Talk:God is dead

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Philosophy Portal

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

1 Evolution
2 Two points
3 The Gay Science
4 Theothanatology
5 Bumper sticker
6 Is it really that misunderstood?
7 Removed para
8 Change of tone/interpretation
9 Trivia
10 Deletion of "The Reflecting God" in Music
11 Introduction
12 Nietzsche's Voice section
13 Date?

[edit] Evolution

Within the article evolution is addressed but I find that farther clarity is still to be achieved. Namely, it would be more adequate to say "...human transformation, that is, as Nietzsche advocated, an increasing measure to cultivate human qualities that continually strive for mastery and refinement in all matters." Thus it fits a decorum that does not mislead the reader into a supposition that Nietzsche is connected to Darwin, as the link (evolution) indicates, whom of course Nietzsche harshly criticized in his works, showing that his idea is not related to Darwin's.

For the mean time, until a reply has been obtained, I will change the article in accordance with my statement above.

How about the idea of "death of God" in Hegel's philosophy? I think it is worth mentioning. Should it be included in this article, or should a new one be created? -- mz 20:50, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If you can find a way to fit it in, go for it. --DanielCD 14:48, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Excellent article, it is among the highest quality of writing and explanation I have read. --ShaunMacPherson 08:39, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Two points

1. Isn't it time we start translating the title as The Joyous Science? "Gay" has become so irretrivably linked with "homosexual" that the original translation of the title, as correct as it was in Nietzsche's time, is now very misleading to many people.

2. Shouldn't the more literalistic meaning of "God is dead" from Prof. Altizer of Emory University in the 1960s be included in the article also. He did mean that "God is dead" in the sense that Jesus was entirely God and the entirety of God; thusly, when He died at the Crucifixion, God was dead and has been ever since (something quite separate from the Nietzschean meaning, but used nonetheless and probably close to the popular, otherwise erroneous, understanding, not to mention the illustrated magazine cover). Rlquall 02:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

In response to your first question, I think that we should follow suit with book publishers to avoid confusion. My copy is entiled The Gay Science. Are there any copies that are entitled differently?

The title 'Joyful Science' is beginning to crop up in new editions: http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521406102 Pf.

That's a link to 'On the Genealogy of Morality' which makes a reference to the 'Joyful Science'. Cambridge University Press still publish the book as 'The Gay Science'. AstroMark 22:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Gay Science

My parenthetical translation from the German title to the English, i.e., The Gay Science was for those who don't read German. The subsequent change to The Merry Science because of concern for the current meaning of the word "gay," only confuses readers, as the English version of the title as "The Gay Science" appears above in the first paragraph. soverman 02:31 2 Feb 2006 (UTC)

I think most people that go to the book go to it because of Nietzsche, not the title. I don't think it causes as much concern as people may think. "The Joyful Knowledge" would work too. Perhaps "Joyful Science"? Thing is, poetry in the past (at least in English) has been called "the gay science", and Nietzsche himself refered to it in Italian as La Gaya Scienza. His meaning is (I believe) a reference to poetry, as he liked to think of his work. I think "Gay" title is fine here; however, it might not hurt to have a paragraph on it at the book's main article. --DanielCD 02:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Then again, I may just be so familiar with the book that I'm blinded to how people new to it are seeing it. --DanielCD 15:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theothanatology

This page should probably be split into two, the original one focusing on the phrase "God is Dead" and the second on Death of God Theology. The Death of God theology presented here is a bit haphazard. Danielsilliman 08:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Yea, it's kind of growing organically, which is not so good. Every now and then articles like this need a firm whipping into shape. Perhaps I'll put it on my list. --DanielCD 02:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bumper sticker

"God is dead – Nietzsche; Nietzsche is dead – God" is a popular line on t-shirts and bumper stickers.

This needs a qualification about how stupid this is, otherwise its spreading the same propaganda that the stickers are and is POV. Please don't put it back in until an agreement is made. --DanielCD 18:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Stupid or not, that slogan is a part of the common conciousness... a mention has to be made. Possibly a more NPOV comment is needed, but the common misinterpretation of the quote is discussed in the main article. I would say further belabouring of the point is superfluous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmackaerospace (talk • contribs)

Well, it's good that it's there. Then we don't need to mention it again in the quotes section. --DanielCD 19:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The version I read 20 years ago went "God is dead" Nietzsche "Nietzsche is dead" God "The dead don´t talk" Django (195.46.251.253 18:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC))

Shows the gall of people who think they can speak for God. --DanielCD 19:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is it really that misunderstood?

