Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-11 Nietzsche

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal

State: Closed Requested By: Bordello (talk · contribs) Mediated By: Good Intentions (talk · contribs) Comments: One dedicated user against consensus - agreement achieved

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2006-08-11 Nietzsche 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Compromise offers 1.4 Discussion

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-08-11 Nietzsche

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Bordello 04:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

Talk:Friedrich_Nietzsche and Nietzsche related articles (talk:Philosophy_of_Friedrich_Nietzsche, talk:Übermensch, )

Who's involved?

User:Non-vandal, User_talk:Sethmahoney, User_talk:Petrejo, myself, and others

What's going on?

Petrejo, after discussions and warnings, returns again and again to inject his iffy research as facts. If you see the long, ongoing conversations, starting with this, it seems Petrejo is pushing a view he has full conviction in, though his claims are unsupported by scholars of today. But at this point it is like a religious conviction none of us can budge. His edits have subsided, but the same views are restated and plastered by a anonymous IPs. I suspect sock-puppetry to avoid direct accusations on him.

What would you like to change about that?

I'd like it to stop and for Petrejo to use reliable, accountable secondary sources. I hope we can reach some consensus.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

For now, I suppose. There's always the chance that I'm wrong. Could you review all this and send me an e-mail with what you think?

[edit] Mediator response

I've taken the case.

It seems that Petrejo holds a well-researched view, but one that relies on an extreme minority opinion within Nietzschean scholarship, also relying heavily on sources outside said scholarship which hold more popular appeal (from popular slanders against Nietzsche, largely discredited amongst Nietzsche scholars) amongst those not involved in Nietzsche scholarship. Because there is so much literature on Nietzsche one can find published sources for any view, no matter how discredited.

The research into fascism he cites is an especially troublesome field to draw conclusions from, since any link created in this field will necessarily cast light on Nietzsche as a fascist and anti-semitist philosopher, whether the fascist figure claiming philosophic parentage from Nietzsche did so in a cogent fashion or not.

Petrejo has claimed (well, the claim was made by Petrejo as far as I can figure out) that Nietzsche scholarship in the vein of Derrida's Spurs (and other views based on poststructuralism and deconstruction) is invalid - a view that simply can not be given credence on Wikipedia.

[edit] Compromise offers

I suggest:

• the views forwarded by Petrejo not be given significance within the article
• the article be careful to note that Nietzsche's views and applications thereof are highly controversial (ie no whitewashing)
• the article state the majority view, noting briefly where noteworthy trends (like the one Petrejo represents) appears

An example of what I mean would be the following:

Nietzsche has often been accused of anti-semitism.[¹] The vast majority of Nietzsche scholarship consider these charges to be baseless, noting the ambiguities of his intentionally-inflammatory style and his repeated denouncing of anti-semitism, [²] though some remain unconvinced.

I believe that an article explicitely dealing with the problem (Nietzsche and anti-semitism, like Philosophy_of_Friedrich_Nietzsche#Views_on_women) would go a long way to increasing the clarity and usefulness of the Nietzsche articles on Wikipedia, and limit the scope of further such disputes. --Marinus 12:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks to you, Marinus, for your mediation effort. Thanks also for recognizing that I do, indeed, quote several secondary sources and legitimate scholars to support these views about Nietzsche. The scholars I cite are among the most recent -- often published within the past five years, and this isn't true of many other sources cited by others. Because these views are new, they are controversial, but they also build upon the latest scholarship, so that should also give them additional weight. In any case, here are my responses to your suggestions:

• the views I forward represent a budding scholarship that is new and important, and this Wikipedia article would benefit from the NPOV that this novel scholarship entails.

• the article as it stands does not adequately portray the highly controversial nature of Nietzsche's views, especially his AntiChristian theme with its specific lambaste against Judaism as the source of Christianity. The many new scholars I cite agree upon this view.

• if the article states the majority view, how is this to be counted? (As you suggested, the ocean of literature about Nietzsche is so vast one can find anything one wishes within it.) Will Wikipedia underwrite the Walter Kaufmann view? If so, this should be stated explicitly in the article. If so, the existence of a non-Kaufmann view should be cited, naming the names of the authors that I cited, the titles of their books, and their publication dates.

