Talk:Friedrich Nietzsche/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 3 |
Archive 4
| Archive 5 →


Contents

ethical theory consensus

Please log your preference for either the current and well developed position of N's position in ethical theory, or the former one below. Please reference the discussion below for which might be more appropriate--Buridan 01:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

for current, against former on the basis that the former does not actually cite or reference N's work and more or less just projects philosophical language without any grounding. --Buridan 01:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Neither. Citations do not necessarily make for good writing. As Not2Plato argued, this section does not really deal with Nietzsche's place in contemporary ethics. It does start off in this path, but quickly gets side-tracked. The stuff on the master-slave morality belongs in that section of this page. The stuff on the "Death of God" (which is important to Nietzsche's ethics) probably deserves its own section. On the other hand, Not2Plato's version, while it does deal with concepts in contemporary ethical theory, does seem at times to oversimplify Nietzsche philosophy and ignores much of what Nietzsche seemed to be trying to do — the radical questioning of values and the very basis of morality itself. However, if an absolute choice must be made, I would favor Not2Plato's version over the current version as it at least makes a better attempt at addressing Nietzsche's "place in contemporary ethical theory". I might suggest, however, that the best way to proceed is to cite some reputable commentators who write about Nietzsche's place in modern ethical theory rather than simply creating a new commentary ourselves, especially because this lends itself well to pointing to Nietzsche's influence. Ig0774 02:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


This sentence:

Nietzsche's assessment of both the antiquity and resultant impediments presented by the ethical and moralistic teachings of the world's monotheistic religions eventually led him to his own epiphany about the nature of God and morality, resulting in his work Thus Spoke Zarathustra.

is poorly written, is not neutral POV, and is unsupported by anything.

This junk:

Nietzsche is also well-known for the statement "God is dead". While in popular belief it is Nietzsche himself who blatantly made this declaration, it was actually placed into the mouth of a character, a "madman," in The Gay Science. It was also later proclaimed by Nietzsche's Zarathustra. This largely misunderstood statement does not proclaim a physical death, but a natural end to the belief in God being the foundation of the western mind. It is also widely misunderstood as a kind of gloating declaration, when it is actually described as a tragic lament by the character Zarathustra.

"God is Dead" is more of an observation than a declaration. Nietzsche did not advance arguments for atheism, but merely observed that, for all practical purposes, his contemporaries lived "as if" God were dead. Nietzsche believed this "death" would eventually undermine the foundations of morality and lead to moral relativism and moral nihilism. To avoid this, he believed in re-evaluating the foundations of morality and placing them not on a pre-determined, but a natural foundation through comparative analysis.

Hmmm. I don't think the article's entirely amiss when a lot of scholars (Kaufmann for one) have identified Nietzsche's clear mention of nihilism in his work and what the nihilism results from. From what I gather, after rejecting the values of Judeo-Christian ethics, Nietzsche said that any values result from nature, but that these values are relative to anyone's will-to-power. Says Nietzsche: "Faith in the categories of reason is the cause of nihilism. We have measured the value of the world according to categories that refer to a purely fictitious world". That would seem to illustrate the Wikipedia point above that, if faith is rejected along with reason, then for Nietzsche it entails a sort of nihilism: "the supreme values of mankind lack this will—that the values which are symptomatic of decline, nihilistic values, are lording it under the holiest names". Also, remember to be civil. --Knucmo2 10:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

...is obviously unnecessary and has nothing to do with ethics, and certainly nothing to do with Ns place in Contemo ethics. It is also false, since the SOCIO-HISTORICAL claim it attributes to Nietzsche is not his. He never claimed that moral relativism and nihilism would result from the absence or weakening of God beliefs. Furthermore, it is not part of his moral thought, it is part of his historical thought about morality.

This stuff:

Some of the contrasts in master vs. slave morality:

   * "good" and "bad" interpretations vs. "good" and "evil" interpretations
   * "aristocratic" vs. "part of the 'herd'"
   * determines values independently of predetermined foundations (nature) vs. determines values on predetermined, unquestioned foundations (Christianity).


...is not well related to the prior paragraph, but it is also uninformative because it does not tell readers what it is talking about.

This sentence:

In the juncture between normative ethics and descriptive ethics, Nietzsche distinguishes between "master morality" and "slave morality."

..is stupid, and misleading. What is the "juncture" between them? And how does N "distinguish" these things in that juncture?

Normative ethics is where we say what ought to be, while descriptive ethics attempts to say how things in ethics merely are. There is no "juncture" between them.

That is the bulk of the current entry on ethics. Conclusion: It sucks!!! Not2plato 03:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

"it is part of his historical thought about morality." true and since he very clearly believes that there is nor morality outside of that historical thought. it must be foundational to his morality. in fact, it has everything to do with ethics, because it an argument about what counts as a legitimate argument for ethics, specifically he is rejecting transcendental justification in ethics. gee whiz... and you teach this stuff? --Buridan 03:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

You are an uncouth, insulting idiot, Buridian. I see you are a grad student teaching poli sci at that bastion of football and pseudo-thought, Virginia Tech. I also see that you are a PoMo. Naturally, as a PoMo you are probably incapable of anything other than slander, wishful thinking and misunderstanding.

The claim that N never argued for atheism is falsified by, for example, section 2 of the Wanderer, and by section 95 of Daybreak.

I see you have defended the current article not at all. Instead, you have chosen to claim that an historical claim is a claim in moral theory, which shows that poli sci guys need to study ethics. The claim that a certain sort of proposition cannot justify another sort of claim is a thesis in logic, not ethics. The claim that the masses have lost or are losing their belief that a certain kind of proposition justifies another kind of proposition is a thesis in history, and it is in the history of beliefs about justification, that is, social history of beliefs about logic. Grow up grad student.

you should really sign your posts not2plato. we don't really respect ad-hominen's here. if you cannot formulate an argument against my argument without attacking me or your own contrived straw men, then I suggest you join me in grad school. I never asserted that N never argued for atheism. I don't recognize your artifical constructs in the division of knowledge for N, because they aren't in N's work. For N, history, and the theses of history are the only system from which propositions arise. Logic then is grounded only by history and not by any other relation of truth you might feel like assFor N, history, and the theses of history are the only system from which propositions arise. erting. For me, I just want to do justice to N's thought, I don't think that your philosophy is coming very close to doing justice because you keep trying to map categories that you have and think exist into N's work where it is at best unclear that they exist, and at worst very clear that they are a complete misinterpretation of his ethical work. kindly though recognize the norms of the wikipedia, and refrain from elitism, ad-hominens, etc. and provide topical arguments. --Buridan 15:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

You attacked me twice, and I attacked you once, so the balance of ad hominems goes to you, sir.

  "history, and the theses of history are the only system from which propositions arise" is a specious kind of remark.  Claims about history cannot be propositions of moral theory.  "Some people believe x is immoral, and some people think x is not immoral" is a statement about history, not about ethics.  Theoretical remarks have to be more general than that.  So, "God is dead" is no more a part of ethics than "some people think the world is flat" is a proposition of physics.

Now, the wikipedia claims that I need not prove you wrong, you need to prove yourself right. So, answer the question: what "juncture"?

I deny that N holds the specious claim you make about history as the locus of all propositions and the ground of logic. So, prove yourself right. Where does Nietzche say that or anything like it?

Another question: if there is going to be nothing about N's thinking on value and nothing about his thinking on obligation, then how is the title of the section justified? Not2plato 17:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I did not attack you at all, i refered to your elitism. kindly don't edit other people's posts either. I realize it was likely just a cut and paste error, but it is better to cut from the fixed page. Why can't claims about history be propositions of moral theory? who asserts that? claims about history are the sole basis for moral theory, because without the situation and the context, which are firmly grounded in history, you cannot even know what the present is. anyway, i digress. some people have claimed that x is immoral is a statement about ethics. you might disagree, but I don't think that many ethicists would deny that claims about the beliefs of other people in ethical contexts have import to the ethical decision. My assertion is one of the main theses of geneology of morals, that history determines and justifies the current ethical system. If you don't think that is a thesis of the book, then I'm not sure what book you are talking about. The thinking of obligation might be added, if it is contextual. as for your analogy between physics and ethics, i don't think that holds. physics is about a determinate system, ethics is not, and btw, that ethics is not a determinate system, like the benthamites might want to argue is also part of N's theory. So to make the analogy that you make sort of puts you outside of N's world? no? --Buridan 20:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
i'm stepping of from wikipedia for a while to finish my diss. and get a t-t job or not. so I'm going to stop arguing and wish you the best, though I'd encourage you to read N in context. --Buridan 22:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Just to support Buridan's take on "God" (at least in the GoM). I would refer to sections 19-23 of the second essay. In particular, one might note:

You will have guessed what has really happened here, beneath all this: that will to self-tormening, that repressed cruelty of the animal-man made inward and scared back into himself, the creature imprisoned in the "state" so as to be tamed, who invented the bad conscience in order to hurt himself after the more natural vent for this desire had been blocked — this man of the bad conscious has seized upon the presupposition of religion so as to drive his self-torture to its most gruesome pitch of severity and rigor. Guilt before God: this thought becomes an instrument of torture to him. He apprehends in "God" the ultimate antithesis of his own ineluctable animal instincts; he reinterprets these animal instincts themselves as a form of guilt before God...; he stretches himself upon the contradiction "God" and "Devil"; he ejects from himself all his denial of himself, of his nature, naturalness, and actuality, in the form of an affirmation as something existent, corporeal, real, as God, as the holiness of God, as God the judge, as God the Hangman, as the beyond, as eternity, as torment without end, as hell, as the immeasurability of punishment and guilt. — Kaufmann Translation section 22.

