User talk:Igni

Contents 1 Welcome 2 Image copyright problem with Image:Ignisscripta.jpg 3 Re: Nietzsche vandalism 4 übermensch 5 Interwiki Nietzsche 6 Nietzsche Article 7 Anti-Wagnerite 8 Talk:Sturm und Drang 9 Thompson article 10 Schiller, ok: why Goethe? 11 German philosophers, German-language philosophers, or writers of German-language philosophy 12 wikEd

[edit] Welcome

Hello, Igni, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Kukini 07:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Ignisscripta.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ignisscripta.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Stan 13:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Nietzsche vandalism

Hello,

Thanks for letting me know about this, I'll keep an eye open. I won't be editing very heavily for the next couple of months, as I've got exams etc coming up. After that I hope to contribute to some of the Nietzsche-related articles, as I've been researching the subject recently. Cheers, --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 09:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Cheers, Igni. Petrejo's changes seem to be similar to the ones you alerted me about a while ago. Since I'd looked up the passages P was inserting, I thought I'd point out the flaws on the talk page to save other ppl the bother. It makes it easier to revert on sight if it happens again. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 07:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] übermensch

You quoted Walter Kauffman's "Will to Power" :

Such men as Napoleon must come again and again and confirm the belief in the autocracy of the individual: but he himself was corrupted by the means he had to employ and lost noblesse of character. If he had had to prevail among a different kind of man he could have employed other means; and it would thus not seem to be a necessity for a Caesar to become bad [my italics for this last phrase].

Very revealing indeed. Whatever the case, Nietzsche was far from being an "authoritarian" and that is most certainly not indicated by his extolments about Napoleon. Added to this would be a reading of Goethe's views on Napoleon, which may be found in Conversations with Eckermann. In short, out with the false statement: "advocated an authoritarian united Europe". It is a miscalculation, perhaps even (consciously or unconsciously) under the guise of Fascist-Nazi ideology, for which we are no longer naive enough to accept as remotely plausible. In any event, it may be fruitful to recognize his statement on "[woman's] due tribute" in addition to his view on Schopenhauer à la Pascal.^ignis_scripta 20:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Would you be able to give me the exact date of the fragment (sect.1026 - I don't use an English edition and mines are classed by date)? I would really be interested by it. Thanks in advance. Lapaz 20:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I left my reply at the talk page.[1] ^ignis_scripta 01:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I will most certainly use it for personal work. However, I believe it would be interesting to quote that in the article, as it shows both Nietzsche's admiration for "great men" and his despise for "decadent" cultures, in which "great men" are necessarily "decadent" (in other words, his ambiguous judgements of such heroes of history, acclaimed before him by Hegel). Since you quoted it, I believe it would be more appropriate for you to insert it. Sincerely, Lapaz 15:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interwiki Nietzsche

Hallo. There aren't many empty spaces to fill in this very good article, I fear. But I will do my very best. To be honest, the English WP on Nietzsche is better in many aspects like the different works of Nietzsche.--Kryston 22:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC) P.S. I wasn't sure, if your rule of answering on the pages you left your notes is for other wikis too...

No problem. That is excellent news, as far as I'm concerned. It's good to have a fair estimation of how things stand for the Germans as well. I look forward to further encounters we may very well have. — ^ignis _scripta 22:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nietzsche Article

Why do you insist reverting all of my changes? If you would like to point out a specific problem with my editing do so here. The Nietzsche article is too long and poorly formatted and I'm trying to fixing that by deleting superfluous info, and fixing some basic mistakes. Let's work together on this make a better article. For instance, on an article this long, there doesn't need to be a trivia section with one tidbit about Jim Morrison in it. There just ins't space. There a lot of great info in here but we need to condense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dume7 (talk • contribs).

It is an exaggeration to say I reverted all of them, only those that are bad in format and simply false. Some material that you deleted was replaced by another editor, if you observe the history, and I would agree with that individual on that point, but not on the one calling it "vandalism". Anyway, I look forward to anything else you may decide to contribute. I agree that the trivia section and some of the other things you deleted were of no value, but we need to leave in what is valuable. — ^ignis _scripta 01:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

What valuable info did I delete? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dume7 (talk • contribs).

(Please do not delete our conversation.) You deleted the last sentence in the opening paragraph of the article, which is valuable to an extent. Other than that, I see nothing else as troublesome. — ^ignis _scripta 01:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

That sentence is long and it focuses on other people. I feel that the first sentences of an article should contain only the most essential info about the topic itself. In this case, I feel it strays away from Nietzsche himself to list other people like that.

You do realize that, if anything, we should be pairing down this article, not adding to it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dume7 (talk • contribs).

(Please sign with "~~~~" at the end of your posts.) Yes, if that is your reasoning, I see no issue with it. — ^ignis _scripta 01:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank youDume7 02:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC) About the classicism/nihilism thing, I suggest that neither be listed because Nietzsche did not support nihilism (quite the contrary), and listing it under his ideas suggests that he was in favor of it. Classicism was one of Nietsche's main interests, but it wasn't an 'idea' of his. Dume7 02:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Classicism isn't listed (I removed it because it is too general a term to be of much use there). As for Nihilism, it is too significant to be viewed as though he advocated it, a small sentence dispelling that misguided view would be simple enough; therefore, I think it should stay in. However, his treatment of it is much more complex than the article would make apparent—many of his notes suggest this. — ^ignis _scripta 02:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Would you agree that nietzsche was an anti-nihilist? Have you considered changing it to that? Dume7 02:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, that is a question that wouldn't be of much worth to answer, since that constitutes a personal perspective. Honestly, I don't see how a "notable idea" could be construed as though it were something for which he advocated. So essentially, no, I never gave that much consideration. And in any case, he very clearly defines his conception of nihilism, and thereby it is tantamount to one of his own ideas. The article Nihilism does, however, invite the view that it was Nietzsche's "philosophical view", which is not at all accurate. — ^ignis _scripta 02:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

