Talk:The Antichrist (book)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Religion Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
	This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page.

	Books Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	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.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Additional information: Related task forces (major fields): Philosophical literature Related task forces (major traditions): Continental philosophy

Yes, I agree the title Antichrist is misleading, but, to whoever wrote the artcle, do you think it could really be appropriate to translate it as "Antichristian"? After all, what is the whole of Nietzsche's philosophy but consists of puns on words and attempts to mislead; example: the best music of the future which has nothing to do the the music of the future (zukunftsmusik)

"The Antichristian" suggestion is taken from Kaufman, and I've seen it elsewhere - not sure what my own opinion is on what Nietzsche actually intended. --Tothebarricades 02:29, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Antichrist -Revaluation Of All Values 2 A Movement 3 Misleading title 4 Back to the Content of the Page 5 On the Suppressed Passage 6 Re-write This 7 Misunderstanding 8 Sympathy 9 Lestrade's "paraphrase" of § 16, 19 May 2007 10 "Idiot" 11 Fair use rationale for Image:The Anti-christ.jpg 12 Image 13 Fair use rationale for Image:The Anti-christ.jpg 14 Lacking arguments 15 Regarding the Northern Illinois shooting 16 Please have a look ...

[edit] Antichrist -Revaluation Of All Values

I have read the introduction preface of many books on this author and although the book was published as ANTICHRIST by his evil sister, the original title has been revealed to be Re-evaluation of all Values. this gives a whole new twist on the piurpose and intentions of Nietzsche. Nietzsche was a close friend of Pascal, a devoted Christian, actively working his Christian values...this contradicts the title given by his sitster, and past records by his sister who knew Nietzsche to be quite devoted to God and Christ.

--203.59.121.110 15:09, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Nietzsche and Pascal were not contemporaries.

Lestrade 02:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)Lestrade

[edit] A Movement

Henceforth the article has been moved under the heading "Der Antichrist", please make your redirects thereto. This will make it easier for translations of the title to be discussed. This has also been done in relation to The Gay Science, for the sake of order and so on. If any would like to, please also do the same with every other publication by Nietzsche for they are the original titles. I may do it when I have the time.--Glyphonhart 00:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I have made a reconsideration: that which was stated above is entirely unnecessary. The English title will make due--for the English wikipedia. Therefore, everything has been restored upto the latest edits hitherto under the original article title of "The Antichrist_(book)".--Glyphonhart 19:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Misleading title

Isn't there a way to show that the title Der Antichrist should really be The Antichristian? Anyone who actually reads the book will see that it is not against Christ, but against Paul. Lestrade 02:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)Lestrade

It has to be obvious to anyone who reads the actual book, not someone else's opinion of it, that Nietzsche did not oppose Christ. He opposed the class of priests in the institutionalized church who maintain power by promoting what Nietzsche considered to be a decadent oposition to life.205.188.117.67 17:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

This is discussed in the second sentence. It is hard to say it "should" be The Antichristian, since Nietzsche almost certainly was aware of the fact that his title had a double meaning in German, but it is (as noted) perhaps more accurate to translate it as such. However, the standard title in English, for better or worse, has long been The Antichrist. --Delirium 03:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

This is extremely misleading. The book is not against Christ. Also, it is not about some humanoid, devilish "Antichrist" character. I believe that the Wikipedia article should strongly emphasize that the proper translation of Nietzsche's title is The Antichristian.Lestrade 01:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

In a nutshell, the book is against the organized Christian Church and against the Christian priesthood. The book is not against Christ.Lestrade (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Wikipedia article titles are not venues to take interpretative stances. Our naming conventions clearly convey that the article should be titled according to the most common English name of the subject, which is without question The Antichrist. For the Genealogy of Morality/Genealogy of Morals and Thus Spoke Zarathustra/Thus Spoke Zarathustra the question is a little more complicated, as there seems to have been a movement towards a different title, but I have yet to encounter an edition of this work titled The Antichristian. This is not to stop us from adding an etymological note warning the reader against misinterpretation of the title, if it is backed up by secondary literature. Regards, ɥʞoɹoɯoʞS 18:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Back to the Content of the Page

On the issue of the title I would say that in the English language it is normally published as the Antichrist (with a prelude describing its connotations).

• What bothers me more is:

"In reality there has only been one Christian, and he died on the cross."

About organized Christianity - "I call it the one immortal blemish upon the human race."

"The weak and the botched shall perish: first principle of our charity. And one should help them to it."

"What is more harmful than any vice—Practical sympathy for the botched and the weak—Christianity...."

Are these the best quotations of criticisms of Christianity that people could draw from the book?

• "have read the introduction preface of many books on this author and although the book was published as ANTICHRIST by his evil sister, the original title has been revealed to be Re-evaluation of all Values. this gives a whole new twist on the piurpose and intentions of Nietzsche. Nietzsche was a close friend of Pascal, a devoted Christian, actively working his Christian values...this contradicts the title given by his sitster, and past records by his sister who knew Nietzsche to be quite devoted to God and Christ.

--203.59.121.110 15:09, 14 August 2005 (UTC)"

Personally, while I do not think Nietzsche was an atheist per-se. I certainly do not think that he, even if he had christian friends, was a fan of the religion (putting it lightly!). Also I don't think calling Nietzsche's sister "evil" is particularly enlightening! LOL (Jezze 01:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC))

This is nuts!

RE: "Nietzsche was a close friend of Pascal"--- This is absurd. Pascal died in 1662; Nietzsche was born in 1844.

RE: "I do not think Nietzsche was an atheist"--- Nietzsche frequently wrote the phrase "we atheists." He proclaimed God dead over and over. He calls religion a lie frequently---though he sometimes admits that it makes people beautiful.

[edit] On the Suppressed Passage

The suppressed passage does not appear in the H. L. Mencken translation that is referenced in the "External Links" section, at the bottom of the Wikipedia article. It is also suppressed in Walter Kaufmann's printed translation. However, it can be seen in the Kaufmann translation provided by the "Nietzsche Channel" website. It can also be seen in R. J. Hollingdale's printed translation. Lestrade 13:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

The Nietzsche Archives might not have been surprised by the fabrication of Christ's words on the cross if they recalled that Nietzsche was the author of a complete fable entitled Also Sprach Zarathustra. That parable resembled New Testament forms and showed that Nietzsche was capable of such creative myth construction.Lestrade 20:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

[edit] Re-write This

This page is horrible! Immediately after explaining the name of the book, it goes into some person's interpretation of Nietzsche's ideas about Jesus instead of really referring to the book at all. Just because some of those ideas were inspired by the Antichrist does not mean they relate to the book well enough to COMPOSE THE ENTIRETY OF THE ARTICLE.

This person obviously just wanted to present Nietzsche as having liked Jesus. The part about the book's title not referring to the Biblical Antichrist is bullshit; Nietzsche did want to refer to the Antichrist, the book's title is not the Antichristian, get over it. This page is unacceptable.

Nowhere in the book is there reference to a personage called "The Antichrist." Instead, there is opposition to the institution of the Christian church and religion. Nietzsche opposed the Christian disparagement of life, as he opposed Schopenhauer's denial of the will to live. Instead of "getting over it," we should open the book itself and read what is in it.Lestrade 14:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

That is irrelevant to the fact that this page is not actually about the book as much as an interpretation. The beginning sentence of said interpretation doesn't even reference the book!

The book was written in the German language. The English translation of Antichrist is ambiguous. It can be either Antichrist or Antichristian. This information is provided in the first sentence. The book itself can't be referenced in that sentence because Nietzsche did not discuss the ambiguity of the English translation of his German title.Lestrade 23:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

Again, that was never my main point. Forgetting the title altogether, this page does not adequately describe the book. Rather, it is an interpretation of Nietzsche's view of Jesus. Although this was in the book, it is not the whole of the book, and the text itself in the article does not give direct references to the book enough.

[edit] Misunderstanding

Nietzsche wrote this book to oppose people who were against life. He considered the institution of the Christian church to be against life. He also considered people who were weak and sick to be haters of life. Since there are so many of these, they readily became Christians and Christianity became a dominant religion. Nietzsche's concern with people who were against life began when he reacted to the fourth part of Schopenhauer's main work. In this part, Schopenhauer wrote eloquently in praise of people who opposed life, such as ascetics, hermits, saints, and so on. For the rest of Nietzsche's life, he fought against this negative attitude toward life. This book, The Antichrist, was one of his last attempts to express a positive point of view toward life and condemn those who denigrated the world and life in favor of a life after death. So what happens? People look at the title and think that it is some evil book that is in opposition to Jesus Christ. They read through the book and do not comprehend Nietzsche's words, because they have never read Schopenhauer. This is a total, absolute misunderstanding. It is almost the direct opposite to the true meaning of the book. Wikipedia's job is to provide the correct description of the book. This can be done by people who have read and understood the book. It is for the benefit of those who have not taken the time and effort to read Nietzsche's book or any of the books that contributed to Nietzsche's way of thinking. Lestrade 14:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

I interpreted the book similarly, but unless you have verifiable sources, all this amounts to is original research.Skomorokh 15:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The most verifiable source is a close and repreated reading of the book itself, as well as of books by writers who are mentioned by Nietzsche.Lestrade 15:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

So why not use quotes from the book to show that your interpretation is the correct one? What's the problem here?Skomorokh 15:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll give it a try and we'll see what happens.Lestrade 00:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

[edit] Sympathy

Nietzsche harshly criticized sympathy and compassion. This was in accord with his opposition to Schopenhauer. But, In the end, Schopenhauer seemed to have won. Nietzsche, while walking on a street, witnessed a horse being whipped. He ran to the suffering horse, embraced it, and lapsed into insanity. Fifty years before Nietzsche's breakdown, Schopenhauer had published the following words: "… the essential and principal thing in the animal and man is the same … persons of delicate feelings, on realizing that in a bad mood, in anger, or under the influence of wine, they unnecessarily or excessively, or beyond propriety, ill–treated their dog, horse, or monkey – these people will feel the same remorse, the same dissatisfaction with themselves as is felt when they recall a wrong done to human beings, where it is called the voice of reproving conscience."(Basis of Morality, § 19)Lestrade 00:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

[edit] Lestrade's "paraphrase" of § 16, 19 May 2007

Lestrade's "paraphrase" may be correctly worded in the above-referenced revision, but only after attention was brought to the POV of her/his earlier revision. The earlier revision which read "The Christian religion and its morality are based on imaginary fictions" is most definitely POV and is quite different than the later revision which read "Nietzsche claimed that the Christian religion and its morality are based on imaginary fictions." Lestrade changed the wording of the passage and summarized the change thusly: "This a paraphrase of § 16. It is not my POV. It is properly worded." Yes, that may be so in the later revision, but it was not so in her/his earlier revision. The improper wording of the earlier revision may have been an oversight, or it may have not. Lestrade's contributions to this article are noteworthy; however, I would ask Lestrade to remember that s/he does not own this article, and s/he must stick to the rules. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and it is not a forum to advance any agenda. 71.127.228.173 13:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess that means that I have to insert "Nietzsche claimed," Nietzsche asserted," and "according to Nietzsche" in all of my contributions. I had thought that this was assumed. I have no desire to include any of my personal opinions in the Wiki article. As a matter of fact, I do not have a personal opinion to include.Lestrade 19:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

This is interesting: the disputed passage quoted above, "The Christian religion and its morality are based on imaginary fictions," was not added by Lestrade but by 72.73.215.45 at 15:07, 19 May. The same editor made another edit at 15:12. Just 22 minutes later, Lestrade added her/his paraphrase of §16 to make a paragraph comprised of "paraphrases" of §15 and §16 . Later, another editor removed the paragraph on the grounds of POV. Lestrade subsequently added "Nietzsche claimed that" to the disputed "paraphrase" of §15, and leaving the paraphrase of §16 intact, restored the paragraph. In the edit summary s/he wrote: "This a paraphrase of § 16. It is not my POV. It is properly worded."

Now why would Lestrade restore the paragraph, mask her/his change of someone else's contribution (the disputed "paraphrase" of §15), and say in her/his edit summary that it was a paraphrase of §16, not her/his POV, and properly worded?

It is also interesting to note that the disputed paragraph was the only one in the narrative, as of that edit, which did not contain "Nietzsche claimed," Nietzsche asserted," or "according to Nietzsche" as a preface to a proposition like "The Christian religion and its morality are based on imaginary fictions." Lestrade says s/he "had thought that this was assumed." How convenient! Why was it not assumed in every other paragraph?

Lestrade asserts that s/he has no desire to include any of her/his "personal opinions in the Wiki article." Now if we could only be convinced that s/he has no desire to include and of her/his opinions in this Wiki article! It would also be good to be convinced that Lestrade has no agenda with this Wiki article.