Read in light of this, the proclamation of the death of God is also the proclamation of the death of (priestly) morality, i.e., the morality of the man of ressentiment (one might here also note the influence Nietzsche had on Freud's conception of God). The God who sacrifices himself (alluded to by Not2plato earlier), then, is the priestly interpretation of the path to escape this ressentiment. However, this is only to argue that the "death of God" is, for Nietzsche, an ethical concept. Whether or not this hooks into Nietzsche's place in contemporary ethics remains somewhat open to debate. It seems to me, however, that the "death of God" can be read as the basis of Nietzsche attack of the basis of values — to paraphrase Phillipa Foot, his attack on the assumptions of morality itself.
Now, Nietzsche's genealogy is a "historical" approach, and this tracing of the "origin" of God historical in some sense too, so the question of how it becomes an ethical proposition remains somewhat open. Let us try to close this gap. At the end of the second essay, Nietzsche wrote:

We modern men are the heirs of the conscience-vivisection and self-torture of millenia: this is what we have practiced longest, it is our distinctive art perhaps, and in any case our subtlety in which we have acquired a refine taste. Man has all too long had an "evil eye" for his natural inclinations, so that they have finally become inseparable from his "bad conscience." An attempt at the reverse would in itself be possible — but who is strong enough for it? — that is, to wed the bad conscience to all the unnatural inclinations, all those aspirations to the beyond, to that which runs counter to sense, instinct, nature, animal, in short all ideals hitherto, which are one an all hostile to life and ideals that slander the world. — Section 24, Kaufmann translation

The argument in GoM thus serves to indicate not the "origin" of morality (which Nietzsche mocks in the preface) but the extent to which this "priestly" ideology is entrenched in the morality of Nietzsche's day, to indicate the difficulty that must be surpassed in order to come to a world "beyond good and evil" (one may be reminded of Foucault's attempts at "a history of the present"). God is the ultimate representation of this "disvalue" of life (as we saw above) and so the overcoming of this "disvalue" must ultimately be the overcoming of the concept of God (one might remember Marx: the critique of religion is the beginning of the critique of the philosophy of right). Hence, the proclamation of the "death of God" is not properly understood as a historical claim, but rather as an ethical claim. It is a rejection of the ethics of this age, not of the "distant" past. Sorry about the length of this post. Ig0774 04:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Its a agood post, Ig. Of course religion has always made morality its slave.

If one wants to know how N stands in relation to Utilitarianism, Kantian Ethics, Virtue Ethics, and so on, the current Wiki article will not help you. And no statements about N's psych-social thought on religion will help either. Not2plato 19:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


The comparison between ethics and physics holds. all I am saying there is that a proposition of physics has to meet certain criteria, and a proposition of ethics has to meet some too. Not2plato 20:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Your perfectly correct to say so. It is regretable that a section that almost looks like it might talk about the advertised topic fails so miserably and so quickly to do so... Ig0774 06:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, there are two copies of "Gender Views" and "Political Views"

As above. I'm reluctant to move one of them, as they may have different content. Anyone willing to do a comparison of the two copies? Sorry if I sound lazy, but I don't have enough time right now. -66.82.9.87 03:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Good catch. Quick diff shows only one difference, the recent edit by Igni. Deleted duplicate sections accordingly. Ig0774 04:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Stirner

Yesterday I added a paragraph giving new biographical information incl. sources on Stirner's influence on Nietzsche. Immediately user Goethean deleted the text with a comment I do not understand

20:55, 17 April 2006 Goethean (revert stirner OR; rem. critical paragraph which is also OR; retain spelling correction).

Would you please explain your reasons for your action. --Nescio* 14:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

You can't add original scholarship to the article. Your edits must be sourced to a scholar who has already published the idea. Please see Wikipedia:No original research. — goethean ॐ 14:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Having looked at your link, it appears that an anarcho-capitalist website wants to paint Nietzsche as influenced by Stirner. BFD. If we include any verbiage on the matter, it will not be your overly-enthusiastic paragraph. Rather than pretending that this one paper represents a revolution in Nietzsche scholarship, it will make clear that this paper is one amongst thousands or tens of thousands. — goethean ॐ 15:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Goethean,
  1. excuse my English, it's improvable, I know...
  2. I did not add original scholarship; see the given source in the footnote, published in 2002
  3. The question about Stirner's influence was discussed since the 1890s; one of the first authors was Rudolf Steiner, at that time BTW a Goethean ;-) and no anthroposophy in sight. Moreover the existing wiki text reads: "Most commentators agree that Nietzsche read Max Stirner, however they differ in respect to whether he was influenced by him." I'd say: not most, but many, lastly Safranski in a special chapter of his internationally famous book. The topic is no subordinate matter, but it remained uncertain, when and where N might have got acquainted with Stirner. The scholarship I presented does not pretend to be a "revolution", but it opens a new vista on the beginnings of N's philosophizing, not the least interesting part of a thinker's career. In any case it's not mere "verbiage"; just the English rough translation may be clumsy.
  4. The website you looked up is a Stirner website. If you bother to have a closer look at it you'll find that there is a special article engaged in refusing any usurpation of Stirner by anarcho-capitalists.
--Nescio* 19:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I think that you are exaggerating the importance of Stirner to discussion of Nietzsche. According to the internet encyclopedia of philosophy, "it is far from certain that Nietzsche had ever read Stirner's work". Of the 13.4 million google hits on Nietzsche, 1.22% of them also mention Stirner. (This exercise should be repeated by someone with access to academic databases). The text that you are arguing for has been added to (and deleted from) the article several times in the past. It is clear to me that there is some political agenda afoot here. — goethean ॐ 20:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Regrettably you did not reply to any of my arguments against what you have brought forward before.
Instead you come along with another reproach, untenable as the earlier ones. Obviously you just started to get acquainted with the matter.
  1. Stanford enc. is of course a good source. And there you can see that David Leopold, the author of the article and editor of Stirner's "Ego" at CUP, mentions just the Stirner website I quote from - as one of two. His remark about the uncertainty of an influence of Stirner on Nietzsche was written in 2001, without knowledge of the article I refer to, published at end 2002.
  2. I think I don't need to comment your "google argument".
  3. You accept the unreferenced sentence "Most commentators agree..." and oppose to my referenced one (which is far from such a sweeping assertion). Why ?
  4. You take the trouble to change my title of this discussion by inserting "alleged". Why ?
  5. If the text I refer to has been added and deleted several times - I cannot check this - this may indeed have had "political" i.e. ideological reasons.
  6. In order to clear the reasons for your deletion and to arrive at a NPOV I'm trying to discuss the case here. I and perhaps some other readers would appreciate to learn about your reasons. Please go ahead.
--Nescio* 08:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
The possibility that Stirner influenced Nietzsche is already discussed extensively — and deceptively, implying that the debate has been resolved — at the Stirner article. Furthermore, the Stirner article is linked to from this article under the "Similar thinkers" subsection of the "See also" section. That is far more room in this article than the relevance of the Stirner connection merits. — goethean ॐ 15:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Its subjunctive approach is simply put not its penn'orth, a sham presentation. Its position: "What if Stirner influenced Nietzsche? If so, there must be clues, and therefore what may come about is an apparent mystification of Stirner's affects upon Nietzsche as never before." To my mind—and I would think not to mine alone—this post hoc thesis is to be regarded as thoroughly flawed in method and misguided in its approach with the attempt to satisfy its thirst for its own affirmation with inductive attributions by way of anecdotal occurrences, which are already roughly suppositional and not at all genuinely conclusive, in the young Nietzsche's life then formulated into a grossly imaginative narrative. Surely, even though Nietzsche read Stirner, what more can be said of Stirner's influence? rather than some relative aspects of their positions being more or less similar, in which case the latter in fact would be the best venue to take for demonstrative analysis? Though this is so, the paper is not compatible with what Nietzsche is actually doing with his philosophy or how he came about it, and thus this paper does a great deal of damage to what Nietzsche is up against and for; however, as I've indicated, it at best does show the muchness of parallels between them since that is its inception—unfortunately, dispite its hoped-for implications, nothing more than this. Not only this, it is truly absurd to speak of influences with Nietzsche; he went at great length to use ideas when they were suitable and at other times utterly condemn them, after all, he was a man of his age.

Be that as it may, I'm deeply interested in what others would have to say or already have said about this meretricious piece of writing. By its very nature what is called for here before all else is a more general assessment to do away with or concede to the possible merits of the paper, and as it now stands it should not be included within the article whatsoever, until more may be further ascribed to its status as merited for inclusion.—ignisscripta— 18:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to go into a debate of whether Stirner influenced Nietzsche or not. But the apparent similarities between the two have been of great interest to many readers of both, since the late 19th century, and there is a strong case for the revival of Stirner's philosophy (including new editions in other languages, of Stirner's work), which occured around the time where Nietzsche gained fame, and some sought to seek out the origins of his thinking (whether they were wrong or not is a complete philosophical question, which I won't get into). As an example, Georg Brandes read and was very inspired by Nietszche, and in 1901 wrote the introduction to the Danish edition of Stirner's The Ego and His Own, which appeared this year.
To be brief, there is no way, that it is acceptable to remove a complete (at least somewhat substantiated) passage from the Stirner article, which has been arrived at through countless revisions - especially so, as the interest in Stirner historically very much has sprung from an interest in Nietszche. This is the main reason why Nietzsche and the linkage between the two needs to be represented in the Stirner article. Whether Stirner needs to be mentioned on the Nietszche page is a complete other matter - of which I have little opinion. I will try and reinsert/rework the deleted passage on the Stirner page, if I hear no strong arguments for the contrary. --Morten 11:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
By no means do I have an arrière-pensée about this. As you say, there has been an offshoot of interest in and courage to study Stirner due to widespread Nietzsche-mania, and it should be mentioned within the Stirner article itself, which is excellent indeed. What is non grata, to my mind, is any assertion that would immediately hope to portray Nietzsche as a pioneer of Stirner's ideas—it is ultimately impossible to unveil such a happening—but such researches as those are obviously acceptable for mention in the Stirner article, whether from the past or most recently. Even though the two appear conjunct in certain respects, what would be at stake is of much greater import than their similarities—their differences. Though that may be, it is a good indication new attempts are being made. For what it is worth, the most that can be done for the Nietzsche article is to present what alone is a totality—their similarity—and this has been done, but insofar as has been established nothing more will be acceptable from the aforesaid perspective (that would like all-too-well a tableau of Nietzsche as a new Stirner of sorts) because it is not relevant to Nietzsche scholarship and the like. In conclusion, we agree with each other on this matter most fruitfully.—ignisscripta— 19:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand that I've brought a hornets' nest about my ears with inserting the short paragraph on Stirner. But I don't want to discuss the possible reasons for the purgatory zeal of user Goethean (which he extended recently to the Stirner article while stubbornly refusing to discuss the matter on a factual basis) and his helper. To sum up:

Goethean's accusations refuted:
  1. my text was no original scholarship, but referred to a published article;
  2. this article appeared in a scholarly journal, not at an anarcho-capitalist website;
  3. it was probably "one of tens of thousands", but selected by noted N bibliographies, e.g. in that of Duncan Large, as the website where it appeared later was selected as serious by David Leopold in his article on Stirner in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; <http://www.fns.org.uk/articles.htm> <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/max-stirner/#Oth>
  4. my text was as concise as possible, not at all "verbiage".

IgnisScripta's defamatory additions about the article I referred to:

  1. sham presentation
  2. thoroughly flawed and misguided thesis
  3. full of anedotes
  4. meretricious piece of writing
  5. does a great deal of damage to Nietzsche

The only productive remark of my "critics" seems to be that of IgnisScripta: "What if Stirner influenced Nietzsche?" That is a question I did not raise, and is not raised in the cited source, but may come up in the reader of the article. Everybody may try to find an answer. It seems, however, that this question is not so far off and not without consequences as Ignis seems or pretends to believe. Indeed it was discussed ever and again since the 1890s up to recent publications, articles and books. The source article I used is the first one for decades discussing the question on basis of a new biographical discovery. Since the URL was deleted I have to give it here for the reader's information what this is all about. <http://www.lsr-projekt.de/poly/ennietzsche.html> After I wrote this I read a sentence by Ignis I can fully agree with: "what would be at stake is of much greater import than their similarities—their differences." Exactly this is the quintessence I got from the Laska article. Young Nietzsche when confronted with Stirner was deeply shocked and run (firstly) to Schopenhauer and philology, only to create his own philosophy in the subsequent years. -- A big misunderstanding between us??? Anyway: I won't yield to purgatory zealotry. If there doesn't follow a discussion on a factual basis I feel entitled and obliged to reinsert my paragraph to the article. --Nescio* 20:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to add a paragraph on the fact the Nietzsche might have listened to Bach. How does that sound? — goethean ॐ 20:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
The essential point, though I also feel there is slight misunderstanding (not on my part), which Goethean (above) implicitly brings to mind, is that these are truly inconclusive findings, as I also attempted to clearly demonstrate above. Nothing more may be said about them, except that they are purely speculative and are a production of oneirism, if I may put it more bluntly than before. There is no affray between us that the article is such that—given what it is attempting—it brings to the fore of our perspective that Nietzsche might have been driven away by Stirner in order to combat this truly serious and dire possibility that Stirner's writing characterizes. So what? Are we to merely accept this possibility from top-to-bottom as a fact in itself? The answer is: no. And this possibility never will remotely represent a genuine moment in the young Nietzsche's life whatsoever, even if the "consequences" appear plausible, they remain wholly mendacious, that is, untrue. It attempts to make the alleged influence of Stirner upon Nietzsche into a solidity, a reality, and this is why it will not be included within the article.—ignisscripta— 21:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Regrettably my continuous efforts to discuss about the Stirner Nietzsche question on a factual basis were answered by my opponents repeatedly with improperly and sometimes defamatory verbiage which can be reduced to: Nyet, nyet, nyet. Khrushchovian/Goethean said already in the beginning: "If we include any verbiage on the matter, it will not be your overly-enthusiastic paragraph." Ignis kept on with defamations (see list above + oneirism, mendacious...) and repeated: "it will not be included within the article." -- Who are you, what empowers both of you to decide what will be included in the article and what not? --Nescio* 17:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:Consensus. I guess that you could say that we have faith that the consensus of this talk page will not support falsifying the article. And it is you who has been reduced to name-calling. — goethean ॐ 19:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
There I read that, of course, consensus should not trump NPOV. I still wait for your arguments, not just your nyets. Even and especially if I take into account that you don't know much of the long history of the Stirner/Nietzsche question (which was mainly discussed in German language) I cannot accept the tone and wording of your replies.
--Nescio* 11:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
The problem with the attempt "to discuss... the Stirner[/]Nietzsche question on a factual basis" is that to do so here basically constitutes original research. Instead of repeating Ignis' and Goethean's arguments, let me add some of my own: first of all, the page you link to points to this page (also available in English) which is a pretty thorough critique of Laska. Secondly, we might note that Leopold, who did note the page, but not that particular article, also wrote "it is far from certain that Nietzsche had ever read Stirner's work" (Leopold's article is dated 2002, the same year as the text in question). More than that, the failure of Nietzsche to write about Stirner in any of his works, despite the apparent sympathy between their positions in itself speaks volumes (compare that to the younger Nietzsche's attitude towards Wagner and Schopenhauer). Finally, the relative marginality of this issue in the grand spectrum of Nietzschean scholarship indicates that it deserves little, if any, treatment in an encyclopedia article about Friedrich Nietzsche (especially since so much of this article is a mere gloss on Nietzsche's work — the vast majority of the people in the influences box receive little or no verbiage on the page, despite the obvious influence they have on Nietzsche's work). The Stanford Encyclopedia article on Nietzsche makes no mention of Stirner (and it was written in 2004). Incidentally, the "traditional view" as Laska calls it is nicely summarized here (for those who can read French). Ig0774 23:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  1. Re: Walther's critique of Laska: Laska himself links to it, so he seems not too much afraid of it.
  2. Re: Leopold: he selected the LSR Stirner site as one of two internationally. Sure, he could not have known about the article on Nietzsche's initial crisis, but he approved generally to the seriousness of the site.
  3. Re: French page: Albert Levy gives the state of affairs of 1904.
  4. Stirner was received in the anglophone world with a considerable delay. Der Einzige already had been translated into several languages when it first came out in English in 1907. The book remained nearly unnoticed, and the first monography on Stirner in English (by R W K Paterson) appeared as late as 1971. There, pp. 145-161 you can read a better account of the problem as in Levy. --Nescio* 11:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Addendum for readers who don't look up the history of the Nietzsche article:

