Freedom talk 07:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Nietzsche and the Dreyfus Affair

Originally i entered a snippet in the section regarding his influence and the Dreyfus Affair. I simply stated that French anti-semites casted Jewish and Leftist intellectuals as Nietschean. Someone changed this sentence to imply that this is part of the 'confused reception' of Nietzsche. I consider this a tacit value judgment about 'right wing' content of Nietzsche's philosophy!

see also

You know, I prefer the previous, minimalistic version with just the link to Kierkegaard comparisons under "see also". Is it necessary to have so many "see also" links in this already excessively long article? These are all linked to in the article body. So many articles could be linked to, where does it end? I suspect that this is our Stirner-pushing friend at work again. — goethean ॐ 20:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm inclined to agree on the simple point there are simply too many, and those worth mentioning are already clearly addressed within the article. I'll delete them if there are no objections. — ^ignis _scripta 20:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You of course were meaning to link to this version, correct? — ^ignis _scripta 20:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Actually, it turns out that I lied: Menno ter Braak, Emil Cioran, and Philipp Mainländer are not mentioned in the article. They should be added to the "reception" section. — goethean ॐ 20:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

If that is the case, you can go about adding them there, whilst I go to the simpler version of see also, klar? — ^ignis _scripta 20:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Ja wohl. — goethean ॐ 20:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Just as a bit of info: Any article linked to in the article body should not be linked to in the "see also" section. And the "see also" section should primarily be used as a way to store links until they are eventually incorporated into the article body. -Smahoney 20:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The See also guide isn't that specific, but I would agree with that in principle. — ^ignis _scripta 20:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

According to his article, Philipp Mainländer was a (negative) influence on Nietzsche, so I added him to see also until he can be added to the appropriate biographical section. — goethean ॐ 20:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

No, but yeah, as a style issue, that is what should be done. Links in context are much more informative than when taken out of context. -Smahoney 20:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

With that I most certainly am in agreement. — ^ignis _scripta 21:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The see also section is absurd, Phillip Mainlander should certainly be mentioned in context, perhaps in relation to Nietzsche's desire to oppose nihilism, and the less man which Mainlander's thought represents. If the Kiekegaard/Nietzsche similarities could be addressed in the article then the link could be given in context.That way the section could be scrapped. Or it could be improved, by adding only influenced by and similar thinkers, as influenced would be the most extensive list. But the two links out of context just seem odd --Itafroma 14:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)itafroma

Article length

I suggest, to shorten the article, one of three options: either move the political and views on women to a new article called Nietzsche's social and political views, or to move the Reception of Nietzsche section to a new article, or move both sections to new articles. We will leave one paragraph and use Wikipedia:Summary style, as with the other sections. Thoughts? — goethean ॐ 19:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I like your first option, because the "social and political" views are for the oversensitive who like to nitpick against Nietzsche and what he's all about. The rest belongs in this article, wouldn't you think?Non-vandal 20:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

So, how about it?Non-vandal 21:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd wait until more editors agree before making major changes. I'll be offline for the weekend. — goethean ॐ 21:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, no big deal. Time is all we have it seems...Non-vandal 21:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

oops...I couldn't resist and did it. — goethean ॐ 22:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I passsed thorugh here in a short break from my WIki-absence, and I like what you did. --Marinus 00:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Goethean, I noticed how you replaced the text I deleted (the very bottom paragraph at the influences and reception section) and added another paragraph that had long been deleted. I actually object to the place of both in the article right now, because, as you noticed, I was trying to limit the extent of the section with a subsection "In philosophy". Well, right now, I think we should keep our focus small. There's too much we'd have to include if we just list "Nietzsche influenced, X, Y, Z [the whole alphabet]" without actually explaining how this is so and of what importance it actually carries. I agree I should have discussed, but here I am now. I've removed them, and placed them here for whatever.Non-vandal 01:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

From the article:

Early twentieth-century thinkers influenced by Nietzsche include: philosophers Georg Brandes, Henri Bergson, Martin Buber, Jean-Paul Sartre, Albert Camus, Aleister Crowley, and Muhammad Iqbal; sociologist Max Weber; theologian Paul Tillich; novelists Hermann Hesse, André Malraux, André Gide, and D. H. Lawrence; psychologists Alfred Adler, Abraham Maslow, Carl Rogers, and Rollo May; popular philosopher Ayn Rand; poets Rainer Maria Rilke, James Douglas Morrison, and William Butler Yeats; and playwrights George Bernard Shaw and Eugene O'Neill. American writer H.L. Mencken avidly read and translated Nietzsche's works and has gained the soubriquet "the American Nietzsche".

