Talk:Beyond Good and Evil

message: ===Introduction===
The sentence, "He is possibly one of the easiest philosophers to read, but is most definitely one of the hardest to interpret," seems out of place in an Encyclopedia. It is a very obviously opinionated statement. If this is indeed the general consensus in the philosophical community, then it should be phrased as such.  If this is simply the opinion of the author, then it should be removed.
Daniel S. Clouser 15:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: General Organization

message: The sentence, "He is possibly one of the easiest philosophers to read, but is most definitely one of the hardest to interpret," seems out of place in an Encyclopedia. It is a very obviously opinionated statement. If this is indeed the general consensus in the philosophical community, then it should be phrased as such.  If this is simply the opinion of the author, then it should be removed.
Daniel S. Clouser 15:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: I've added an outline of the book: given how systematically Nietzsche presents his arguments in Beyond Good and Evil, this should also be a good way for organizing any kind of summary of those arguments in the future -- if anyone feels brave enough to make such an attempt.
--Todeswalzer | Talk 21:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Outline

message: Skomorokh recently tagged this page for containing original research, however, he/she failed to properly explain his/her concerns on this talk page. I've accordingly removed the tag from the article. --Todeswalzer|Talk 15:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is also useful content by Kaufmann, other than translation, in his Basic Writings of Nietzsche, now added to references, otherwise the article seems to be open (original?) summaries of Nietzsche's text.Socratesart:talk 15:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research

message: I have removed an entire rancorous debate about trivia. I find it acceptable to remove trivia to its own section. However, a rancorous discussion about whether and how to edit trivia seems about as trivial as you can get. Too trivial even for trivia hounds IMHO. Wcmead3 (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia be gone

message: :Image:BeyondGoodandEvil.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 03:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:BeyondGoodandEvil.jpg

message: Nietzsche's introduction begins: "If truth were a woman; what then?" This book is known for having supposedly "chauvinistic" aphorisms on women ("If you go to woman, don't forget your whip"). Now, I was wondering if the first sentence of the introduction means that N. is setting up "woman" to be used as an analogy for "truth" - he'd be suggesting that man's relation to truth is very similar to 19th-century man's relation to woman. It seems abstruse enough to be something Nietzsche would do - hide his true meaning behind an analogy.
Has anyone seen any scholarship that discusses this? I don't remember if I got this idea from reading Kaufmann or Danto, or somewhere else. And, if there is some scholarship addressing this, would it be a good idea to write a section on it? I'd write the section if someone knows of the scholarship. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, part of the problem would be that there is no scholarly consensus on what Nietzsche means here, whether that meaning is sustained throughout the book, etc.  It is the sort of thing that every scholar would have to address, however.  (Incidentally, the bit about the whip is from Thus Spoke Zarathustra).  RJC Talk Contribs 15:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny, I don't think I've even read that one. Oh well - all the other aphorisms on women, then. I was reading in the general Nietzsche article that some scholars have, indeed, tried to address this issue, so maybe I'll just leave it. That info will probably slowly migrate over into this article as time passes, anyway. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

text: The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the proposal was . Should not have been moved as uncontroversial. A new, proper move request may be issued below this one by those who favour the "(book)" title (and in that case, it should happen by-the-book! What, that could have been funny). El_C 03:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nietzsche & women 

message: The lead contains the following sentence which sounds rather like a comedy line ...
... Is describing Thus Spoke Zarathustra as "sunny and life-affirming" accurate?  If it is, it certainly doesn't appear written in an encyclopaedic style.  Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 10:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very funny but ... 

message: The link in the third paragraph to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_and_evil is absurd. Nietzsche almost(?) certainly was referring to the dominant Christian Morality and not to the nonsense on that page. Heck, it doesn't even mention Christianity on that page. Sigh. I suppose I should be over there complaining except that I don't care about what wikipedia says about "good and evil". But, I do care about Nietzsche. Yes yes, the page does talk about the Greeks but that's still not what's up with this book. 75.88.234.224 (talk) 08:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine.  Just go and delete the link.  Be bold!  Just make sure that you include an explanation for your change in your edit summary so that we all know why you made the change.  Best regards and good editing!  --PLUMBAGO 08:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lame Link 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Beyond Good and Evil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071218220154/http://www.carsten-korfmacher.com:80/PHILOSOPHY/Papers/fngenealogy.html to http://www.carsten-korfmacher.com/PHILOSOPHY/Papers/fngenealogy.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified