Talk:Friedrich Nietzsche/Archive 8

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 7 |
Archive 8
| Archive 9 →


Contents

Corssen and Nietzsche

I was researching for a paper on Nietzsche (and the Greeks) and came across Corssen's name. Wikipedia'd him and added a short section to the end of the article... if anybody here is interested in adding, removing, or editing my addition, please do so. Just figured this would be a good place to make this known. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Paul_Corssen#Influence_on_Friedrich_Nietzsche Thanks, -DWRZ 04:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Photographs of the Nietzsche Archiv in Weimar, Germany

I uploaded three photographs I took at the Nietzsche Archiv in Weimar, Germany on 2006.VII.16 to the Wikipedia Commons . I'm definitely not a good photographer, but feel free to use them if they contribute to the article. I selected the license kind of randomly, let me know if it's not really Wikipedia-ish and I'll change it. :) -DWRZ 04:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, a treasure hunt! excellent!Skomorokh 04:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

forgotten?

There has already been a lengthy debate on anti-Semitism and N., but no mention of sexism. I don’t believe either is related to his philosophy, but of the two, his sexism seems the most glaringly obvious. So obvious, indeed, that I won’t trouble with sources. Surely the mention of one merits the other. ~ nude grey ~ 10/2

This info was moved to Social and political views of Friedrich Nietzsche, an article which could use a great deal of improvement. — goethean ॐ 17:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
We should merge that page with Philosophy of Freidrich Nietzsche, where I've put a great deal of effort into Views of women --GoodIntentionstalk 01:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Keep in mind that Nietzsche's aphoristic style has been interpreted and misinterpreted in countless ways over the years. Reading a single line out of context can lead to a gross misunderstanding of his thought.

i am the cardinal (AKA Don't waste your time reading this)

it's great to see wikipedia as the stronghold of mediocrity...--james3443

my question is that surely i must be able to put in somewhere a small quote or what ever you like to call it to explain how powerful this influence has been ... as well as living on the street in my youth and fighting for freedom of expression all my life ... i have also studied - modern political thought and contemorary political philosophy with academics at phd level at goldsmiths college university of greenwich and the open university ... these globally respected professors at these colleges became my friends as well as mentors and supervisors and if you want their names to validate my credentials you can have them ... there are many other ways that i am working alongside many others to fight for freedom of expression in this world ...

this is the forum to link our knowlege together ... ther is no such thing as objectivity in this style of writing all has a subjective dimension ... i am trying to bring the knowledge through translation and the aesthetics of music and performance to a wider audience ... i hope you can help me with this who ever you are ... the cardinal ...

Hi. Thanks for your comment. Please understand that Nietzsche has affected the work of many people throughout the twentieth century. Can you really say, from a neutral point of view, that you are one of the (say) fifty most important of those people? (Writing from a neutral point of view is one of the founding tenets of Wikipedia, as is verifiability). We haven't mentioned, for example, Walter Benjamin, Theodore Adorno, Max Weber, or any of the many American philosophers, like Robert Solomon[1] or John D. Caputo. You added an entire paragraph on yourself, equal to the size of the paragraph on contemporary thought. Surely you are not quite that important. I urge you to be reasonable and to consider the objectives of Wikipedia. — goethean ॐ 18:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

thankyou Gothean for responding ... how do we say what or who is important ... a man standing in front of a tank in china ... a suicide bomber ... a man who died on a cross ... the point as marx argued is to change the world not just talk about it ... 25 years ago when 'false gestures for a devious public' and 'megomania' were released i had many death threats ... i have spent the last quater of a century learning or attempting to be objective or 'neutral' ... it might be argued that the swiss were neutral in the second world war ... it might be argued that being neutral could have seen the nazi's obliterate the jewish race ... it may be argued that being neutral is about keeping yourself safe ... so no i guess i would not argue that im being neutral ... are you

... are you staying safe ... thats ok ... but some people feel that is not the way to contribute to humanity ... i am not making a judgment here ... or do you think i ab being subjective again ... in my criticism of your stand point ... walter benjamin took a premptive strike on his life ... it turns out he did not need to ... was it important or not ... what i would say is important is we care ... and we do all that is within our power ... or within our understanding or our ability ... to show how much we care ... by taking some kind of action ... i have placed my self in a place to do this ...

i am also a youth worker who has recently taken 40 young people over to belfast from england ... we went to a school where catholic and protestant dance sing and create together ... they were so pleased to see us because they still feel isolated from the world ... their schools are still segregated ... i just organized a trip for young arab and jewish children ... who have been going to school together at a school called 'hand in hand' ... since 1997 ... to come to england at christmas 2006 ... they accepted the offer ... i raised the funding and still have it ... then i had an email from them saying they were stuck in a bunker ... because of the recent acceleration in troubles ... but would i please not forget about them ...

i have reformed 'the blood' and am going to challenge and put my self in harms way to challenge ... anywhere where people are abused ... nietzsche said he would be angry if a student of his did not learn more than he had learned ...i think i can achieve more than talk ... or die trying ... i do not consider importan ... but just an idea that feels right to me as an individual ... an individual because of a wrier like nietzsche ... strangley enough this idea feels like the most objective neutral feeling i have and yet - paradoxically - it is obviously overflowing with intent ... yes i do think i have something to add to the wikipedia page on nietzsche ... you can take your stand point even though adorno argues dialectically that there is no such thing ... but most - importantly - remember some one asked for help and you thought you knew better ... cheers the cardinal