Harold Bloom has described Nietzsche as "Emerson's belated rival". Bloom's theory of the "anxiety of influence" betrays a Nietzschean influence. Others influenced by Nietzsche include "Death of God"-theologian Thomas Altizer, and novelists Nikos Kazantzakis, Mikhail Artsybashev, and Lu Xun. Nietzsche also influenced musician Jim Morrison, and Anton LaVey, the Church of Satan and Stanley Kubrick's film 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Your sources omitted L. Ron Hubbard who cited Nietzsche as a source in the frontspiece of 'Scientology 8-8008'. So: Aleister (666) Crowley, Lawrence of Arabia, Hesse, Alfred (tough love) Adler, self-styled selfishness guru, Ayn Rand, a Templar poet, a couple of playwrights, newspaper journalist Henry Mencken, Anton LaVey and L. Ron Hubbard. Yep, sounds like Classical Philosophy -- to the average American. Petrejo 06:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey! I'm glad you actually saw those flaws. No one said the article was perfect (apparently many think it could use a lot of work). Perhaps you could go about improving it rather than attempting to denounce everyone here? That's why anyone can edit the article. But before doing that you might want to brush up on policies and all that. Some of your edits already show an ignorance of how Wikipedia works which is easily fixable.Non-vandal 07:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to hear a reason why the fact of Nietzsche's influence on these literary figures should be omitted from the article. This stuff is in Kaufmann's Nietzsche if you want a reference. — goethean ॐ 21:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

"God is dead"

Nietzsche never claims directly that God is dead, so I made a few changes to reflect that. If anyone can find a quote where Nietzsche directly makes this claim, please let us know. Cultural Freedom 10:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm really beginning to think this is an overemphasis on your part to the point of obscurity. Section 108 is a case in point here. Simply saying "He put it in quotation marks" seems superfluous in all seriousness. He did state it, and the proclamation, on his view and part, is no different if he rephrases it differently afterward. So, I really think the phrase "typically placed in quotation marks" with the reference is pointless. For all it does, vaguely, is give a sample of how he expounded upon it. And so in this context, an encylopedia, it does not fit at all. What I'm getting at is why include this specifically when it is already mentioned (i.e., "The Madman" and AsZ)?Non-vandal 09:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, but there's an important answer to your question (of why to include it): It's extremely important to point out that Nietzsche in no way believed that God is dead. There's a bunch of scholarship to support this (going way back, in fact, but more recently with Breazeale and Pippin, and of course Derrida). To put it too coarsely: we have to make sure we don't turn Nietzsche into Bertrand Russell (a "pale atheist"). I'm not saying you or anyone here is trying to do that, but I think we have to highlight Nietzsche's self-distancing from "God is dead." And the reason he almost always -- I'm embarrassed that I forgot about FW 108, but there's an explanation for that -- puts it it quotes is that he also believes "God is alive": it is the very will to truth (which comes from Christianity, and is obviously with us, and even with Nietzsche) that, paradoxically, makes atheism, including the atheistic streaks in Nietzsche's own thought, possible. (See the profound, and tragically overlooked Section 346 of The Gay Science: "Our Question Marks.") I like your recent rewrite, but I think the point that it's in quotation marks really needs to stay, otherwise a vital aspect of Nietzsche's struggle with nihilism risks disappearing. Cultural Freedom talk 09:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the swift reply. I agree largely, and I see where you are coming from: Nietzsche due to the demands of intellectual integrity leaves the question of God quite open (he's not out to "destroy God" and the like, etc), and the distancing is indeed there. I simply needed a clearer formulation of your premises and that fits the bill.Non-vandal 10:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

And thanks for your swift reply! (I'm going mostly off-line for a while -- possibly a few days -- starting in a few minutes; might be able to check in quickly, though, while on the road, but no more swift replies for a while.) A quick thought: maybe we can bag my claim, but then have an entirely separate section, called something like "Interpretive Challenges" or "Nietzsche's Esoterism" or "Irony in Nietzsche", or something like that, where we could take up a couple of the obvious (and well-discussed, and easily citable) interpretive difficulties with Nietzsche: 1) "God is dead" 2) Übermensch (did Nietzsche really believe the Übermensch was coming, or is Zarathustra's (wavering) belief in the Übermensch yet another example of nihilism, "taken to its limit",) etc., etc.Cultural Freedom talk 10:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I like the significant interest that will garner. But debits and credits aside (I like the "Interpretive challenges" title, for it's most open), it would have to be integrated very carefully with the Key concepts and the Influences and reception somehow. This article has existed for so long in this cobbled state... Well, let's give ourselves time to think this one through. For example, decadence plays a key role in his "higher men", "new philosophers", and other creations, and these haven't even been mentioned! I suppose we can take this further at a later time.Non-vandal 10:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Although it is true that Nietzsche places the quotation in mouths of his characters, I dislike putting the quotation marks around God. — goethean ॐ 14:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I see your point -- but is the current version OK? Cultural Freedom 14:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry -- you put quotes around 'death', not 'god'. Your version is acceptable, but the previous version is preferable to me. — goethean ॐ 15:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