  1. At 17 April 20:48 I inserted into the article the following short paragraph: One detail of Nietzsche's biography was only recently elucidated. It was well known that Nietzsche, in October 1865, after his sojourn in Berlin at the home of Eduard Mushacke, the father his fellow student Hermann Mushacke, lived through a severe personal crisis. Only now it was unearthed that Eduard Mushacke had been a close friend of Max Stirner. Then it's unlikely that Nietzsche, an admirer of the brightness of the 1840s, did not get first-hand knowledge about Stirner's ideas during these days. The following crisis has been called "Nietzsche's initial crisis", resulting first in the headlong run to most intensive philological work and to the philosophy of Schopenhauer, later in his own philosophy. Nietzsche never wrote or spoke about Stirner, a puzzling question that might be broached anew. (I added the source, an American academic journal, and a website -- see history).
  2. Seven minutes later the paragraph was deleted in full by user Goethean. No suggestion for correction or improvement.
  3. I asked here for his reasons and got Goethean's first untenable answer: no own scholarly work permitted within the article. (There was none). Within a few minutes Goethean hurried to at least glimpse at the linked article (a pretty long and detailed investigation of a matter he obviously had never heard of), and not 20 minutes later he had an opinion and added his second untenable answer, just a groundless NO, which he later repeated in various forms several times (posing as if he had the power to decide).
  4. The rest you can read from top of this chapter. --Nescio* 20:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Given my understanding of Wikipedia's policies, it seems that this information might need to be included on this page, albeit not in the form it currently is in. Nevertheless, let me continue by saying that what is at stake here is not whether or not Laska, a scholar of Stirner, argues that Stirner had an important influence on Nietzsche, the question is really to what extent Stirner's influence on Nietzsche represents a verifiable fact. Now Laska's argument basically rests on a clause that begins (quoting Laska own English translation) "It is hardly conceivable that..." (section 5.3 — "Es ist kaum vorstellbar..."). This can hardly be argued to lead to an indisputable fact. We might also note that the time during which Nietzsche is purported to have read Stirner's works is two weeks long (the sole time that Nietzsche seems to have spent with Eduard Mushacke and, as Laska himself points out, Nietzsche, in his correspondence with Eduard's son, Hermann, does not refer to Eduard as someone he was familiar with). And, as Walther points out, this involves the deliberate reading of Nietzsche's account of his encounter with Schopenhauer as a lie (or a "concealment" of an even earlier encounter with philosophy in the form of Stirner). Furthermore, we may note that in an article published in 2003, the Nietzschean scholar Brobjer argues that "It is possible that Nietzsche read Stirner, but we have no definite evidence of it. It seems to me more likely that Nietzsche only knew of Stirner through secondary sources" available here (for those with access to Project Muse). It seems irresponsible, therefore, to naively accept Laska's thesis.
Even the Levy piece goes some way towards that Nietzsche had some awareness of Stirner. But the question that remains unresolved even by Laska is to what extent this awareness is important for the study of Nietzsche. And this is really, as Igni pointed out, the central question that needs to be answered. If Stirner had the significant impact that Laska suggests (though this does not seem to be the consenus of scholars), then Nietzsche's putative encounter with Stirner is significant. If he did not, then Laska's argument devolves to mere trivia about a man known by both Nietzsche and Stirner.
Re: Walther link: yes, Laska himself links to this article, but that does not necessarily indicate that he is "untroubled" by it. I tend to think it means that he still regards it as an open question, or at least to indicate that the Stirner-Nietzsche relationship remains an open question for others.
Re: Levy: Thank you for the reference in Paterson. I only pointed to Levy because it has the distinct advantage of being online and hence accessible to all the editors of this page (or at least those that read French). An English version of the evidence is, of course, much more useful on the English Wikipedia.
Re: Leopold: I don't deny that Laska is a well-known scholar of Stirner (for example, Leopold also cites one of Laska's own books and his edition of Stirner's Parerga Kritiken Repliken). However, approval of the seriousness of the page is not approval of everything argued for on that page — remember, too, that Leopold's primary concern is Stirner, not Nietzsche. What is more significant is that Leopold (albeit before Laska's article was published) argues that this connection, inter alia, "may not offer the most accurate account of Stirner's impact on philosophical and political thought". Ig0774 23:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Ig0774, for your contribution to clear the matter. I agree with most of your statements and reflections on the problem in question here. Nevertheless I want to add something:

  1. Nietzsche does give written evidence that he had built an unusual close friendship to the older Eduard Mushacke even in the short time he was with him. They said "Du" to each other, very exceptional in Germany at those times, and he proudly reported this in a letter to mother and sister. And that he would have been happy if he could call him "father"... and some other remarks Laska quotes and puts together. Then - the crisis, about which N reported in some pieces (German, in the Schlechta edition, quoted by Laska) in which you can't expect that he reflected on the true reasons (just "symptoms" as depression, sleeplessness, self-punishments etc). Then - the sudden interruption of all relations to Eduard by Nietzsche.
  2. Of course Laska's thesis includes no definitive evidence that Nietzsche did encounter Stirner's ideas, orally or in written form, during those two weeks with Eduard. But it is a construction with enormous plausibility which of course will be clear only to those knowing enough details of Nietzsche's biography and being acquainted with some documents probably not yet published in English translation. Moreover you cannot refrain from the hundred years of history of the discussion of the Stirner/Nietzsche problem which, as both thinkers were Germans, was mostly conducted in German. I found another article on the LSR website <http://www.lsr-projekt.de/msbann2.html>, which could be helpful as a companion article, but only in German.
  3. If one considers the assumption of Laska as referring to an isolated event, one may arrive at the conclusion that the story boils down to mere trivia, as you wrote, about an unimportant man who by chance had short contacts to S and to N. But seen in a broader biographical and historical context it makes sense not only by filling one of the few still blind spots in the much researched N biography, but primarily by providing a plausible explanation of what had brought N on his trajectory as a passionate philosopher. Expecting more than plausibility in this case, calling for water-proof evidence, seems to me a sign of psychological naivete. --Nescio* 13:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
It can just as easily be asserted that making a fiction based upon plausibility alone seems to be a sign of "psychological naivete", not to mention outright ridiculous. Time and again (though I haven't spoken here before, so do pardon my sudden intrusion) it seems you simply desire to beat about the bush with your useless assertions and sophistical confutations in order to make the Laska paper appear more than it is, which, a fortiori, adds on end to the bombast of this overly long discussion, as you've continuously avoided criticisms by Ignis and now Ig0774. As you had previously attempted to add a statement supported by the article that has now been thoroughly dashed for what it is, the statement itself is now called into question and it must be answered. Obviously, it cannot be added as it was, so propose a different method of integrating the statement. If further progress cannot be made along these lines (address the criticisms as they are), then discontinue wasting people's time here with your silly interjections: "Who are you, what empowers both of you to decide what will be included in the article and what not"; and baseless acounts of "defamatory statements": "sham presentation; thoroughly flawed and misguided thesis; full of anedotes [sic]; meretricious piece of writing; does a great deal of damage to Nietzsche" which are obviously criticisms against the Laska paper itself and are supported by Walther's critique.Filip Bishop 02:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Filip, I can't pardon your intrusion, since I can't see in it any contribution to a solution of our problem, but just a superfluous polemic which "adds on end to the bombast..." not deserving of a reply. -- But I think it useful for those interested to judge what happened here to get the information that user Goethean (see above) did a similar vandalizing as here, including his reluctance to pertinent discussion, on the Stirner article.

18:51, 19 April 2006 Goethean ( -> Influence - - making invisible deceptive presentation of unsubstantiated claims.) See also the talk page there. Follows the paragraph Goethean "made invisible".

'It has recently been further substantiated that Nietzsche did read Stirner's book, yet even he did not mention Stirner anywhere in his work, his letters, his papers (see references below: "Nietzsche's initial crisis"). Nietzsche's thinking sometimes resembles Stirner's to such a degree that some authors (first was Eduard von Hartmann 1891) have called him a plagiarist. This seems too simple an explanation of what Nietzsche might have done with Stirner's ideas. Historical fact is that Stirner's book was banned to underground and oblivion for half a century, and only after Nietzsche had suddenly become a kind of philosophical popstar in the 1890s the cultured public was ready to let Stirner come to the open, now taking him at best as an awkward predecessor of Nietzsche. Thus Nietzsche - as formerly Marx by outlining the concept of historical materialism in 1845/46 - did not really plagiarize Stirner but, much more precarious, "superseded" him by creating an appealing and impressive philosophy.'

--Nescio* 08:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Utterly ridiculous: you take one statement by me and assume as though it were some attack upon you, whereas it was not but regarding this entire discussion, and thereby reject my statement out of hand along with my valid statements and top it off with repetitious phrasing everyone already knows regarding the pertinent topic. This is in no wise appropriate. Even if Goethean was first of all wrong in what he did, it nevertheless applies, due to subsequent statements both by Ignis and Ig0774 above, which you have not directly addressed, that the content of that paper (and consequently your addition) is not suited to the article, because it obviously would violate policy. Since you clearly do not want to communicate properly, I hereby call the matter settled. However disgruntled you are, I think it should not be put back in, as do Ignis, Ig0774 and Goethean (though his reasoning may not be cogent), inasmuch as they themselves have said. It goes without saying, more may always share their thoughts on this as well.Filip Bishop 08:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Nescio* Is continuing his campaign to falsify this article. There are scores of authors who are more important to the study of Nietzsche than Stirner. In order for a paragraph on the question of Stirner's influence on Nietzsche to be appropriate, this would have to be a book, not an article. — goethean ॐ 19:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Campaign, falsifying => absurd and frantic, as Goethean acted from the very beginning of his -- campaign.