Another guideline on wikipedia is that you do not write about yourself - the idea is that if you are genuinely important in a field, someone else will write about you. If you write about yourself, whether you have an album about to come out or not, it smacks of vanity. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 22:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

yes unlike nietzsche i do have a vanity problem: do your research: the cardinal

Unless you're VERY notable (which you don't seem to be) no one in the general public (i.e. apart from ur friends and family) could care less who had what influence on you when. I suggest you write something up and post it in a blog, or ur personal website or something. Wikipedia is not the place. Mikker (...) 22:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

read my response to Gothean about what is important or notable: the cardinal

Actually, his band already has an article: The Blood. — goethean ॐ 22:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

ty: the cardinal

i still think the point is being missed here ... all writers performers etc etc ... have arrogance ... vanity if you will ... it is this character-spirit that drives them ... that encourages them to question their own ethics and the ethics of others ... alongside the incrediblie technological communications age we dwell in now ... there are many people who have also changed and those changes are important to record and explore ... all i am trying to do is explore ... and leave an ethnographic statement of that exploration ... i do not compare myself to anyone else ... i am both a zombie and unique at the same time ... all i am trying to do is identify what has happened tom me ... because of others ... because of my self ... how i have coped with this/that journey ... how i feel about the journey i am at this moment in now ... i feel a responsibility to do this ... wikipedia is a wondrous idea ... i am just challenging its flexibility to adapt ... to remain multi dimensional ... to be perpetually chameleonic ... whilst remaining authentic to the discourse and reflexivity of humanity and thereto the history of humankind as it unfolds ... cheers the cardinal

Firstly its nice to hear about somebody affected by Nietzsche who's not a normal academic living a life of timid sensibility. Also Could you, or anybody else, cite where Nietzsche expressed anger at any student of his not learning more than him?Itafroma 16:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Nietzsche said this at the beginning of ecce homo ... i can not remember it verbatum ... and i do not have the book to hand ... the cardinal

He'as referring to where Nietzsche quotes Zarathustra in Ecce Homo (and the corresponding passage in Zarathustra) where Z says that it is a poor student that doesn't surpass his master, or somesuch. Jung also quoted it when breaking with Freud, for similarily grandiose reasons I'd imagine. --GoodIntentionstalk 03:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks.Itafroma 16:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This guy, the cardinal (what a name), makes me laugh. Nietzsche would have spat on you. Nietzsche hated followers. If you have read him, you should know this. And have you considered the way you talk? It's like the whole universe revolves around you. If this is an adaptation of Nietzsche's style of writing, you've failed at it, cardinal. Nietzsche never made himself a martyr in his any of his writings. He said himself in The Twilight of the Idols that people mistakenly estimate the value of martyrs, their beliefs or their cause because of the blood they shed. Just look at the way you talk, how you mention all your great deeds and selflessness, it's exactly what Nietzsche hates in a human being. So, it's just appropriate that whatever you added on Nietzsche's article be deleted. If you want to be important, strive hard to establish your name on whatever field you think you are interested in. And then someday, perhaps when you've already gone nuts like Nietzsche, perhaps you'll be famous, and then we can consider adding a whole paragraph about yourself on Nietzsche's page. Moonwalkerwiz 06:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The Cardinal is in NO WAY a follower and if Nietzche would spit on anyone "Moonwalkerwiz" would be one of them. There is hypocrisy laced throughout your above message and missguided hatred. Your lack of insight on seeing or even trying to see, for that matter, the meaning of taking on a name like "The Cardinal" makes me deem you imaginatively weak. Infact you are a follower by trying to be so complacent with the cowardliness and stale thinking that has permeated this discussion (if that was not obvious).

"Egoism is the very essence of a noble soul." - Friedrich Nietzsche

The Cardinal (AKA Bill Sykes) has briefly mentioned some of his aide to humanity, and has done so in a way that Nietzche would consider acceptable. 1-demensional thinking is the way of the 19th century, it's time to see things how Nietzche would have, what he hated most where opinions that safely placed ones self behind an Ideal. Opinions like the ones here, self-serving, fruitless (besides to condemn), and demeaning to constructive thinking.

"In heaven, all the interesting people are missing." - Friedrich Nietzsche

I try to respect the principals behind Wikipedia as best I can, but perhaps occasionally you could think outsides these rigid guidlines? Nietzche simply wanted less talk and more thought. 65.74.121.106 02:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC) George W.

Lastly: "There are no facts, only interpretations." - Friedrich Nietzsche

Quoted the best I can: "A pupil who remains a student is a disappointment to his master." Kevin Baastalk 17:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Self Importance

Schopenhauer described the loss of selfishness as the way to lead a moral and good life. According to him, egoism and selfishness are the prime causes of much pain and suffering in the world. The best people, for him, are those who deny themselves, like saints. Nietzsche reacted to this in a polar opposite, 180° manner. Nietzsche wanted a celebration and aggrandizement of the self. He considered selflessness to be a sickness. The highest types of humanity, according to Nietzsche, should exercise their will to power and affirm themselves. This doctrine of Nietzsche has never failed to attract people who feel themselves to be above most other humans. It has encouraged their self-absorption and justified their lack of compassion or concern for people other than themselves. In 1924, the Leopold and Loeb crime brought general disapproval of Nietzsche because he was one of the criminals' favorite authors and his teachings were thought to have contributed to the murder. In Germany,the National Socialists agreed with Nietzsche's praise of egoism and had no reservations about killing their opponents. The ethics of Schopenhauer and Nietzsche are directly opposite each other. Nietzsche's extreme affirmation of the self developed as a direct protest against Schopenhauer's extreme denial of the self.Lestrade 17:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)L

Yes... and? Are you trying to do something more than add to the volumnious ranks of Nietzsche interpretation? --GoodIntentionstalk 03:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you but the point should be made that the reason for this is because N's is an open philosophy. That is, after all, why we are all here!

And if we're going to mention egoism gone wrong, shouldn't we also mention it as a peculiarity that accompanies great artistic deeds?

Also, isn't the doctrine of Self Overcoming rather like certain Buddist doctrines, rather similar to S after all - though be it - perverted? I don’t interpret quite the polarity that you do. Nevertheless, it would be rather ironic, as S was a notorious glutton and N a stoic in life. Just some self-important thoughts. ~nude grey~

you could argue that nietzsche was a 'glutton' for punishment and that through that struggle you become a glutton for life ... whence a glutton for life thereto you strive to make that which you are a glutton for incredible ... so incredible that you encourage others to strive toward it ... in is the reflection o humanity that you see in your own soul ...


gosh, despite your syntax ... I think I understand what you are getting at ... perhaps the virtue of struggle itself? but this isn’t the forum for such highly enjoyable debates. I’m more curious about the stated polarity between S and N and if this is ultimately true. My concern is that as the poster might be presenting a biased view that cleverly slanders N. I too think it’s interesting that so many bad guys invoke N’s philosophy as an excuse to commit dubious deeds ... and conversely people dismiss his thoughts because of this. And yet the same is never charged of Machiavelli or Plato. Perhaps it has something to do with N’s very paradoxical rhetoric. And then the page is looking pretty good too.