Perhaps, as you suggest, Marinus, the place for these ideas should be an additional Wikipedia article (e.g. Nietzsche and Anti-Semitism). The more I ponder that, the more I like it, since it resolves many issues, not the least of which is the size of the current article. And if that is agreed upon, I would ask that the main article specially highlight the existence of such an adjunct article.

• In either case, I'd ask that the famous quotation by Nietzsche that seeks to distance him from the sophomoric anti-Semites of his era should not be posted without a counterbalance -- there are countless quotations of Nietzsche that condemn Judaism for spawning Christianity, and that fact should be viewed at the same time. If this proposed NPOV of a counterbalance is omitted, then I ask that the positive quotation also be omitted, as an evident, misleading quotation.

Again, Marinus, many thanks for your mediation. I've been struggling to obtain a balance in this article since May. Please tell me if my proposed compromise has merit in your eyes. Petrejo 05:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad my offer wasn't blatantly stupid. I disagree that what you raise is a new current - it dominated Nietzsche scholarship from Heidegger onwards until Kaufmann. I don't want to give Kaufmann's interpretation too much credence, largely because it isn't (in my experience) the most widely accepted view anymore (and Kaufmann does whitewash the questionable parts in Nietzsche, I agree). But Derrida, Klossowski, et al (a hugely influential current of scholarship, in my experience the dominant one right now) must also be given space - you can't just dismiss it. I really don't think Wikipedia must be a place to give claims and counterclaims, and I vehemently oppose quotefarms, so a list of quotes and the claims that run from them is not, in my view, a viable option. It also runs the risk of being original research. I am glad you like the idea of a seperate article on the issue - one of your later drafts can form the basis of it. You must understand that such an article will undergo the type of criticism and editing you encountered on the different articles, but at least it would be the right place for them and i believe that progress can be made. --Marinus 06:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Marinus, I've cited Derrida for my own argument, as he wrote: "Now, if...the only politics calling itself Nietzschean turned out to be a Nazi one, then this is necessarily significant...One can't falsify just anything." — Jacques Derrida, The Ear of the Other, p. 47. So, may we compromise and include Derrida's quotation in the article? I ask, because I tried to include it before, and it was quickly erased. Petrejo 04:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to cite what you wish, as long as you find it an appropriate place. However, any representation selectively used to privilege one POV another is by definition unsuitable and will receive the reception you have become used to. Because your entire case seems to revolve around proving that Nietzsche was an anti-semitist it is no surprise that you have been received in this way... it would have been troublesome if your view was the majority one (a tertiary source, like Wikipedia, does unabashedly privilege the majority POV — critically, however, it doesn't represent the majority view as anything other than a product of interpretation, whereas you are trying to show your interpretation as privileged by the text, a view I and the others involved here oppose quite strongly) and is unacceptable because it isn't. --Marinus 04:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I have given a response to this selective use of Derridean text, which I find to be misused, and this isn't the first time such selectivity has been evidenced by Petrejo's contributions. Whatever the issues here, I find Marinus'/GI's solution acceptable and which will be very helpful in establishing a comprehensive context on these matters that don't quite fit into the main article due to a number of problems (e.g., size most importantly, relevance to a biography of N, relevance to his philosophy, etc.). Saying that, I also think this case has come to a fine conclusion.Non-vandal 08:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Importantly Wikipedia is not a place to make up users' minds, but to present them with information. We should name trends in scholarship and give them the treatment they deserve. The main argument for excluding and/or marginalising the views Petrejo is advancing is that they are those of a minority and would be given undue weight if presented as Petrejo has done before. But there is a place for such views (an article could have a section "the case for" and "the case against" which would be the wordiest but probably most accurate and encyclopedic approach). --Marinus 06:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I like your suggestion for a seperate article and mention of the primary schools of thought, but as with all claims about Nietzsche, there should be the caveat that whatever opinions are expressed are simply that: opinions. I feel a compromise is about to be reached. Haven't we all grown? Isn't it nice? Now let's go back to homeroom and reflect on today's lessons. -Bordello 10:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, Bordello, the notion about 'opinions' can swing both ways. I've supplied many dozens of quotations from scholars and the secondary literature to make my case. At first I only supplied obvious quotations from Nietzsche, but this was rejected as an alleged form of Original Research. Then I supplied several dozen quotations from secondary sources by contemporary scholars -- and this was also rejected as 'too lengthy.' Then I reduced the ideas to a single paragraph. Then this paragraph was edited by a number of editors until a consensus was reached. Even after that, this edited paragraph is held back from the article! I continue to consider that as POV behavior. That's why I asked for mediation. I continue to hope that contemporary scholarship, and the exposure of the clearly right-wing extremist side of Nietzsche, can gain a proper hearing. Petrejo 04:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I really, really, really, really don't want to argue this. I'm sorry if I wronged you. Let's continue constructively. -Bordello 08:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Just wanted to say that this sounds about right to me. - Jmabel | Talk 04:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