He also defined his concept of Christianty, which, as we both know, is much more prominent in his works than nihilism. Does that mean Christianity should be included there, too? I don't know how anybody could read the man's works an think he was anything but anti-nihilist. He is constantly deriding people for being nihilistic. Saying things like (quoting from Kauffman's translation) "There I have you nihilist!" It's pretty clear to me. When I see 'notable ideas' on a philospher's article, I assume that there were things they supported, not just ideas they addressed. That said, nobody is really in favor of nihilism, but some people are at content with it, and I'm pretty sure nietzsche wasn't one of those people. Dume7 02:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I suppose my ad hoc supposition (based on my knowledge on Nietzsche), when viewed in regard to those learning about Nietzsche, does little, therefore I agree it should be deleted. The body of the article, as it already partly does, can give a fair overview of how he dealt with it. — ^ignis _scripta 02:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. As you can see, all of the other listed ideas were ones that Nietzsche basically supported or created from scratch, and nihilism really jumped out upon initial viewing as something that didn't quite fit. 71.76.212.61 02:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad someone, aiming to improve the article, came around, much good came from our collaboration. And for that I'm grateful. — ^ignis _scripta 02:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Wagnerite

They may have indeed have been friends beforehand and they may have been enemies, but the readers do not know that and it would appear contradicting to insert both cats in the article. Choosing one would be the best choice. Эйрон Кинни (t) 03:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

If that is the only choice, Anti-Wagnerite would have to remain, since that was his position at the end of his philosophical productivity. — ^ignis _scripta 03:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we should include both, because he was both, and both are equally part of his life. The fact is he did contradict himself in this case (nothing wrong with that), and to list him only as an anti-wagnerite is to imply that he was never friends with Wagner, and they were very close friends for years. We can't exclude his earlier feelings from his biography just because they weren't his final conclusions. Dume3 18:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I readded it simply because it is false to suppose they are contradictory and thereby suited for deletion, where one predominates. Profoundly enough, a contradiction can nonetheless remain true. — ^ignis _scripta 20:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Sturm und Drang

You just added some text to Talk:Sturm und Drang that is a copyright violation. I think that the material should be removed, even from the talk page. We don't want Jimmy Wales to delete the article again. — goethean ॐ 21:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Undoubtedly, you are correct. An unintentional outcome is the material may be viewed in the history, which may have positive effects. — ^ignis _scripta 21:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thompson article

igni, could I ask a personal favor? Could I put the Template:Quotation back in the William Irwin Thompson article? This article is on my favorite contemporary author, and I hate Template:cquote. — goethean ॐ 21:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I honestly see no problem with that, it is only a matter of personal preference after all. — ^ignis _scripta 21:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I just don't like the big graphical quotation marks. And on the other hand, I like the gray shading in template:quotation. — goethean ॐ 21:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schiller, ok: why Goethe?

I'm generally an inclusionist, but the recent inclusion of Schiller and Goethe leads me to ask: why Goethe? (Schiller as philosopher: fine with me.) But on the basis of what texts by Goethe would he be included in this list? I won't remove him, but wanted to ask. Universitytruth 22:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

In fact, if we include Goethe, then I think we should rename the list entirely, as well as the first sentence. Instead of "The following is a list of philosophers who wrote in the German language," it would have to read "The following is a list of people who wrote philosophy in the German language." But this is all predicated on someone listing a text by Goethe that would count as philosophy by some reasonable standard. Universitytruth 23:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

User Goethean has provided a defense for keeping Goethe in the list, so I redirected the list to a new page, as per talk. Same user then chided me for doing so before waiting to hear from you. I don't mind reverting at all, if a note is added about Goethe being known primarily as a writer rather than as a philosopher. Am open to discussion, as always. Universitytruth

I've left the statement regarding my position on the matter at Goethean's talk page. Essentially, I don't really think a renaming of the list is even necessary; however, like the page shows, it could use more information as concerns context. — ^ignis _scripta 22:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. In fact, here is a precedent that I just participated in. — goethean ॐ 17:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] German philosophers, German-language philosophers, or writers of German-language philosophy

Greetings,

Please see my comments on relevant talk pages. Meanwhile, I would ask that you look at this important writer, and consider the grounds for including vs. excluding him on this list (or in this category, should the list be deleted): Salomon Maimon. Thanks! Universitytruth 20:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest looking at Maimon's article, the bottommost part of which indicates he is already included in the category German philosophers. Please view German philosophers for further details. — ^ignis _scripta 22:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wikEd

Hi, I have seen that you are using the Cacycle editor extension. This program is no longer actively maintained in favor of its much more powerful successor wikEd.

wikEd has all the functionality of the old editor plus: • syntax highlighting • nifty image buttons • more fixing buttons • paste formatted text from Word or web pages • convert the formatted text into wikicode • adjust the font size • and much, much more.

Switching to wikEd is easy, check the detailed installation description on its project homepage. Often it is as simple as changing every occurrence of editor.js into wikEd.js on your User:YourUsername/monobook.js page.

Cacycle 22:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)