One objection is that Nietzsche called it the death of God, not the "death" of God. — goethean ॐ 15:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, though I'm not sure that matters in this context. Either way, I changed the quotes. If you want to include the "the", feel free! My main point in making the change was just to emphasize that Nietzsche never claimed that God is dead, so as long as that point doesn't get lost in the section title, I'm happy! Cultural Freedom talk 15:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Although we have no evidence that Nietzsche read Hegel, and plenty of evidence that he didn't, still, 19th century Germany was buzzing with the ideas of Hegel, and in 1807 Hegel shocked many with his discourse on the death of God in his Phenomenology of Spirit (para. 752). That is probably what Nietzsche refers to in his Zarathustra and other places. (Although Hegel was widely misunderstood -- he was actually referring to the crucifixion of Christ.) Also in his 1807 book, Hegel introduced a lengthy dialectic about the Master/Slave relationship (para. 178-196) that shook Germany for generations. The German discourse on Hegel is probably what Nietzsche refers to in his own writings on Master/Slave morality. In sum, the 19th century European buzz about Hegel formed the environment in which Kierkegaard and Nietzsche wrote. They didn't have to read Hegel to hear his ideas everywhere. Petrejo 11:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

(Does one keep indenting, or should I have gone back to my three-colon indent above?) Agree completely about the Hegel milieu that informed Nietzsche's thought, and agree, too, that it surely had an influence on Nietzsche's thought about Christianity in (then) modern Europe. But I think your point has a far deeper and broader implication here: that we need a "Background" section (or maybe a separate article?) that takes this up, not just a fix to the bit about "God is dead." Moi, no time now, on the road. Cultural Freedom talk 15:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC) P.S. Anyone know why someone would redirect my user page to someone else's user page? Are there "dangerous" people here? I've had run-ins with Internet psychopaths before. Not fun.

That sounds like an excellent idea. (Indenting is fine. As for the vandalism: vandals have nothing better to do than cause trouble, so don't worry about it.)Non-vandal 21:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

"God is dead": Where stated directly by Nietzsche?

I know of only Die fröhliche Wissenschaft, section 108. Any others? To Chef aka Pangloss, thanks for the reminder about Section 108; about my claims: they are hardly speculation, but I'll leave them out until I recall something to cite. Best, Cultural Freedom talk 18:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[1] Could we please try to resolve this peaceably? — goethean ॐ 20:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The I part of "we" is happy to! :) Cultural Freedom talk 21:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Section 343 clearly shows what grounds I come from, plus Schacht in his Nietzsche talks all about how "God is dead" pervades Nietzsche's cosmology and biological thought. So at best, like Pangloss said, your edits are "speculation" and unmerited. "God is dead" is not some literary element (or "trope"), more significantly it plays into Nietzsche's philosophy.Non-vandal 21:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

There are several issues here. (1) My claims about why Nietzsche almost always puts "God is Dead" in scare-quotes are not simply speculation, but are the conclusions of many Nietzsche scholars. (2) However, without having the time to get the references, I agree they should be left out. (3) Nietzsche was a master rhetorician, and chose his words exceedingly carefully. The fact that he almost always puts the words "God is dead" in someone else's mouth means this article cannot reflect the questionable view that "Nietzsche believed that God was dead" (or any such statement). "God is dead" may be more than simply a trope, but Nehamas, Derrida, and many others believe its function as a trope was important to Nietzsche. If you want to remove the word "trope," I won't fight it. Just don't leave the article in a state where someone reading it would believe that a significant element in Nietzsche's philosophy was his claim that "God is dead", for that is incorrect. At a minimum "The statement addresses the impending crisis..." is, at a minimum, horrible English, and should go. Cultural Freedom talk 21:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

CF, How is that phrase horrible English? — goethean ॐ 21:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I understand. — goethean ॐ 21:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