~nude grey~
If you read Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, you will learn that Schopenhauer praised self-denial and turning against the will to live. Nietzsche admitted that Schopenhauer was a very, very strong influence on him. Nietzsche reacted against Schopenhauer by praising self-affirmation and saying "yes" to life, in spite of some of its horrible qualities. By reading both authors, you will be able to see for yourself that Nietzsche's attitude was the exact opposite extreme of Schopenhauer's ethics.Lestrade 00:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Lestrade


ha, ha ... yes i prefer my information come from the texts rather than shadowy pedants disguising value judgments in over-simplified scholarship. you fail to grasp the nuance involved. the Ubermensch is exactly that: the Over-man: the Self-overcame ... the denier and creator of the new will. there is a transcendental similarity here to S. ~nude grey~

Cultural depictions of Friedrich Nietzsche

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


Nietzsche and Nazism

It is good that this article has been delisted, and I hope someone with expertise can correct it, or at least add the appropriate contrary arguments. Its total exoneration of Nietzsche's influence on the development of Nazism is absurd. Indeed, he died decades before the Nazis rose to prominence, and could not have forseen the consequences of his ideas. No one knows what his view of the Nazis might have been, and he may in fact have disapproved of them. However, to expunge from his record the clear, unavoidable fact that his ideas were primary in their influence on the eventual ideology of the Nazis is to engage in outright dishonesty. It is dishonesty of an extremely dangerous sort, because someone approaching Nietzsche without the benfit of hindsight might be more inclined than they should be to embrace his ideas uncritically.

Specifically, Nietzsche's primary argument—the rejection of morality in favor of "evolutionary advancement" through any means, leading to his concept of the "Űber-Mensch"—cannot be seen as anything other than the genesis, and the absolute underpinning, of the Nazis' "Master Race". While there are many other examples of his influence, to whitewash this primary aspect out of his record is particularly unthinkable.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.45 (talk • contribs)

Your description of Nietzsche bears an inverse relation to his actual ideas. The Nazi situation is well treated in the 'influence and reception' section. Maybe we should add a sentence in the intro referring to the abuse of Nietzsche's ideas by the Nazis and others. — goethean ॐ 21:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
If my description of his ideas is inaccurate, I would greatly appreciate your correction. I think it is exactly correct. If you want to argue how his relationship to Nazism should be viewed and described, there is plenty of room for divergence. While Nietzsche himself may have protested that he was not an anti-semite, that is in some ways irrelevant to examinig his influence on Nazism. It could be argued that the Nazis took his philosophy and applied it in a way that Nietzsche would not have approved. However, it cannot be argued that it was, in large part, his philosophy that they applied. If, for example, the Nazis had given an IQ test to all of Germany and eliminated anyone who fell below a certain score, regardless of race, perhaps that would have been closer to what Nietzsche advocated. That does not change the fact that evolutionary supremacy, acheived by any means neccessary, unhindered by morality, in pursuit of a new racial ideal was at the core of everything Nietzsche believed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.30 (talk • contribs)
Sign your comments by concluding them with four tildes. Cka3n 00:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Besides, this is clearly not a matter for Wikipedia to resolve. Us saying it cannot be argued or it must be so does not change the state of affairs. Where there is significant controversy, we should report it as such. The current version of "Nietzsche's influence and reception" suggests the connection between Nietzsche and Nazism, but does so in a way that depicts the association as one arising from misinterpretation (perhaps purposeful) of the scholar. If there is a significant strain of academic (or popular) thought and publication suggesting that the connection was a valid one, let's edit to include that. If, however, that view is a view held only by a very limited few, it should be excluded. Even if those few are correct, Wikipedia is not the proper field for their fight.Cka3n 00:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I am not an expert in this field, but quick research suggests that scholars are about equally divided in thirds on the issue-- roughly a third taking the position that Nietzsche's philosophy and Nazism are one and the same, a third taking the dismissive position espoused in this article, and a third taking a middle view. If that is the case, the article absolutely should reflect it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.30 (talk • contribs)
What "quick research" suggests this fantasy? — goethean ॐ 20:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I did not do his research, but even the favorably disposed introduction to the Clark and Swensen translation of GM notes that "the Nazi charge, seemingly put to rest forever by Kaufmann, has reappeared. ... In short, ... Nietzsche is far from being an uncontroversial figure." (xiv). Thus it is no fantasy to suggest that there is a viable, extant academic strain still associating Nietzsche with the Nazis (even if indirectly), and it is mere fantasy to pretend that such a position was never the dominant academic understanding. Hence, "the article absolutely should reflect [these facts]." That said, I don't know that the fact that there was a serious position previously or that there is now some limited debate merits the placement of this "controversy" at the top of the article instead of in the sub-section you suggested previously. Cka3n 21:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
However, it may be appropriate, given the extent and effect of the prior accepted association of Nietzsche with the Nazis, to include a reference thereto in this sentence: "Although largely overlooked during his short yet productive working life, which ended with a mental collapse in 1889, Nietzsche received recognition during the first half of the 20th century in German, French, and British intellectual circles, and by the second half of the 20th century he became regarded as a highly significant and influential figure in modern philosophy." Perhaps: "Nietzsche was largely overlooked during his short yet productive working life, which ended with a mental collapse in 1889. Nietzsche received recognition during the first half of the 20th century in German, French, and British intellectual circles, gaining notoriety for the adoption of his name by the Nazi party, and by the second half of the 20th century he became regarded as a highly significant and influential figure in modern philosophy." Cka3n 21:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
For the pre-Kaufmann attitude, read Crane Brinton; but I wouldn't include any of that material. Septentrionalis 21:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
As I have said, I'm not an expert in the field by any means, but having read a reasonably substantial amount of Nietzsche's material, it is impossible for me to comprehend that the spectre of Nazism does not leap off the page and sieze any reader by the throat. I am sure his extreme hostility to religion is particularly enticing to many modern day "scholars", but to go to such great contortions as to totally sever any causal link between Nietzsche in the Nazis is not only absurd but—as I said—potentially dangerous, in my opinion. I think the paragraph I inserted was a good start, although by no means definitive. To me, the content and placement was wholly appropriate, while the wording may be arguable.67.142.130.38 22:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Would the wording I suggesting (including the reference in the sentences at the end of the first paragraph) be acceptable if combined with the fuller exposition in a sub-section?Cka3n 22:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Any movement in that direction would be an improvement, in my opinion.67.142.130.32 18:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
That's fine with me. — goethean ॐ 19:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I still think the "influence and reception" section is deeply flawed. There should be a separate section devoted specifically to the relationship between Nietzsche and Nazism, and the controversies involved.67.142.130.31 22:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing inherently nazistic about Nietzsche, the will to power or the notion of the overman. bear in mind that his sister marketed him that way after his death to suit her own racist views and the nazis tried to adopt him as one of their own. i am convinced that he would have abhorred the militarism and ruthless totalitarianism of the nazi movement.Chappyone 06:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the connection between Nietzsche and Nazism should not be overlooked. Even writers who admired Nietzsche, such as Camus, acknowledged that Nietzsche could be interpreted in a Nazist light. Note that I am also an admirer of Nietzsche's work, and I'm aware that the man would hardly support the Nazist regime — he had nothing but contempt for Bismarck's militarists attitudes, and called any army who had as an end war a product of madness —, yet that doesn't mean there aren't ways to find in his thought proto-Nazist claims (in particular with regards to eugeny).Daniel Nagase 01:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean eugenics? I do not remember Nietzsche proposing to breed mankind into better races. He does, however, admits the fact that culture, tradition and systems of governance has a way of breeding people. He discusses this in The Twilight of the Idols, when he compares the ways of Hinduism with Christianity. He observes that these systems always have a goal of making mankind "better." Nietsche, on the other hand, despised systems and the herd instinct that accompanies systems (Christianity for example, or Nazism). In Thus Spoke Zarathustra he says quite unambiguously, "Zarathustra shall not be the herd's herdsman and hound! To allure many from the herd- for that purpose have I come. The people and the herd must be angry with me: a robber shall Zarathustra be called by the herdsmen." Moonwalkerwiz 01:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

as long as we're holding Nietzsche responsible for the misinterpretation and manipulation of his work, why don’t we hold Jesus responsible for the Inquisition, and the kkk. In fact I think the later makes much more sense. This connection of Nietzsche to Nazism and in some cases nihilism is juvenile and the clearest mark of someone who has not bothered to read Nietzsche's work before condemning his own distortion of it. But for those of you who can't take the time to see how utterly contradictory these connections are (its as simple as reading what he has to say on anti-semitism and nationalism), I'd recommend at least looking at TSZ's "of the bestowing virtue." "of the three evil things" and "of the new idol" to give yourself the slightest grasp of Nietzsche's true understanding of political power.

This is a tricky one. Take a look at the first pages of Leszek Kolakowski's Main Currents of Marxism. He says that though it's ridiculous to blame Nietzsche or Marx for Nazism and Stalinism, their philosopies are not entirely innocent. —Cesar Tort 07:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Needs more bread on its bones

this article does -- Chris 18:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Nietzsche's classical "discovery"???

In the section on Nietzsche's move to Basel it is stated that "During his philological work in Basel he discovered that the ancient poetic meter related only to the length of syllables, different from the modern, accentuating meter."

This is something that every schoolboy from the Dark Ages (to mark the exact time when accentual meter began to be used in the Romance languages) knew; in Constantinople ditto. It's no discovery at all.

The inserter of this statement must be referring to something and perhaps got it garbled. What could this statement be trying to refer to in reality?

Ottocs 09:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this was known in Constantinopel, Athens and Rome from the Dark Ages - but it was NOT known to German philologists in the 19th century. That is the point. See Nietzsche's letter to Carl Fuchs from April 1886 about this topic. --Klingsor 21:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


This was known ages before Nietzsche, and it was common sense by then. Wilamowitz was already writing treatises on greek metre, and so was Richard Porson. Don't talk about what you evidently have absolutely no clue of, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.19.143.44 (talk • contribs)

I posted my response to Ottocs' question on his talk page 1 1/2 months ago, see User talk:Ottocs. If you can help to get this point right, please do so.--Chef aka Pangloss 16:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
What is your source for Nietzsche's metrics? It's not in the article now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Biased article. Why are there no critics of Nietzsche listed

Why are there no critics of Nietzsche listed? ken 21:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Why not start a "Criticisms" section of the article or the Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche article? --Harpakhrad11 19:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Chesterton wrote something if I remember correctly. The best critique I know is a biographical one: Stefan Zweig's The Struggle with the Daimon. The last time I visited the US it was out of print but it's available in German. —Cesar Tort 07:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Link Spamming

Ok, I spammed the entire article with links to polemic. I don't know if I should have, if you want, be bold and revert everything but the first link. -Slash- 05:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy

Also, the article needs a clear link to the philosophy article. -Slash- 03:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Understatement

By the second half of the 20th century he had become regarded as a highly significant and influential figure in modern philosophy. Last sentence of the intro paragraph, understatement of the 20th century? How about him founding and introducing the very concepts that we consider modern philosophy. He was years ahead of his time and advanced philosophy further than anyone had or has.