For those trying to arrive at a fair judgment of the seriousness and solidity of the article I referred to in that short paragraph the following information may be helpful. Laska's original article (in German) appeared in the journal Germanic Notes and Reviews whose chief editor Richard Frank Krummel is an internationally renowned expert on just the history of the reception of Nietzsche's ideas, author of the 3 volume work [Nietzsche und der deutsche Geist]. This may, if necessary at all, also testify to the questioned importance of the Stirner/Nietzsche problem. --Nescio* 08:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi all, I've not had time to do much here for a while, but Nietzsche is one of my major interests, so here's my 2p on this (unneccessarily acrimonious) discussion.
Nescio's paragraph was clearly a good-faith edit, and it wasn't OR, so it shouldn't have been reverted without explanation on this page. However, the research it relied on was highly speculative, and also discounted Nietzsche's own explanation of his interest in Schopenhaur. If anything should go into the article about Stirner's influence on Nietzsche, I think it should be something like 'Stirner's influence on Nietzsche is debated, some scholars holding that Stirner was a major influence, and some discounting the idea.' However, because that's so wishy-washy, I'd leave it out altogether.
In any case, bandying about terms like 'campaign', 'vandalism' etc is unhelpful. It seems that everyone involved is trying to improve the article, so more of the last two of what Havelock Ellis called 'The four cardinal virtues, as Nietzsche understood morals' - sincerity, courage, generosity and courtesy - would make things better for all concerned. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 09:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I could not have better communicated my own thoughts than you have just done.Filip Bishop 14:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I assent to Squiddy's evaluation. However, talk page consensus has rejected Nescio's edit, and now he has run to an administrator. Call it whatever you want. — goethean ॐ 14:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I think Stirner's influence on Nietzsche is going to be a minor point at best. I haven't read everything, but my opinion is that the community consesus is probably what we should go with. The article is already heavy with material, and we should take care not to overdo minor points when there are other things of more importance that are still lacking good coverage. If we note anything about Stirner, I think it needs to be very minor. It's not definite or proven anyway, and I agree that it's a little wish-washy. Great care has to be taken when discussing cause and effect in history, and in my opinion Wikipedia whould err on the non including it side if at all possible, and even if it is included, it needs a cavet added as to whose idea it is and why it's important... and at that point it already starts to constipate an already over-long article. --DanielCD 18:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't call this a consensus, I can see just an alliance, an alliance of... (here I keep silent out of reasons of politeness). I had some hope that at least one bona fide participant would take the trouble to get into the matter, but what I met here was little more than just opining. For any future reader stumbling upon this exchange (I hope, Goethean will not be able to purge it too) I give as a last service the following URLs, in order that s/he may be able to study the research I had referred to:

Implying I'm somehow in with these guys on something is uncalled for. All I did was give my opinion. I can hardly see why it would take an "alliance" to contradict this addition anyway. That's absurd. You might try being a bit more sociable, it will get you farther. --DanielCD 20:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Nescio, I took a look at this research, and at the website -- being interested in Nietzsche myself, I wish I could come to a more concrete opinion on whether this belongs. I don't think a website of the form you have is sufficient to state a connection as fact, and although you might make an interesting case for there being one here, it's too close to being original research to really work here. However, and this is directed at DanielCD and Goethean as well, would it be reasonable to mention, not via the userbox and not presenting it as a fact, something like the following: "Some scholars believe, based on X, that Stirner may have influenced Nietzsche's philosophy, in particular his concepts of X"? --Improv 21:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I never expressed any problem with mentioning it. I was just saying we don't need a section or long spiel about it. I think a sentence of that sort would be fine. As I stated above: If we note anything about Stirner, I think it needs to be very minor. --DanielCD 19:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Something in the form of Improv's suggested text is fine with me. Everything that Nescio has added to the article has been along the lines of: "Scholars now know that Nietzsche read Stirner", which is false. — goethean ॐ 19:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Yesterday I mailed Laska, the author of "Nietzsche's initial crisis", and informed him about the discussions here. He later called back and we had a long talk. In the end we came to the conclusion that the deeper reasons for the difficulties I had met in this forum may be based on the different perceptions of Nietzsche as well as of Stirner which can be observed in anglophone and in continental philosophers. Although as early as 1911 the German-born American Paul Carus had published in The Monist an article "Stirner, the predecessor of Nietzsche", the topic had long been neglected in English literature. Meanwhile in Europe there have been several articles, book chapters, even monographs and dissertations addressed to the Stirner/Nietzsche question, even special conventions. Nevertheless, even if the rank of this problem was regarded quite high, the quintessence of all the intellectual efforts may well be boiled down into something as Improv has formulated above. To what avail all this? The point now is - but this obviously can only be judged by delving deep into the problem within the context of 19th century intellectual history - that the biographical discovery of Laska (Mushacke's identity) allows for an answer to this what avail question, notwithstanding or rather because of (!) the speculative elements still inherent in this story. Right, there is too much original research in it to be presented in a wiki article. Nevertheless I considered it worth for including in a short paragraph with a link to the article, much more worth as e.g. the Ortlepp episode or many lengthy passages about quisquilia in this article. --Nescio* 12:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I myself never withheld your statements in any particular contempt. The simple issue was your statement's phrasing in relation to Laska's paper, and therefore how it was severely distorting. Though saying that, I have no problems with Stirner and am well open to any new insights brought about by research, but you of course (as Filip Bishop states above) aren't so willing to admit to your flaws in judgement to permit conciliation toward particular dealings with others here as is so apparent—or to the gravitas of important points of contrast against Laska's paper, which you have left unanswered. That is, as you (and Laska) now state, summarily categorized under "the deeper reasons for the difficulties", a statement which is patently absurd in attempt to obscure the actual course of these discussions.

If nothing else, I'm glad there was a compensatory agreement to bring this discussion to an end.ignisscripta 17:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I already had the pleasure to read you characterizing my prose here or the scholarly paper I drew from as "sham presentation", "thoroughly flawed and misguided thesis", "full of ane[c]dotes", "meretricious piece of writing", "does a great deal of damage to Nietzsche" and the like, now also as "patently absurd". Maybe because of not being a native English speaker I do not understand this - and some other passages of your contributions - correctly, thus not realizing your constructive proposals. -- To come down to what basically happened here: I added a short paragraph which no-one reasonably would call a vandalizing, and a few minutes later it was deleted without giving any reason. I had to ask for an explanation, and this was the starting shot for this discussion, which was not always free from irrationalism, zealotry and even hate. In the end a general recommendation for mentioning that some people had thought of an influence of Stirner on Nietzsche and some not was given, perhaps with the addition that the influence may have been on this or that special point. This seems to me inappropiate, not even reflecting the state Nietzsche's friend, Franz Overbeck, had reached in 1904 (see the Stirner talk page where Morten Blaabjerg gave a summary of Overbeck's view, after Goethean had deleted there too any hint at the Stirner/Nietzsche problem). As can be gathered from Laska's article it's a question neither of influence nor of plagiarism what is at stake here. One may object to Laska's thesis, but I don't think that it is not worth of being presented in a wiki article, as wiki normally is proud of being quicker with newest developments than other encyclopedic media. --Nescio* 21:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand that most of our troubles in this discussion may derive from linguistic misapprehension, and therefore I am willing to dismiss them entirely as such so that we can get to the bottom of this matter and settle it once and for all. In this manner, I consent to the mention of the view and its history of the possible influence of Stirner upon Nietzsche, which should not be left out of hand at all as if it were entirely implausible. Like you say, what is of import here is not the possibility of the influence of Stirner and the plagiarism of Nietzsche but rather the representation of the information itself—and to this I have no objection at all. My initial problem (disregarding my objection to Laska's paper) is your phrasing of the issue, which should be changed according to the preconditions necessary for its approval, which I think can be altered along the lines of Improv's suggestion above. And so, by all means, please rephrase and readd this to the article, that is, if you agree to what Improv suggests, and I do not foresee why you would not. Add to this, since it has not been widely accepted or thoroughly proven, under "See also" in the article, Stirner should remain under the category of "Similar thinkers" for the while. To this last proposal I hope you also agree.ignisscripta 22:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we have made a real progress now to consider the problem of the relation of Nietzsche to Stirner rationally and sine ira et studio. I never claimed to have phrased the paragraph in a perfect form. But I do claim that I did not write anything deceptive or the like. It may have too much terseness to be well understood. Please excuse that I copy my text again -- it's not out of vanity, but just to facilitate the further process of discussion.