See my change- (Note: we're all capable of horrible English when grappling with Nietzsche! Even Kaufmann's generally majestic translations have their occasional muddy parts!) Cultural Freedom talk 21:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with the note on "scare-quotes", but if you are going to write something about the matter, use references, otherwise it looks like your work. Sure it functions as a trope but that doesn't mean it doesn't function philosophically.Non-vandal 21:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree! But, you have to admit, there's a lot of stuff here without references that has stood unchallenged for a long time.... Cultural Freedom talk 21:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It's about time to start, don't you think? I'd like that. People here have plans of getting this thing to where it deserves.Non-vandal 21:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree! This is good cause. I might be off-line for a week or so, but if so, I'll definitely be back. Cultural Freedom talk 21:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

CF, you just lost half the article in an unsuccessful revert. Pls stop reverting and discuss this. — goethean ॐ 21:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

No, G, it was your ref, I fixed it.Non-vandal 21:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thnx, sorry, etc. — goethean ॐ 21:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Übermensch

I'm not so sure about using the literal translation, Overman, in place of Übermensch. The German word über is used in a much more general context than the English over, so I think, rather than a literal translation, it should be either left as Übermensch with "Overman or Superman" written in brackets on the first instance, or Superman should be used with the alternative Overman given. Übermensch has become a well accepted term in English in relation to Nietzche, so I am in favour of the former option. In various books, I've seen all three forms (Übermensch, Overman and Superman), but I just think Overman looks a bit silly, because it doesn't really make sense in English, whereas Superman (derived from supercede) makes a bit more sense. Opinions? --Nathan (Talk) 01:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Check this out. Things have slowed down here. But I think these guys will get around to it. Eventually.Non-vandal 09:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe the revisions made in the section about the Ubermench need to be coincidered for assimilation,they are varified by Nietzsche scholarship.

Decadence

Would anyone object to a small section on 'decadence' under Key Concepts? I was thinking something like this (taken from http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Cult/CultScot.htm):

"While Nietzsche used the term "decadence" throughout his published writings, in the late works he used it more frequently, and it took on the status of a technical term. Decadence, for Nietzsche, refers to the decay of values, which Nietzsche thought was inevitable because they are basically rationales for existence, and since there is no objective truth they can only be subjectively true-true only for certain people and certain times. When they are no longer true, they decay. Nietzsche claimed that decadence was the problem which "preoccupied [him] more profoundly" than any other because this inevitable decay of values was a threat to the culture, and by extension, the human species. (1) Values or rationales for existence are so important because in order to survive, let alone flourish, human beings require the creation of values. These values provide rationales for why we suffer and aid us in surviving and hopefully flourishing in spite of that suffering. (2) Without them, Nietzsche claimed that we would be in a condition of nihilism which would lead to mass suicide. Since Nietzsche placed value on a culture based on the type of great, flourishing individuals it produces, if its values are in decay, then it will be unable to produce these great individuals and it will be in decay. This then is the paradox of decadence: human beings have to create values, but any values that they will create will eventually decay."

And a section on 'the will to power' (the idea, not the book) should also be included, I think. These should be brief of course, but after deleting these unnecesary quotations they should fit in nicely. Dume7 16:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the decadence section will be duly considered, in fact it has my support, but at this point the article still remarkably lacks coherence. Additionally, I think the new topic will have to go after the Christianity section. — ^ignis _scripta 17:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Nietzsche's Name

In the article, it says his name comes from a king or something? You mean, I'm guessing, his parents named him after that king? Could someone rephrase that a tad? Niki Whimbrel 17:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, Nietzsche has the same birthday like the Prussian king Friedrich Wilhelm (=Frederic William). In the 19th century Prussia had a strong alliance between the king and the local church. Because Nietzsche's father was a priest, he wanted to show his allegiance to the king.--Kryston 20:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Clarifying that in the article. Niki Whimbrel 01:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't know if this is important enough for a description of Nietzsche... --Kryston 06:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Another nitpick

Sorry if this all seems a bit anal of me, but in the sidebar, the Apollonian and Dionysian links in Notable ideas go to the same place, and I wonder if making them one link might be easier.Niki Whimbrel 18:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

To address this issue, I have created an article stub at Apollonian and Dionysian. I plan on transferring some of the material that is currently at Birth of Tragedy to the new article. — goethean ॐ 20:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

One more--regarding Salome and his pursuit of her, the article says he pursued her "despite their mutual friend Ree." Was Ree (sorry, I've not yet learned to use accent marks) also interested in Salome? Niki Whimbrel 02:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

References

I deleted the huge and becoming-more-political references section. Why: this article needs real references.Non-vandal 07:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)