No, actually, the article was right in saying that "Nietzsche's contemporaries largely overlooked him during his short yet productive working life, which ended with a mental collapse in 1889." His books didn't even sell well. And modern philosophy's champion is not Nietzsche, but rather one of Nietzche's "impossibles," Kant. Nietzsche would be more in line with postmodern philosophy, having influenced its supposed contributors like Heidegger, Foucault and Derrida. Moonwalkerwiz 04:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
It is fairly obvious that both the article and whoever wrote that meant "modern philosophy" in a "modern" and not "modernist" sense. Assuming the latter would even prove to be impossible as postmodernism is one of the schools of modern philosophy (as in the philosophy of today or the 20th century) and not an epoch during which Nietzsche could be said to have become known to a wider audience. Staretsen 17:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
First of all, assuming that postmodernism is a school of modernist philosophy is already a modernist view. In fact, you are the one who are conceiving of the movement as an "epoch" after modernism. You're describing history as a linear progression of ideas. Nietzsche himself said that "Some men are born posthumously" obviously referring to his ideas as not in accordance with the conventions of his time. That is postmodernist thinking, because he views his ideas as not part of modern philosophy but something else entirely. For that reason, he can be considered a postmodernist with his critique or reason, of human development and essentialism. Moonwalkerwiz 01:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Influence. Yeah, Sure

I would love to know specifically, and in a bit of detail, how those rock "musicians" and entertainers were influenced by Nietzsche. Could it be that they make the claim in order to seem more interesting? I would bet that most of them are illiterate (or dyslexic, as is the fashion), and have never understood even one of Nietzsche's sentences.Lestrade 23:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Today, December 13, 2006, is the day that "black metal bands" have been included as those who have been influenced by Nietzsche. I am closely watching every episode of The Simpsons, in case Bart ever mentions Nietzsche, so that I can include it here. Also, there might be a mention in that universally-referenced film The Matrix. I expect that some rapper, maybe the thug 50 Cent, will someday mention the German philosopher. Is there a way that someone can specify the reason for the influence in popular culture? A mere mention does not seem to be a very profound influence.Lestrade 15:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Lestrade
Forgive me if I sound prejudiced but that is exactly how I perceive modern America; as flooded with teenagers who couldn't understand a word of Nietzsche even if they took the time to read him, nor have ever considered learning German, but still quote Zarathustra on their Myspace. It would perhaps be even worse if 50 Cent did so, and while The Matrix was a fairly good movie, it is also a disgusting, pseudophilosophic manifestation of this entire trend. Billigt effektsökeri, like we say in Swedish.
And with this in mind I most strongly suggest that obviously intellectually handicapped artists and other filth who claim to be influenced substantially by Nietzsche in their products not to be listed, or else we will end up with an article with an as serious appearance as that of The Trial's was during the time when the only comparisons to other works made were to Old Boy and The Count of Monte Cristo (!) - because someone is in some manner imprisoned in all of the works. Staretsen 17:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
as a further example, in The Sopranos (middle part of the series, perhaps 3rd or 4th season) AJ begins to read Nietzsche, and starts a huge argument with his family based on his ideas. Later on in the episode one of AJs older friends tells him that Nietzsche stole his ideas from Kierkegaard, which we know is probably wrong, as in one of the later correspondences a friend of Nietzsche's recommends Kierkegaard's work to him, suggesting Nietzsche was oblivious to it throughout his life. We have some knowledge of the books kept in Nietzsche's personal library aswell, detailed in several websites online, with no mention of Soren.

Oh, so all Swedes are geniuses who are fully read up on Nietzsche? Uh huh, yeah, sure.

Given that this article is already attracting its fair share of overenthusiastic nutcases, perhaps we all need to sit down and eat some fruit. In the meantime, I suggest that the following sentence is highly debatable:
'Directly and mediately (through Martin Heidegger), Nietzsche influenced existentialism, postmodernism, psychoanalysis, libertarianism and most subsequent thought.'
I'm not personally aware of the influence of Nietzsche on modern mathematics, biology, chemistry and physics but I'm guessing it's negligible. Nietzsche did not influence the way most people think about everything. Also, Heidegger was not the only or even the principal mediator of Nietzsche's influence (Freud was maybe equally important). How about 'Nietzsche's thought has had a major influence on contemporary philosophy, psychoanalysis, existentialism, libertarianism and postmodernism.' Even that I don't like, on the grounds that it's citation-free. (The reason for reordering the disciplines was to to present them in roughly the chronological order in which they were each influenced by Nietzsche.) Lexo 15:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Organized debate

I added a template for an organized debate on Nietzsche. One of the goals of this debate is to improve the contents of an article. This talk page is overcrowded with templates at the moment. Perhaps some of the templates can be merged or removed.--Daanschr 16:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Nietzsche - Polish?

I have read most of Nietzsche's Why I am so Wise and, although I have left the book at home and am now at the University of Guelph, I believe that Nietzsche claimed to be Polish in the book. I recall him claiming to be purely Polish and not in the least German. Nietzsche went on to insult German diet and claimed it was a cause of their rigid disposition (these are not his words, but they are of a similar affect).

I hate to make these claims without the book on hand to site, but if anyone does have a copy of the work in question, it would be an interesting addition to the page to note that Nietzsche claimed to be Polish, perhaps an early sign of psychological illness.

JackdeGaul 08:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)JackdeGaul

Or because of his anti-nationalism.--Daanschr 13:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Discussed at length here, here, here and here with most of the relevant sources, especially Hans von Müller: Nietzsches Vorfahren, ed. by Richard Frank Krummel and Evelyn Krummel in Nietzsche-Studien 31 (2002). - Why I am so wise is not a book by Nietzsche, but a chapter in Ecce Homo.--Chef aka Pangloss 17:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

it's just a family legend. nothing to see with "an early sign of psychological illness..."

According to a passage in the book "The Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche" by H.L. Mencken, in the book's first section, "Nietzsche the Man", under the first chapter "Boyhood and Youth", in the fifth paragraph, Mencken writes:

The clan came out of Poland, like so many other families of Eastern Germany, at the time of the sad, vain wars. Legend maintains that it was noble in its day and Nietzsche himself liked to think so. The name, says Elisabeth, was originally Nietzschy. "Germany is a great nation," Nietzsche would say, "only because its people have so much Polish blood in their veins.... I am proud of my Polish descent. I remember that in former times a Polish noble, by his simple veto, could overturn the resolution of a popular assembly. There were giants in Poland in the time of my forefathers."

source: Mencken, Henry L., The Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche, California: The Noontide Press, 1982

So Mencken got it wrong, too, because he thought his source, which seems to be Elisabeth's biography, to be reliable. Have you read the sources I linked to?--Chef aka Pangloss 17:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Nietzsche declared that he was a Pole and I am strongly convinced that a serious discussion should be initiated whether he should be considered a "purely German philosopher". --213.158.197.84 22:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)----

Please note Talk:Radwan coat of arms and have a look at the article now and then. User:Interrex has already started an edit war in the German wikipedia about this.--Chef aka Pangloss 11:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Music

Could someone add something about his musical work please? XdiabolicalX 22:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


True. I am not sure if he was a composer or what, but there should be some mention. Maybe by adding "and composer/musician/whatever" next to "Prussian-born philosopher"?

you can find more info on this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nietzsche_Music_Project supposedly he felt that his composition "Hymn to life" should be listened to in order to properly interpret his work. but I haven't heard it and feel like ive done a good job grasping his ideas..