One detail of Nietzsche's biography was only recently elucidated. It was well known that Nietzsche, in October 1865, after his sojourn in Berlin at the home of Eduard Mushacke, the father his fellow student Hermann Mushacke, lived through a severe personal crisis. Only now it was unearthed that Eduard Mushacke had been a close friend of Max Stirner. Then it's unlikely that Nietzsche, an admirer of the brightness of the 1840s, did not get first-hand knowledge about Stirner's ideas during these days. The following crisis has been called "Nietzsche's initial crisis", resulting first in the headlong run to most intensive philological work and to the philosophy of Schopenhauer, later in his own philosophy. Nietzsche never wrote or spoke about Stirner, a puzzling question that might be broached anew.

This text could well have been started the other way round: N never wrote or spoke... I wrote it the way I did because I placed it within the chronology of his biography. Maybe it would be better just to mention the sojourn with Mushacke and the personal crisis of Oct 1865 in the biographical part, and make a reference there to a special chapter dedicated to Stirner/Nietzsche. This chapter had to be not too short, because it had to demonstrate why the problem is not that marginal as it is considered normally. If there is room only for some lines and not a chapter, my opinion is that the X in Improvs proposal cannot - and need not - really made concrete. Influences on N were many, but what made this special "influence" so much important, and in what way did it materialize? (cf. Overbeck's cautious pondering). -- All this (and a bit more ;-) was in my mind when formulating my short paragraph, and I still think that it's not advisable to put much more details to this article than I did; good for details is the link to Laska's article. Of course my text may be in need of rephrasing and stylistic improvement, or of clarifying. So I'd suggest that as a first step Goethean or some other editor may replace it where it was removed. Then everyone can do the changes which he feels being necessary for improvement. -- The question, whether Stirner is a "similar thinker" to N is a very intriguing one. My answer is that the similarities between S and N are of minor interest; the dissimilarities are the -- "dynamite" (so much in short to the questions of influence and plagiarism). --Nescio* 14:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, what similarities are of interest?— I'm referring to Kierkegaard who is also listed in this manner but is equally different from Nietzsche as is Stirner from the latter. Be that as it may, here is my revised proposal for the text you cite above in order to alleviate its problems for further conciliation:

Although Nietzsche never referred to Stirner, not so much as expressly alluding to him in any of his extant texts, the considerable similarities between the two thinkers are corroborated to a degree by an event in the young Nietzsche's life. In October of 1865, after Nietzsche's two-week sojourn in Berlin with [[Eduard Mushacke]], whose son, [[Hermann Mushacke]], was a fellow student of Nietzsche's, it is possible the conditions of a profound personal crisis were imminent for the young Nietzsche. That Eduard was a friend of [[Max Stirner]] helps to solidify the potentiality that Nietzsche, leading to his crisis, which would eventually marshal him to the philosophical enterprise, learned of Stirner while at Muschacke's home and read his work ''[[The Ego and Its Own]]''. From such a visit, in theory,<ref>Laska, A., "Nietzsche's initial crisis", <http://www.lsr-projekt.de/poly/ennietzsche.html> accessed [[April 30]], [[2006]].</ref> Nietzsche was affected such that he later went to Schopenhauer's philosophy and intense philological research with an avulsion to philosophy. Despite the relative plausibility of this,<ref>Walther, H., "Nietzsche und Stirner: Anmerkungen zu einem Text von Bernd A. Laska (2002/2004)", <http://www.virtusens.de/walther/laska_e.htm> accessed [[April 30]], [[2006]].</ref> Nietzsche himself informs his readers how he came upon Schopenhauer and how he later formalized his own philosophical thought, which is far from being likened to Stirner's in form, style, and a great many of its particulars. This, however, has not prevented characterizations or philippics of Nietzsche as a "plagiarist" of Stirner from being made, for instance, by [[Eduard von Hartmann]], in 1891.

Although the text is noticeably longer, it does a better job of putting the situation into perspective proper, for which at bottom I think is necessary so that it be satisfactory. In essence, anyone's thoughts are welcome for this version's immediate restoration to the article, and if many agree, by no means wait for me to do it, be bold.ignisscripta 19:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Igni, thanks for the effort you took to rewrite my passage. One question immediately arises with it: if one places it chronologically within the biographical sketch, it may appear as too long in proportion to the other stages of N's life. What if the encounter with Mushacke (BTW: we should give years of his and Stirner's life span) is mentioned there, and the problem of Stirner/Nietzsche presented in a special paragraph? -- Anyway, I'd like first to list some remarks and comments.

  • As some people here have based their skeptic view of Laska's reconstruction on that it is not in concordance with N's own narrative of it ("I stumbled on Schopenhauer by chance, had never heard of him before"), I'd recommend to those able to read German (e.g. Improv) a paper that appeared two years after Laska's - Konstantin Broese: "Nietzsches erste Begegnung mit Schopenhauer im Lichte eines bisher unveroeffentlichten Manuskripts aus seiner Bonner Studienzeit", Schopenhauer-Jahrbuch 85 (2004), pp. 13-29. An unpublished manuscript of N reveals that he already in his first year in Bonn had excerpted from Schopenhauer (his critique of Kant). We should not take N's words always at face value. Especially for the critical phase we are considering here the intelligent "speculation" seems to come closer to the truth than the reference to N's own words.
  • similarities... - I'd not write of a corroboration through the Mushacke encounter, because this seems too close to some plagiarism. One can say that the similarities have - only after his "final crisis"! - puzzled, at first his close friends, to whom N "in spite of his habitual communivativeness" (Overbeck) never had spoken about Stirner, and then many N researchers.
  • it should be mentioned that young N was a secret admirer of "those heroic years of philosophy" before 1848, i.e. the time of Feuerbach, Bruno Bauer (both mentioned by N), and Stirner, because this admiration makes much for the plausibility of detailed talks with Mushacke about that time.
  • N later went to Schopenhauer... - he mastered his crisis (he himself described the near psychotic symptoms of it, not its possible cause) by, among other measures, a headlong plunge into Schopenhauer and hard philological work, and after having reached a quite stabilized psychic condition he started to develop his own philosophy.
  • avulsion... - I had to look in my dictionary for this word. Are you sure that it is the most fitting word here?
  • Now I'd like to hear what the other experts have to comment. --Nescio* 12:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that Igni's suggested text is too lengthy for what the evidence for this relationship warrants. I would summarize the matter in one sentence and put the rest in a footnote. — goethean ॐ 15:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I just added to the chapter "Youth" a few lines on the Mushacke episode, purely descriptive. The "speculations" on Stirner/Nietzsche discussed here above started only after N's sudden fame from 1890ff. The question should be covered in a separate paragraph. N's closest friends, Koeselitz/Gast, Overbeck and others, N's sister and some people close to the Archive were involved, later on numerous scholars. A summary seems adequate. --Nescio* 13:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Gee, I'm glad you snuck that Stirner reference in there, irrelevant though it may be. Am I the only one here who finds Nescio's unsourced psychoanalysis of Nietzsche to be revert-worthy? — goethean ॐ 15:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Considering that after the change, the article now gives more prominence to N's fortnight holiday with thingummyjig than is given to his time at Tribschen, I'd say it is disproportionate to say the least. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
This is not a meditative display of violence, but for the while I have reverted Nescio's changes since these objections to it are incontrovertible as the article currently stands. First of all, lucubrating on the circumstances in Nietzsche's young life is necessary, but writing contrary to the particulars of Wikipedia's regulations (e.g., no original research, article size), in this instance, are not at all favorable until consensus is reached; for while we have belabored this topic it is immediate that these methods are of utmost importance. Next time, let us not be so hasty, that is, first discuss before adding to an already unwieldy article, especially material that is highly suspect and barely reckoned in Nietzsche scholarship (do note: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to advertise ideas), for which many more pressing issues are in purview. This is not to say all of the material is suspect but most of the edit itself is, not to mention disproportionate to the whole of the article.ignisscripta 19:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I see, a firm "consensus" has been established. You all showed the patience of Job with a stubborn old man from Old Europe unable to discern what is of utter marginality and what not. Thanks and farewell. --Nescio* 15:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Nescio and DanielCD

I removed this material to my talk page. If anyone is interested, it can be found there. --DanielCD 23:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

God is dead

I've made some significant changes to the God is dead article:[1]

I've tried to address three distortions which I think the earlier version had:

  • That Nietzsche put the phrase in the mouth of a madman, implying he did not himself belive that god is dead,
  • That Nietzsche 'lamented' the death of god,
  • That Nietzsche wanted to base morality on some 'natural' ethical standard.