Happy trails.72.68.117.141 15:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to cause all of this trouble. A few times, I forgot to log in to Wikipedia. On such occasions, my IP address was displayed, instead of my Username. In other words, I was User:72.73.215.45 at the time of the May 19 edit. My purpose was to explain that such sentences as "The Christian religion and its morality are based on imaginary fictions" were not my thoughts. Rather, they were Nietzsche's thoughts. I was trying to paraphrase or quote Nietzsche's words in order to provide a summary or epitome of the book. I was not trying to present my own thoughts.Lestrade 15:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

[edit] "Idiot"

Could someone update the page to suggest that Nietzsche's use of the word idiot to describe Jesus was probably a reference to Dostoevsky's Idiot? "The only psychologist from whom I have anything to learn" were Nietzsche's words on Dostoevsky, I think. Just saying "he described Jesus as an idiot" is misleading, though it's true that Nietzsche hates the idea of book summaries, so feel free to keep it as it is out of spite for your readers if you'd really like to. 131.215.169.187 10:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that Nietzsche read Dostoevsky's The Idiot? It is known that he read other works by that author, but not The Idiot. The works by Dostoevsky that Nietzsche owned were Humiliés et offensés (The Insulted and Humiliated), Junger Nachwuchs (The Raw Youth), L'esprit souterrain (Notes from Underground), La Maison des Morts (The House of the Dead), and Les Possédés (The Possessed). He did not own The Idiot, but, of course, he might have read it. Lestrade 12:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:The Anti-christ.jpg

Image:The Anti-christ.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image

I wonder why the article is decorated by an image of H.L. Mencken's translation. This translation is the least valuable because it is based on the translations of Anthony Ludovici and Thomas Common. These, in turn, were translations of highly edited German texts that had suppressed several important passages due to the controversial nature of Nietzsche's ideas. In contrast, the more recent translations by R.J. Hollingdale and Walter Kaufmann are based on totally complete texts.Lestrade 15:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:The Anti-christ.jpg

Image:The Anti-christ.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lacking arguments

The article doesn't actually cite many of Nietzsche's arguments (which are often hidden, by the way). For example, I remember that in first sections he points to arguments against the concept of free will; and also around sect. 25, afair. When he talks about the genesis of values, he also suggests that what we call higher moral system was based on the lower, the "evil", and therefore it is absurd to condemn the former (this is stated more clearly in Twilight of the Idols, c.6, s.8). Next, he notes that the word "truth" was abused, i.e. in that rather rational epoch people generally believed in their reason, considered truth to be what is one and coherent and in contact with the external reality; this is actually very strong argument, because Christians (even if they themselves refuse reason in certain aspects) have to pretend that something is reasonable, to hide various errors, to imitate a coherent reasonable system, when transmitting their ideas (i.e. spreading faith). – When Nietzsche talks of creation (and God's mortal terror of science), he brings the problem of time and eternity to the light. Also, by portreting the history of knowledge as the total opposition of godliness, he points to the fact that in order to know something, it must be simplier than us, less teleological (mere cause-effect), emptier of reason, stupider, more "evil", in general bringing evil people to victory (and gaining power, even spiritual power, over other people). The sole nature of progress (which is demanded by the sole value "truth", worldly truth) is denying both God-the Creator and the Moral God, that is what is said in section 48. And also: that mankind should not seek help from God, because the Deluge (greatly destroying the civilization, the "edifice of knowledge") was his last attempt.

From my side, I could say that also the end of the evil world (the only one where truth, science, is possible) is not approaching, rather the opposite, basing on John 10:16. Also, what is interesting is that Nietzsche's concepts on the teaching of Jesus are much confirmed by the Gospel of Thomas (to which, of canonical Gospels, John's is most similar in the whole way of expression; note that John was the youngest of apostles and it's likely he remembered the sense best). Also, when Nietzsce says that the teaching of personal immortality in its literal sense was especially supported by Paul, we could say that the evidence of this lays in his letters where he confirms many Christians don't believe in eternal life. 77.114.118.110 (talk) 04:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the Northern Illinois shooting

I'm not quite sure how I feel about the introduction including the fact that the shooter sent this book to his girlfriend prior to the shooting. Chapman had The Catcher In The Rye on him when he shot Lennon yet there's no mention of that in the introduction to that book. It's not really relevant to the book on a grand scale, I'd call it distasteful but I feel like that in itself would be in bad taste, it just seems ill-placed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quixulous (talk • contribs) 01:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of removing it, as I'm not quite sure where else it would fit, but it's certainly out of place in the introduction. Quixulous (talk) 05:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please have a look ...

at the recently improved article in the German wikipedia de:Der Antichrist. Some of the pictures I have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons might be of use.--Chef aka Pangloss (talk) 13:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)