In the IV volume of Curt Paul Janz monumental biography on Nietzsche there are a few pages of N's music MS: an oratory, a song and an hymn. —Cesar Tort 07:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

On the picture and Goethean's revert

The picture I have uploaded is of the quality and time in which Nietzsche is today most often depicted, and also more representative of the Fröhliche Wissenschaft-Zarathustra-Jenseits period, which as an epoch arguably in turn is more representative of Nietzsche than those of earlier works such as Geburt der Tragödie, from which the older image is taken. Therefore, it should in my opinion be favoured over the old one. Staretsen 18:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This is such a specious position it borders on supreme imbecility. How is the time at which the picture was taken relevant at all? The aim for the now current picture is to provide a clear view of Nietzsche's face, although it is certainly different from the most common (and dull) one that can be seen anywhere and everywhere. Please save your "therefore"s for genuine arguments and not ones that aim merely to assert your purportedly "more representative" trivialities of "quality".My retsino 18:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Friedrich_Nietzsche/Archive_6#Photo Here is the last conversation on the image. The image that you prefer is ubiquitous. The one I prefer is rarely seen. If you look at the rest of that talk page, you may see why I revert without consulting this page. — goethean ॐ 03:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that was the very point of my argument. Should not the picture of reference (that is, the top one) in an encyclopedic article be that one which is most often seen - ubiquitous, if you like - and not one which is not, only for the purpose of someone's taste for variation? Staretsen 23:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Why is my taste for variation less of a concern than your taste for uniformity? — goethean ॐ 17:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Redundancy, elegance

Someone please enlighten me as to why Nietzsche's birthday needs to be in the opening sentence when it is there, again, below his portrait; and why his IPA (what I assume is a phonetic pronounciation) is there, too. I feel it would add to the general readability and elegance of this page to move the IPA as well as omitting the birth/death dates. I would like to hear others' opinions on this. -Bordello 04:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

As for now, I will be bold! and remove it myself and see what happens. -Bordello 04:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the birth and death dates seem to be pretty standard for biographical entries, and the IPA guide is helps people know how to pronounce his name, also pretty standard for entries that are difficult to pronounce. So I'm reverting to the previous version. RJC Talk 16:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

"Key concepts" section

I think the "key concepts" section of the article is very poor and its contents do not correspond to the heading. I would hope someone could make a clear, very short summary of Nietzsche's main contributions to philosophy. This is exactly what I was looking for when I came to this article and could not find it.

Thank you.

Steveq34 17:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

  • That is somewhat difficult, since Nietzsche didn't make any such summary, and the question of which were his main concepts is one of the lasting controversies. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is difficult to determine Nietzsche's key concepts since he uses perspectivism and his style of writing is heavy on metaphors. However, I think Steveq34 has a point here. We should at least mention Nietzsche's more common philosphical coinage in the Key Concepts section, like eternal recurrence, master and slave morality, the will to power, resentment, etcetera. Moonwalkerwiz 00:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a biographical article. There is another article on Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche, which should be prominently linked to in the intro of this article. — goethean ॐ 18:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Moonwalkerwiz. The existing section is poor, and (as happened to Steveq34) people are going to come to this article expecting to find some indication of why this guy's thought is important. I agree with the list that Moonwalkerwiz proposes (plus Death of God). Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 21:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't disagree; I was just explaining the current state of things. Although Septentrionalis/PMAnderson has a good point. — goethean ॐ 21:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Apollonian/Dionysiac

Does anyone know if modern classicists take seriously the concepts of the Apollonian or Dionysiac? 152.23.84.168 02:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure some do, but I can't say I've run across them. RJC Talk 15:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Polish?

Perhaps this has been settled already, but is there a consensus about Nietzsche's family supposedly being of Polish descent? I've seen this discussed elsewhere, including the German and Polish Wiki articles on Nietzsche, although I don't understand enough Polish to know what the latter says.

Today's chuckle: As a student back in the '60s, I remember seeing the grafito, "Nietzsche is pietzsche" — based alas on mispronounciation of the name. Sca 18:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The name is apparently Polish, but both his parents were German AFAIK, although Germany didn't become a unified country until 1870. They were inhabitants of Saxony, a province of Prussia, so the Nietzsche family would probably have thought of themselves as Prussians at the time of Fredrich's birth. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 18:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The several discussions you have mentioned (I get tired of posting the links: here, here, here and here) show there is a general consensus that his ancestry is, at least from the 17th century, not Polish. And once more, I refer to Hans von Müllers text "Nietzsches Vorfahren" published by Richard Frank Krummel and Evelyn Krummel in Nietzsche-Studien No. 31 (2002).--Chef aka Pangloss 20:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Note 15 leads to a dead url.

In a nutshell: Nietzsche lied in Ecce homo about his Polish ancestry. —Cesar Tort 06:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

the section on stanford university press, removed recently

hi all, i added a section detailing the SUP's new versions of nietzsche's works to the nietzsche article, primarily because the current english translations of nietzsche's work (kaufmann etc) are fairly poor and i thought it would be useful to drum up some more support. it seems their well has dried up and there hasn't been a book released in the series in several years, although i spoke with them in an email and they said another volume is due later this year.

i did the same in the carl jung article about the philemon foundation, hoping perhaps some richer people than i might find out and donate to it so i can read some more of his work without having to wait perhaps thirty years before it gets published :)

the text of the section was as follows:

Stanford University Press - Stanford University Press has started the process of preparing a new edition of the collected works of Nietzsche in English, although the last new title in the series appeared in 1999. Three works have emerged so far: - - * Unfashionable Observations (1995) - * Human, All Too Human (I) (1997) - * Unpublished Writings from the period of Unfashionable Observations (1999) - - See http://www.sup.org/browse.cgi?x=series&y=The%20Complete%20Works%20of%20Friedrich%20Nietzsche for more details.

anyway, considering that both of these sections represent major (20+ year) projects devoted to the new translations to replace the old ones for scholars and students, should we still mention them on wikipedia or not?

note: the change is here, deleted by Madhava http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Friedrich_Nietzsche&diff=prev&oldid=109277201

best regards, dave —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.247.227.213 (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Yes, should definitely be included, maybe on a subsection dedicated to "Editions of Nietzsche". I am still amazed that Mazzino Montinari's editions of the posthumous fragments have not been completely translated to English. Lapaz 12:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Stirner (yet again)

See also Archive 6 and Archive 4 for others debates concerning Stirner.