This has resulted in a significant change to the tone of the article, so I'd appreciate feedback from other people interested in the subject. Cheers, --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 23:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, a lot of change. Thanks for mentioning it here. Some of the wording might be improved, but I myself don't see any major problems. I do think the older material was a bit more clear. But perhaps these problems can be addressed as others look it over. --DanielCD 23:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I've recently done some cleanup. In addition to this, I plan on further expanding it so that it may more closely describe what exactly N means when he refers to "God is dead" in relation to Christian morality, value-feelings, and so forth.ignisscripta 00:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Belated kudos for these corrections to a misleading section of text, although I am left to wonder if it makes the God is Dead article to Nietzsche-centric. Nevertheless, this is an issue for the editors of that article and not here. iggytalk 01:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Tradition/school

Since the infobox has been added, the "tradition/school" element has been generating some controversy. I think we can agree that Nietzsche himself identified with no tradition. However, there are a number of traditions which now exist which can count Nietzsche as a member or major early influence. The only one I feel strongly about is the tradition of continental philosophy which certainly includes Nietzsche, though of course anachronistically. Existentialism, postmodernism and psychoanalysis have all been mooted. Please let's discuss this here instead of in the edit summaries as we revert our way to being blocked. mgekelly 08:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

That is right. Nietzsche and Kierkegaard did not identify with any tradition while they were alive. They were extremely unique philosophers, and I think it's somewhat inaccurate to call Nietzsche and Kierkegaard "existentialists" or "postmodernists". I like the "precursor to" designation as that indicates they are not members of the schools, but were major figures in the formation of those schools. But they are also generally placed under the umbrella term continental philosophy in order to distinguish the type of people they responded to (Hegel in K's case, and Schopenhauer in N's case), and these two philosophers are identified with in the continental tradition. Poor Yorick 08:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I forgot to mention. Using that logic Nietzsche can be classed under Analytic too. He responded to Kant... Let us not be so quick to overlook these things.Non-vandal 22:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Kant existed before the analytical-continental distinction, and he is neither an analytical or continental philosopher. Poor Yorick 23:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I like the 'precursor to' phrase as well (and I wouldn't mind seeing 'psychoanalysis' added to the list). Just describing his school as 'none' is a disservice to people reading the article, IMO. Including N in analytical phil seems bizarre, even by Adorno's standards. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 09:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure "analytical" here is in the sense of psychoanalytical, not analytical philosophy. mgekelly 13:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm terribly sorry for my behaviour which does seem quite erratic. Here I will quote and give better, and correct, form to what I was getting at.
“ More recently, however, a very different view of him has come to enjoy some currency, according to which he is credited as having been a 'predecessor' of the 'analytic movement' in philosophy (cf. Arthur Danto, Nietzsche as Philosopher). [—Richard Schacht; Nietzsche, p 35] ”
With this (I meant "Danto" instead of "Adorno" when I edited in "analytic"), I suggest he be classified as a predecessor to all of these (including continental philosphy) so that we can deepen the significance of N's actual influences, etc.Non-vandal 21:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I find extremely bizarre the suggestion that N played a role in the origin of analytic Anglo-American philosophy. — goethean ॐ 22:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I second this. The analytic philosophers explicitly declared him as a non-philosopher ex cathedra --Knucmo2 17:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC).
Danto is a philosopher with diverse interests and he is not representative of the analytic tradition as a whole. Poor Yorick 23:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Aside from Danto's particular standing, one might be inclined to ask what exactly this "'predecessor'" relationship entails. One can note a complete absence of Nietzsche and references to him within the earlier parts of "analytic" philosophy. The extent to which he embodies a 'predecessor' of analytic philosophy is precisely insofar as some of his ideas have been linked up with certain notions that have developed (independently) within the analytical discourse itself. The ascription of Nietzsche as a predecessor of "analytical" philosophy, thus, must be taken with a grain of salt. Nietzsche is not a predecessor in the sense that Wittgenstein or Russell, but rather in the sense that later developments have aligned with Nietzsceian-esque styles of thought, rather than a direct influence on the tradition itself. One can, of course, note that Nietzsche has played a role in more contemporary interpretations of analytical thought (albeit largely in the role of an opponent rather than an "influence"). That, however, has more to do with Nietzsche's increasing popularity as a "philosopher" and not as a "predecessor" of analytic philosophy — one might here note Nietzsche's constant vehement remarks on the subject of "English philosophy", which is more clearly the predecessor to modern analytic philosophy than Nietzsche himself. iggytalk 01:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Like you say, iggy, the overall view with hopes toward appropriating Nietzsche in this manner requires a certain relative consideration. Namely, he did anticipate some of analytic philosophy's disaffections from previous modes of philosophical enquiry, and, not only this, he produced veritable formalizations redolent to those prescribed by it to the degree in which linguistic analysis is proximate. Indeed, from these points onward Nietzsche goes far beyond this tradition (pointed out by Schacht only sentences later) and the idea simply does not coherently coalesce, which states he was some precursor in a tradition that, more or less like all traditions, is piecemeal and discontinuous in development and form—even chaotic—which oughtn't less be taken into account while these notions are colligated into such depictions as these for history. Thus that would very well have it, I see no issue with the current listing in the main article; although one has some doubts about its fullness, it is not inaccurate otherwise. — ignis scripta 02:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to go on a wikibreak now for a good while, so here are my 2 cents before I go: The listing should read

Continental philosophy; precursor to existentialism, postmodernism, poststructuralism, psychoanalysis

The only ones I would insist on are continental philosophy and postmodernism — in all other cases I think there are good arguments for and against inclusion. Analytical philosophy should not be there. Danto is not really an analytical philosopher per se, and analytical philosophy as such is not influenced by FN. mgekelly 03:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a good list to me... iggytalk 03:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm against the strong support for postmodernism, that is, there are arguments against its inclusion in certain respects, especially shown by more recent developments (even as relates to Derrida), but it is a good list, and all of these particulars are a good summary. In this spirit, I've decided to add those lacking. — ignis scripta 03:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Earlier, I added "German literary tradition" to schools/tranditions. Does anyone know if there was a particular literary tradition that he can be included in? — goethean ॐ 14:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Not really sure, perhaps late Romanticism of a German bent, but even this is quite vague. He drew on various literary influences such as Goethe, and the Troubadours. --Knucmo2 17:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
This is an interesting point -- Nietzsche could be classified in the general category of European Romanticism, but not the more specific grouping of German Romanticism. — goethean ॐ 22:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
The article, which for all else I continue to work upon from time to time, most notably involving the tradition of Weimar Classicism is, whereof most recent scholarly maieutics have borne out, one tradition within which, most undoubtedly, Nietzsche participated. The consequences of such a finding are tremendous and augur the conditions in which the "new reception" of Nietzsche is being undertaken—and continues to be fostered in various ways. Friedrich Nietzsche and Weimar Classicism by R. H. Stephenson and Paul Bishop is one such book on this topic, and is very finely written, that is, it thoroughly establishes these suggestive indications. If not rather being entirely welcome to the loam of the article's composition, adding this to the article does not seem to be pregnant with any particular difficulties. — ignis scripta 21:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
There is certainly an elective affinity between Nietzsche and Weimar Classicism. — goethean ॐ 22:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Super/overbeyond man/human

Most references to N's Übermensch in English use overman or superman, (including Übermensch). 'Overhuman', as well as being a grimly ugly neologism, is not the normal way to describe the idea, and WP should reflect that. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 09:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

These are all hideous neologism, IMO. But I strongly object to making a "man" out of "human," given Nietzsche's exaggerated reputation for misogyny. Perhaps we should render Menschlich, allzu Menschlich as "Manly, all too Manly." If overhuman and superhuman are not to people's liking I would suggest we keep Übermensch auf Deutsch, with an explanation at its first occurence. mgekelly 09:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd go along with leaving it in German, which is also an option some translators use. The point is that we shouldn't make up terms not usually used (so 'Human, all too Human' is the only contender for that title). Anyone object to using the German word with an explanation? --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 09:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Ja, Übermensch auf Deutschsprechen ist sehr gut. In other words, I think there are no problems with that. Even more, this would be benefit the Übermensch article as well. One last note, it would be of great import to note that Nietzsche borrowed this term from Goethe who used it in Faust, where the "Spirit" uses it in reference to Faust ironically. — ignis scripta 21:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
We can link to the discussion of the matter. — goethean ॐ 21:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, the article is seriously overweight now, and the last thing we need is the discussion of a possibly ambiguous term which will add to the confusion of the article even more. Goethean's strategy is the best idea. The exposition of the theory must be based on what Nietzsche meant, and sources should be quoted from both N himself and scholar's (e. g. Kaufmann) interpretations. --Knucmo2 15:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not delete material without discussing

To anon and User:Non-vandal: Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Look above in "Petrejo's changes". The anon's edits are vandalism along the same lines. It needs to be stopped, nothing else.Non-vandal 04:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
There should be no need for any of the 3 or 4 editors who remove Petrejo's POV-pushing to break 3RR, a revert or two each should handle the situation. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 07:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
While Squiddy is correct about this, and while I am reverting the edits in question on sight myself, it's worth noting that we are currently in fact conducting a revert war, which is not the best way to proceed. I think that some compromise with Petrejo can probably be reached. S/he needs to understand that information about negative receptions of Nietzsche needs to be referenced, not his/her own original research. Certainly, there are many critiques of Nietzsche, and this article should mention them. On the other hand, if anyone wanted to push this revert war further, since we are not breaking 3RR but Petrejo presumably is doing more than three reverts (which is to say three edits replacing substantially the same material) within 24 hours, someone could have him/her blocked from editing. mgekelly 12:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
If this continues as it does I will be forced to request for comment at the very least. I suggest all editors involved be calm and perhaps leave this page alone for a little in order to gather their wits. First, let's negotiate the objective facts. Petrejo's position is that Nietzsche is not a philosopher. This is untrue (see Talk:Petrejo) for the reasons I've given on his talk page and the fact that it is against a huge consensus, and is a POV. What I suggest is that somewhere in the article it should be mentioned that Nietzsche was not trained as a philosopher (this does not demerit his works in anyway otherwise it would demerit the works of Spinoza/Leibniz et. al) but as a philologist. This is a simple historical fact of the matter, and the consensus that Nietzsche is a philosopher is overwhelming. There is already criticism of Nietzsche in the article from Kaufmann who believes he represents a "decline" as a philosopher, but that does not discount him as a philosopher, just perhaps a bad one. --Knucmo2 12:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Mgekelly. I don't wholly object to Petrejo's edits, but it is getting tiresome and he needs to reference the negative views of Nietzsche. This article is actually POV favouring the Kaufmann interpretation and there are many other views of N that need to be addressed, including those views that connect Nietzsche with fascism. I recommend the book "Nietzsche: Godfather of Fascism" for other views of N besides the Kaufmann "de-Nazified" interpretation. ArcherOne 13:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
The de-Nazified view is not Kaufmann's interpretation alone. If one recognizes the Nazis took up Nietzsche as their philosophical inspirator by way of shoddy extraction and selection of his writings that are contrary to their conceptions and ideologies in toto, converting his views into their own during this process (what Petrejo does on end, evidently in terms of supposals and misconceptions), it is apparent the interpretation itself was, is, and will remain a misinterpretation, which no less ought to be mentioned. — ignis scripta 16:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
With all respect, the de-Nazified view neglects to notice "Nietzsche's passion and ferocity and ignores those works where fascism plays no roles" (GoF, p.296) How do you know whether Kaufmann's and Hollingdale's interpretations are the "right" interpretations, and others non-Nazi/anti-Nietzsche scholars like Georg Lukács have the "wrong" or "mis"interpretations? You don't, and Nietzsche is a diverse enough thinker to prevent a firm concrete answer. Even Jacques Derrida, an admirer of N, says that even if N didn't support Nazism, "one can't falsify anything" in Derrida's Teaching of Nietzsche and the politics of the proper name. ArcherOne 23:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
My statement did not presume to speak of a "complete" interpretation of his thought or that Kaufmann's or Hollingdale's (among many others') are "right" or "wrong" ("complete", "right", and "wrong" ought to be denied, for such interpretations do not exist, hence I'm aware of the issue at hand). Only this: though his thought, even seen in full, may be aligned with Nazism in some details, it extends beyond Nazism in all of its forms, and the methods by which Nazism (not to speak of what others noted about him in this light) claimed him were flawed (in other words, it is a kind of critique but that is not fit here). The de-Nazified view is simply not limited to Kaufmann's and Hollingdale's interpretations. — ignis scripta 00:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
In what way does it extend beyond Nazism? There are lots of works dedicated to this question, and that question is far from being uniformly answered. Some claim Nazism is a "Nietzschean" experiment. Some claim Nietzsche is at some point responsible for his "misinterpretation" (he was sloppy/could have been clearer). Along with the Godfather of Fascism book, there are many contemporary books that discuss this connection, such as Nietzsche, Prophet of Nazism which further explores the Nazi-Nietzsche connection. I mean no disrespect to the de-Nazified view, and I know Kaufmann and Hollingdale are not the only scholars who subscribe to this view (I added Hollingdale in my second post just to give Kaufmann some company). But this view is not the only view and it, like others, has its flaws. This article should not put the Kaufmann et al as being the superior view, nor the Nazi/Fascist views either. Both ought to be treated as fair, with no one view patronizing the other. ArcherOne 01:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
We're largely in agreement then. I suppose the need to make these details more clear were not altogether without value. In answer to your question a simple answer would be "in accord with a particular interpretation" but that does little as this small aside of ours has indicated. Needless to say, this article needs a great deal of reworking and clearer formulation. — ignis scripta 01:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem with sourced criticism of Nietzsche, but I do object to a personal selection of hand-mutilated snippets from WtoP being jammed in. I hoped Petrejo would come and discuss this when I started the section above, but s/he has not seen fit to do so.
As well as the Nietzsche/fascism debate, it might be worth at least noting the strong connection made in Britain between N and 'Prussian Militarism' during WW1. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Aye, indeed, sourced criticism should not be too hard to find (Bertrand Russell springs to mind) and Petrejo is a bloke by the way. Petrejo is emailing me insisting Nietzsche is a non-philosopher, rather than discussing the matter here as he ought to be. --Knucmo2 18:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The matter appears thus to me (this also belongs to "Petrejo's changes" above): an individual with exaggerated idiosyncrasies capriciously collocates an incomplete collection of texts without any thought regarding the body whence they were derived, presses into them a "negative" (non-)meaning, and then goes no further than dogmatic assertion, that is far from being remotely sensible about the conditions of Nietzsche's thought. In so doing, this individual (who clearly does not forthright wish to discuss the matter) constructs, by mendacious augmentation and misplaced emphasis, a "dark" précis of him (currently in the article), which does not, in any remote manner,—most distant from any careful and thoughtful readings—exist. Perhaps this is the expression of the effect of another's impatience, in all of its unseemliness, regarding the current constitution of the article? Surely, there is no doubt that the article is at present (also disregarding what I am contesting here) within the immurement of incompleteness, distortion, and lacks foci proper; this notwithstanding, what article is never thus?

This place, Wikipedia, is an institution for informativeness, not the supreme of supremes in scholastic taste in any form whatsoever (as if some "absolute" were, is, or will ever be possible in this way), though it does employ similar means for assessment where scholarliness is understood aright, variedly.— Likewise decried in "Petrejo's changes", these insertions are not acceptable; firstly, for breaching the necessitated induction of informative clauses and so forth, which supports the contextual grounding of all considerations; secondly, not "let the reader judge for his or her self" (as if giving small parts leads to an ideation of the whole), this indeed leads to nothing sensible, for, by way of only choosing a few quotations and not others, a stronger possible viewpoint, reducing this absurdity to nil, becomes needlessly incomprehensible and distant from veiw (in other words, it is not "objective"). (This approach of course seems mainly analytic, whereas a synthetic method would be best, assuming Nietzsche's thought is wholly coherent, which is not an apparently misguided one at that.) Therefore, out with them—the methodology by which they live has no real bearing at all, excluding the sheer dearth of cleanliness whereby they were assimilated. — ignis scripta 19:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Like my post above, this one belongs to Petrejo's changes: I have deleted the section involving these distortions. Any additions similar to these require immediate deletion due to the implications, which may include vandalism as well, I have outlined above, whatever lack of discussion by the other party notwithstanding. — ignis scripta 20:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I have recently reverted these changes by Petrejo again, who previously wrote this response to Knucmo2. However, these statements change little as regards the condition of the article and the circumstances of Petrejo's ridiculous attempt to justify utter vandalism. Where no clearly based rationale is given, possibly leading to a compensatory mean, to which all parties—since this matter, insofar as it is being undertaken by Petrejo, is unnecessarily irate-ridden, vitiating any genuine discussion—may agree, I'm of this simple position: if there is no discussion proper on the matter, then this constitutes vandalism and truly worthless means of explicating on supposed views, for which Petrejo advocates, and with these I have no quarrel and it does not appear that Knucmo2 does either seeing his statements here. — ignis scripta 03:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I have no quarrel. Petrejo seems to have lost it, accusing me of being a Nietzsche "advocate" whilst at the same time calling me a Neo-Kantian, not realising the absurdity of this contradiction. If he will not discuss matters here without losing his temper, then there is no reason to accept these changes, for most of them are a POV --Knucmo2 09:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I count four reverts by User:143.166.255.18 today, in case anyone is hoping for a 3RR block. Oops! That was for today and yesterday. -Smahoney 23:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR warning

To all editors: Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Any further editwarring will result in the article being protected. Please discuss your differences with civility and with respect to fellow editors. Note that revert wars never accomplish anyhing in Wikipedia beyond blocks for WP:3RR or page protection, that is. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Jossi, the warning was very clearly in order. Hopefully, things will resolve in due time. — ignis scripta 04:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Dumb Question

Bottom of the page--catagories. Why is Nietzsche both in Wagnerites and Anti-Wagnerites? Sorry if the article explains, I'm just using part for school, and this caught my eye. Nyctalopia 22:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

See here. — goethean ॐ 22:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Niki Whimbrel 22:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)