No, this has not been a fair and impartial process. Modern democratic Jewish (Kaufmann, Derrida, etc.) academia does not have exclusive monopolistic rights to Nietzschean scholarship and interpretation; and the complete nullity of the modern Franco-Judaic pseudo-scholars has been clearly proven by several different individuals on the various talk pages through concise documentation. In an objective encyclopedia, the goal is not to present fashionable, momentarily fleeting consensus reality but ACTUAL REALITY. Any HONEST person understands Nietzsche was no apostle of modern liberal democracy and multiculturalism. Nietzsche was a racialist, eugenicist and neo-feudalist whose philosophy was so heretically opposed to egalitarian, Trotskyite modernity that the only weapon open to the pseudo-scholarly levelers was mendacious hysterical reality-denial and 'hermeneuticization' of his philosophy into nothingness. Documentation of Nietzsche's unconcealed philosophy by Ernst Nolte, Rudiger Safranski, the Journal of Nietzsche Studies (http://www.filosofia.it/pagine/argomenti/Losurdo/Losurdo_Santi.htm) and Oxford scholar Douglas Smith have been provided, and much more documentation can be provided if necessary. For example, here is an HONEST Jewish scholar's analysis of Nietzsche:

http://friesian.com/nietzsch.htm

Are all of these scholars crackpots? Is the *Oxford World's Classics* edition of Nietzsche's On the Geneaology of Morals 'unreliable' and 'minority'; there, Douglas Smith makes no false liberalist apologies for Nietzsche true views: "Nietzsche's terminology and views here are clearly racist, assuming an evolutionary difference between white European and black African" (p. 147). Nietzsche should not be even slightly filtered and should not be subject to the wish-phantasies of modernists: how can the following passages from Nietzsche possibly be interpreted away in a false liberal egalitarian humanist multicultural manner?

Fear and intelligence. - If it is true, as is now most definitely asserted that the cause of black skin pigmentation is not to be sought in the action of light, could it perhaps not be the ultimate effect of frequent attacks of rage (and undercurrents of blood beneath the skin) accumulated over thousands of years? While with the other, more intelligent races an equally frequent terror and growing pallid has finally resulted in white skin? - For degree of timidity is a measure of intelligence, and frequently to give way to blind rage a sign that animality is still quite close and would like to take over again. (Daybreak, 241)

The purification of the race.- There are probably no pure races but only races that have become pure, even these being extremely rare. What is normal is crossed races, in which, together with a disharmony of physical features (when eye and mouth do not correspond with one another, for example), there must always go a disharmony of habits and value-concepts. (Livingstone heard someone say: 'God created white and black men but the Devil created the half-breeds.') Crossed races always mean at the same time crossed cultures, crossed moralities: they are usually more evil, crueller, more restless … Races that have become pure have always also become stronger and more beautiful.-The Greeks offer us the model of a race and culture that has become pure: and hopefully we shall one day also achieve a pure European race and culture. (Daybreak, Section 272)

The man of an era of dissolution which mixes the races together and who therefore contains within him the inheritance of a diversified descent…such a man of late cultures and broken lights will, on average, be a rather weak man: his fundamental desire is that the war which he is should come to an end... (Beyond Good and Evil 200)

For skepticism is the most spiritual expression of a certain complex physiological condition called in ordinary language nervous debility and sickliness; it arises whenever races or classes long separated from one another are decisively and suddenly crossed. In the new generation, which has as it were inherited varying standards and values in its blood, all is unrest, disorder, doubt, experiment; the most vital forces have a retarding effect, the virtues themselves will not let one another grow and become strong, equilibrium, center of balance, upright certainty are lacking in body and soul. But that which becomes most profoundly sick and degenerates in such hybrids is the will: they no longer have any conception of independence of decision, of the valiant feeling of pleasure in willing—even in their dreams they doubt the "freedom of the will." Our Europe of today, the scene of a senselessly sudden attempt at radical class—and consequently race-mixture, is as a result skeptical from top to bottom, now with that agile skepticism which springs impatiently and greedily from branch to branch, now gloomily like a cloud overcharged with question marks and often sick to death of its will! Paralysis of will: where does one not find this cripple sitting today! (Beyond Good and Evil, 208)

It is quite impossible for a man not to have the qualities and predilections of his parents and ancestors in his constitution, whatever appearances may suggest to the contrary. This is the problem of race. Granted that one knows something of the parents, it is admissible to draw a conclusion about the child: any kind of offensive incontinence, any kind of sordid envy; or of clumsy self-vaunting--the three things which together have constituted the genuine plebeian type in all times--such must pass over to the child, as surely as bad blood; and with the help of the best education and culture one will only succeed in deceiving with regard to such heredity.--And what else does education and culture try to do nowadays! In our very democratic, or rather, very plebeian age, "education" and "culture" must be essentially the art of deceiving--deceiving with regard to origin, with regard to the inherited plebeianism in body and soul. (Beyond Good and Evil, 264)

The Latin malus [bad] (beside which I set melas [Greek: black, dark]) may designate the vulgar man as the dark-colored, above all as the black-haired man ("hic niger est—" [From Horace's Satires]), as the pre-Aryan occupant of the soil of Italy who was distinguished most obviously from the blond, that is Aryan, conqueror race by his color; Gaelic, at any rate, offers us a precisely similar case—fin (for example in the name Fin-Gal), the distinguishing word for nobility, finally for the good, noble, pure, originally meant the blond-headed, in contradistinction to the dark, black-haired aboriginal inhabitants. The Celts, incidentally, were a thoroughly blond race; it is wrong to associate traces of an essentially dark-haired people which appear on the more careful ethnographical maps of Germany with any sort of Celtic origin or blood-mixture, as Virchow still does: it is rather the pre-Aryan people of Germany who emerge in these places. (The same is true of virtually all Europe: the suppressed race has gradually recovered the upper hand again, in coloring, shortness of skull, perhaps even in the intellectual and social instincts: who can say whether modern democracy, even more modern anarchism and especially that inclination for "commune," for the most primitive form of society, which is now shared by all the socialists of Europe, does not signify in the main a tremendous counterattack—and that the conqueror and MASTER RACE, the Aryan, is not succumbing physiologically, too?....Our German gut [good] even: does it not signify "THE GODLIKE," the man of "GODLIKE RACE"? And is it not identical with the popular (originally noble) name of the Goths? (On the Genealogy of Morals, First Essay, Section 5)

Let us stick to the facts: the people have won--or the 'slaves' or the 'plebeians' or the 'herd' or whatever you want to call them--and if the Jews brought this about, then so much the better! Never in world history did a people have a more important mission. The 'masters' are done away with; the morality of the common man has won. This victory might also be seen as a form of blood-poisoning (it has mixed the races together)--I shall not contradict that; but there is no doubt that the toxin has succeeded. The 'redemption' of humanity (from the 'masters', that is) is proceeding apace; everything is visibly becoming more Jewish or Christian or plebeian (what does the terminology matter!). The progress of this poison through the entire body of mankind seems inexorable. (On the Genealogy of Morals, First Essay, Section 9)

These bearers of vindictive instincts that have to be bottled up, these descendants of all European and non-European slavery, especially, of the pre-Aryan population — these people, I say, represent the decline of humanity! These "tools of civilisation" are a disgrace to humanity, and constitute in reality more of an argument against civilisation, more of a reason why civilisation should be suspected... (On the Genealogy of Morals, First Essay, Section 11)

By way of comfort to the milksops, I would also venture the suggestion that in those days pain did not hurt as much as it does today; at least, that might be the conclusion of a physician who has treated Negroes (these taken as representative of primitive man--) for serious cases of internal inflammation; such inflammation would bring even the best organized European to the brink of despair--but this is not the case with Negroes. (On the Genealogy of Morals, Second Essay, Section 7)

Ugliness is often enough the expression of a cross-bred development stunted by cross-breeding. If not, then it appears as a development in decline. The anthropologists among the criminologists tell us that the typical criminal is ugly: monstrum in fronte, monstrum in animo [A monster in face, and monster in soul.]. But the criminal is a décadent. (Twilight of the Idols, 'The Problem of Socrates', Section 3)

Critique of modernity.— Our institutions are no good any more: on that there is unanimous agreement. However, it is not their fault but ours [Aber das liegt nicht an ihnen, sondern an uns]. Once we have lost all the instincts out of which institutions grow, we lose institutions altogether because we are no longer good for them. Democracy has ever been the form of decline in organizing power: in "Human, All-Too-Human" (I, 472) I already characterized modern democracy, together with its hybrids such as the "German Reich," as the form of decline of the state. In order that there may be institutions, there must be a kind of will, instinct, or imperative, which is anti-liberal to the point of malice: the will to tradition, to authority, to responsibility for centuries to come, to the solidarity of chains of generations, forward and backward in infinitum ... The whole of the West no longer possesses the instincts out of which institutions grow, out of which a future grows: perhaps nothing antagonizes its "modern spirit" so much. One lives for the day, one lives very fast, one lives very irresponsibly: precisely this is called "freedom." That which makes an institution an institution is despised, hated, repudiated: one anticipates [glaubt] the danger of a new slavery the moment the word "authority" is even spoken out loud. That is how far décadence has advanced in the value-instincts of our politicians, our political parties: instinctively they prefer what disintegrates, what hastens the end ... (Twilight of the Idols, "Skirmishes of an Untimely Man", 39)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.164.179.204 (talk • contribs • WHOIS) .

Dear Whomever, you and I seem to disagree sharply on some points just as we agree firmly on other points. I'm disappointed in Kaufmann's Judaism insofar as he fails to defend Judaism well. Like you, I agree that Nietzsche belongs to the extreme right wing; his attacks on Christianity belong to the farthest fringes of the right-wing agenda, known in Nazi and related circles of literature.

My own reading of Nietzsche has accidentally coincided with many of the observations you have shared from many different scholars. It's difficult to measure how many scholars agree with the 'mild' reading of Nietzsche that Walter Kaufmann inaugurated -- whether they are a majority in America or not -- simply because the plethora of literature about Nietzsche is virtually impossible to count anymore.

Nietzsche's distaste for modern liberal democracy and multiculturalism, his open racist statements, and especially his repeated attacks on Judaism as the birthplace of the hated disease of Christianity, must be admitted frankly. As for his hatred of Christianity, that is his own word, for example: "...This morality is: the mediocre are worth more than the exceptions...I rebel against the translation of reality into morality: therefore I abhor Christianity with a deadly hatred." — Nietzsche, The Will to Power, sec. 685.

We both seem to agree that an impartial reading of Nietzsche yields a right-wing extremist, but our motives would appear to be different -- my motive is to defend the Jewish people from additional attacks by right-wing extremists. I believe the JDL and other Jewish organizations can and probably should be called to opine on this Wikipedia article about Nietzsche, because the well-being and perhaps the peace of the Jewish community may be affected by the wide currency that Nietzsche continues to receive -- aided by the academic fealty to 'mild' readings of Nietzsche.

Despite our apparent divergence as regards motives, I still thank you for your honesty and for your persistence in sharing the legitimate scholarship and actual literature that does circulate -- and not underground -- about Friedrich Nietzsche's right-wing extremist side. Petrejo 04:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)