I've never heard of someone misinterpreting this as a physical thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.164.30 (talk • contribs)

Could you elaborate on that question a bit? --DanielCD 03:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I think what he is saying is, does anyone actually misunderstand the phrase to mean God has physically died? I would doubt it. I think people understand that it means Religion is dead. Thus calling it a misunderstood phrase seems strange to me.--Hibernian 08:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I do know someone who originally thought the quote was literal and physical in meaning. I quickly corrected him of course. However, even without this misconception the quote still is very much misunderstood. Most people believe that it is an exaltation by Nietzsche (which is covered in the article) or a defiant cry against God and Christianity. All the majority of the public know about Nietzsche (if anything) is this quote and that he was an aetheist (debatable but publicly understood). This easily leads to the idea that he is being literal or defiant. Additionally, most believe it is a quote, that he said it. Rather than the truth of it being in the mouth of one of his characters. --SteveMG 01:42 CST, 21 April, 2006

It is put into the mouth of both Zarathustra and a 'madman' in GS 125, but Nietzsche also says it in his 'own voice' in GS 108 and GS 343, the latter passage ending

Indeed, we philosophers and "free spirits" feel, when we hear the news that "the old god is dead," as if a new dawn shone on us; our heart overflows with gratitude, amazement, premonitions, expectation. At long last the horizon appears free to us again, even if it should not be bright; at long last our ships may venture out again, venture out to face any danger; all the daring of the lover of knowledge is permitted again; the sea, our sea, lies open again; perhaps there has never yet been such an "open sea".

This is not a lament by any stretch of the imagination, and I'll change the article to reflect that sometime in the next few days when I have time to do it properly. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

God is dead. confusion. From the perspective of a believer (that God is alive), I can see how the statement is understood in a different way. However from the perspective of a non-beleiver (the madman), I can only think the madman is refering to the belief in God(faith?). I think the proposition that (the belief) in God is dead is separate from the proposition that without belief in God there is no basis for christian/religous morality(values). Its seems the two propositions have been morphed or treated as one in the first sentence- I am not sure if that has been done to avoid making a blunt statement, which in any case would only be an interpretation. Neitzsche (via the madman) the belief in God is dead. Awless (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed para

I've removed from the Death of God Movement (Theology) section the following

Some have speculated that God has long-since committed suicide, mostly out of boredom and a profound sense of ennui originating in the fact that he/she/it supposedly 'controls' or 'directs' everything and everyone everywhere, thus he/she/it probably ran out of 'things to do' long ago and just left the universe at it stood at the moment of death. Some believe that this view is quite comical, while others find it highly blasphemous and offensive.

because it looks like orig research. If this view has been put forward by a published philosopher or theologian, pls cite. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Change of tone/interpretation

I've made some significant changes to this 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?) 23:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Some of the wording could be better IMHO. I don't see any major issues though. I liked the older material better (but perhaps that's because I wrote most of it!). That was back in August 2004 though, so it was probably due for a tune up. --DanielCD 23:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that it needed rewording, Daniel, and changed it in this way. At this point, as I described at Talk:Friedrich Nietzsche, all that is truly necessary is expansion, including quotations and a much closer description of N's thought.^ignis_scripta 00:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

That does read better now, good stuff. (Typographical question: are em-dash; 's deprecated? I notice you've changed them into —'s.) --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 07:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

In answer to your question, my prevailing preference for "Alt+0151" to "&m[-]dash;" is purely visual, since it is easier, and in my opinion, faster to discern them as "—" than "—" while editing.^ignis_scripta 20:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

$I n s e r t f o r m u l a h e r e$

[edit] Trivia

I removed some trivia examples. I really think it's not good to try and list every mention of the phrase known to man. IMHO it severely detracts from the article's focus. It's not just this article, it seems to haunt a lot of articles (Uroboros is another). I'm sure there is a guideline somewhere about what trivia is important to understanding the concept and what is just littering the article. If I can find it, I'll try to post it here so we can keep better tabs on what trivia improves the article and what doesn't. --DanielCD 20:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There's a section of the MoS, Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles, is that what you're thinking of? Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 01:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Squiddy. --DanielCD 14:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of "The Reflecting God" in Music

I deleted the Marilyn Manson song fact from trivia. The song listed does not say God is Deader than dead, nor do any songs by Marilyn Manson say such. This is a common misunderstanding of lyrics from another song by Marilyn Manson which says: "Rock is deader than dead." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.177.220.1 (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Introduction

Why does the introduction have the German titles to Nietzsche's books? Should it not have the English titles as this is the English Wikipedia? Or at least have the English titles in brackets after the German titles. AstroMark 11:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nietzsche's Voice section

The first paragraph of this section is a mess. It appears to contain a very long and cumbersome indirect quotation, which I believe could be better expressed as a direct quotation. 193.251.50.8 23:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Date?

Why is there no date for when he said this? 75.166.206.127 (talk) 07:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Because it's in a book. Zazaban (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)