I have just removed Stirner from Nietzshce's influences (and Nietzsche from who Stirner influenced) because i thought that an earlier discussion agreed that the evidence on the matter is too inconclusive. However i realise that it had been left up for a while, and was wondering whether any attitudes had changed?I still think that the dispute over whether he read the book, was influenced etc. deserves a mention and was wondering what others thought. But i don't think he should be on the influences list.Itafroma 14:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Stirner as an influence of Nietzsche's certainly remains controversial; I do not know the en:WPs policy about who should be included in this list. Anyway, there are several names in the list which seem dubious, namely Heine, Aristotle, Schiller and Strauß, perhaps even Burckhardt, Kant and Dostoevsky. I find it hard to define who would be an "influence" in which way.--Chef aka Pangloss 15:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Heine should not be controversial. Kaufmann's Nietzsche demonstrates that Heine developed both the Death of God and the eternal return before Nietzsche. — goethean ॐ 23:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, but this does not mean that Nietzsche "got" these ideas from Heine. Neither the death of god (also cf. Jean Paul's Rede des toten Christus vom Weltgebäude herab, daß kein Gott sei) nor the eternal return are ideas originally invented by Nietzsche. I am still uncertain how much Nietzsche really read and used Heine, as well as other of the authors in question. For example, there is evidence that Nietzsche never read a work of Kant's and got most of his information on Kantian philosophy from the works of Schopenhauer, Lange and Fischer. - Also, several Nietzsche scholars have given good cause to mistrust N's own words about his influences in Ecce Homo. Anyway, if possible Nietzsche influences are to be discussed in this article, it should not be name-dropping, but a summary of how and to what effect X influenced Nietzsche's view on Y and why this could be important for the interested reader. - Btw on Nietzsche's library: [2], flawed, but not to be missed.--Chef aka Pangloss 16:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
It is unlikely that Nietzsche read Stirner, and in any cases, he opposed him rather than followed him. But he did read Lange's Geschichte des Materialismus, where ten lines are dedicated to discussing Stirner, conceived as similar to Schopenhauer (quite a misunderstanding, pointed out very early by Albert Levy (see Stirner and Nietzsche). Regarding others influences, well, one could perhaps try to separate "positive influences" and "negative influences". Nietzsche admired many people, despised others, some times both admired and despised, and he explicitly says (I think in Ecce Homo) that choosing an enemy and naming him is doing him a favor (as one ties his own name with the other, doesn't matter if he is criticized or admired). In any cases, Nietzsche was first of all a philologist and specialist of Ancient Greece, he almost did a thesis on Democritus, and closely read Plato. Kant is definitely a very important influence, as is Schopenhauer (although he criticized both). Burckhardt is often quoted in his works, and he seems to have read, lately, Dostoevsky. Concerning the Eternal Return, there are many occurences of this theory in various contemporary works, including Lange, Leopardi (see Paolo d'Iorio here) and elsewhere. Actually, this is written in Eternal Return:

"Several authors have pointed out other occurrences of this hypothesis in contemporary thought. Thus, the anthroposophist Rudolf Steiner, who revised the first catalogue of Nietzsche's personal library in January 1896, pointed out that Nietzsche would have read something similar in Eugen Dühring's Courses on philosophy (1875), which Nietzsche readily criticized. Lou Andreas-Salomé pointed out that Nietzsche referred to Ancient cyclical conceptions of time, in particular by the Pythagoreans, in the Inactual Considerations. Henri Lichtenberger and Charles Andler have pinpointed three works contemporary to Nietzsche which carried on the same hypothesis: J.G. Vogt, Die Kraft. Eine real-monistische Weltanschauung (1878), Auguste Blanqui, L'éternité par les astres (1872) and Gustave Le Bon, L'homme et les sociétés (1881). However, Gustave Le Bon is not quoted anywhere in Nietzsche's manuscripts; and Auguste Blanqui was named only in 1883. But Vogt's work, on the other hand, was read by Nietzsche precisely during this summer of 1881 in Sils-Maria <ref> See Posthumous fragment, 11 [312] 1881; See also Mazzino Montinari, Friedrich Nietzsche, 1974 (German transl. De Gruyter, 1991, French translation PUF, 2001) and also Nietzsche's personal library (see also [3] and revision of previous catalogues on the École Normale Supérieure's website) </ref>

But while Leopardi, for instance, wrote in his story that no ordinary man would like the possibility of reviving exactly the same life, Nietzsche thought that to be able to think this thought, and live according to it, would make one able to superate nihilism (more or less). Paolo d'Iorio points out that Nietzsche underlined a sentence by the Goncourt, in their journal (May 1864), which made reference to living exactly the same life. Lapaz 12:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
"Nonetheless, examining the evidence of the case as presented by Glassford--and being aware that there is no symmetry between the arguments for that someone has read a certain book and against such reading (since the latter can only be based on arguments of absence)--seems to me to lead to a conclusion that Nietzsche probably had read (or knew about) Stirner (and this seems to me also to be Glassford's belief). This is also the conclusion most commentators have reached." A Possible Solution to the Stirner-Nietzsche Question by Thomas H. Brobjer in the Journal of Nietzsche Studies. Lapaz 16:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Does anybody agree then that the important aspects fo this inconclusive and still ongoing debate deserves some text in the article?Itafroma 13:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree. It seems to me that the attempts to add text on Stirner to the article have largely been attempts to use this article to promote Stirner. — goethean ॐ 16:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll take that as definitive. Won't bring it up again.Itafroma 16:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Nietzsche knew about Stirner from reading one of his favorite books, Lange's History of Materialism. In that book, Lange wrote the following short passage:

Stirner went so far in his notorious work, 'Der Einzige und Sein Eigenthum' (1845), as to reject all moral ideas. Everything that in any way, whether it be external force, belief, or mere idea, places itself above the individual and his caprice, Stirner rejects as a hateful limitation of himself. What a pity that to this book — the extremest that we know anywhere — a second positive part was not added. It would have been easier than in the case of Schelling's philosophy; for out of the unlimited Ego I can again beget every kind of Idealism as my will and my idea. Stirner lays so much stress upon the will, in fact, that it appears as the root force of human nature. It may remind us of Schopenhauer. Thus are there two sides to everything!

– Second Book, chapter II

Note the tie to Schopenhauer, Nietzsche's favorite philosopher. Nietzsche looked up Schopenhauer's name in Lange's index and thereby found this passage on Stirner.Lestrade 19:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

NEED MORE NIETZSCHE CRITICISMS

Perhaps Nietzsche does provide something in the way of (simple-minded) descriptions of the fucked up nature of the world (ie: the irrational basis of politics). I doubt that the Nietzschean way is the easiest way, or the best way. But still, that assumes that there is a Nietzschean way (I believe that many have asserted that Nietzsche does not propose any system of human existence, merely that all systems of human existence seem to have certain properties – certainly such an observation seems true for 'the will to power', which does seem to be overly popular due to its simple minded explanations for the whole of human existence).

Anyhow, the article misses coherent criticism of Nietzsche's philosophy. Also, was Nietzsche any good at Mathematics? I doubt it, anyone as messed up in the head as he appears to have been could not be good at mathematics!

Is Nietzschean philosophy compatible with the notion of absolute and objective truth (which DOES exist – as has probably been well demonstrated within physics, for example)? Of course not! Nietzsche doesn't believe it the absolute truth! So why does anyone even read him, let alone write about him? Nietzsche's only contribution to the world is to try to justify why it is so f***ed up by making it more f***ed up with his non-existent philosophical system.

Anyhow, someone fetch me his Maths results from the University of Basel – I bet a wager that he wasn't that good at it.

Nukemason4 22:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

some laughable Modernist insecurity. that objective truth "DOES exist" argument was pretty darn convincing. Even so, you should probably trying reading what you criticize or maybe just stick to math.

Nietzsche and Mathematical Philosophy

As Nietzsche doesn't believe in the absolute/supreme truth of reality – that makes him a shit mathematical philosopher (not that he has ever been espoused as one).

Any comments on this?

Nukemason4 22:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

What would Nietzsche have said about nuclear weapons? Is any of his philosophy applicable to nuclear military encounters? I know that Clausewitz's philosophical ideas can be applied to nuclear doctrine, but have never heard of this being done for Nietzsche.

Nukemason4 22:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This is an excellent question and definitely worthy of inclusion. I suggest you create a section entitled 'Nietzsche and nuclear weaponry' and fill it with your thoughts, observations and whimsical asides. It might also be important to consider Nietzsche's relation to the internal combustion engine and vampires, particularly in the light of Kierkegaards groundbreaking work in the area. I wish nothing but the best in your endeavours. Skomorokh 23:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Focuse on Nietzsche's interpretation of "atoms". John jarrell 21:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

vandalism...

I noticed that some nihilist changed the image at the top of the entry to a disturbing doctored version of the same photograph in which Fritz has a third eye in the middle of his forehead. It went unnoticed for some time. Be on the lookout.--76.188.161.254 04:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

(Anti-)Wagnerite?

Can someone explain to me how Nietzsche can be both Wagnerite and Anti-Wagnerite? 80.114.26.224 10:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

To put it simply, he used to be an admirator of Wagner, but broke with him later on. He criticized his return to Christianism, his anti-Semitism, and his conception of art & of the "genius" ([4]). He also criticized his conception of master & disciples, thinking that Wagner did not allow his disciples to grow on their own — Wagner apparently wanted Nietzsche to apply to philosophy his own artistic conceptions. The Case of Wagner and Nietzsche contra Wagner explain his opposition to him. Music was very important to Nietzsche. Lapaz 12:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
By the way, in the first chapter (I believe) of Ecce Homo, Nietzsche qualifies himself both as a "decadent" and as the reverse of a decadent:

"The good fortune of my existence, its uniqueness perhaps, lies in its fatality: expressing it in the form of a riddle, as my own father I am already dead, as my own mother I still live and grow old. This double origin, as it were from the highest and lowest rung of the ladder of life, at once décadent and beginning—this, if anything, explains that neutrality, that freedom from party in relation to the total problem of life, which perhaps distinguishes me. I have a subtler sense [Witterung: i.e., scent, as in a hunt] for the signs of ascent and descent than any man has ever had, I am the teacher par excellence for this—I know both, I am both.—" (Why I Am So Wise, (here)"

And also, §2 of same chapter:

"Setting aside the fact that I am a décadent, I am also its antithesis. My proof for this is, among other things, that I always instinctively chose the right means against wretched states: while the décadent as such always chooses means that are disadvantageous for him. As summa summarum [overall] I was healthy, as niche, as specialty I was a décadent."

As he has analyzed the "Case of Wagner" as a symptom of decadence, there is a relationship between all of this. Lapaz 13:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Influences and Influenced

I have started a discussion regarding the Infobox Philosopher template page concerning the "influences" and "influenced" fields. I am in favor of doing away with them. Please join the discussion there. RJC Talk 14:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Little Miss Sunshine

I am surprised there was no reference to LMS in this article...i added a bit at the end, but I know it will get deleted... :( Interpolarity 18:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

If that is suitable for the article, it should come in the "trivia" section. —Cesar Tort 19:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
You were right: another editor removed it. What about placing Beyond Good and Evil (film) instead? —Cesar Tort 23:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Oehler

Could somebody please check the new article Max Oehler for grammar and spelling errors (and style etc.)? I translated it from the German article I wrote. It might be quite interesting for the Nietzsche reception; I could also try to add more information by request. Please also have a look at the German article about the de:Nietzsche-Archiv, which right now runs for "featured article".--Chef aka Pangloss 16:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)