Talk:Friedrich Nietzsche/Archive 2

message: I have deleted and changed most of your entries. Frankly, they read like a 1st year university philosophy paper, not an encyclopedia. Please read the guidelines for how to write wiki entries. 
1. To use phrases like "it is a common misconception" or to talk about a paradox in Nietzsche's writings, without evidence, is very bad form. Our task isn't to dispel misconceptions, but to show the various interpretations that are out there.  
2. And for god's sake don't throw around words like "Ubermensch". This is an English encyclopedia, and "overman" suffices. 
3. if you're going to talk about the overman and the will to power, don't make a new section. there's a section already called "will to power". you can clean up that section or add to it.
4. Please remember this is a collaborative project. Deleting "herd instinct" in place of "master morality/slave morality" is just plain wrong. _incorporate_ the work done by others. In this case, you could and should have incorporated "herd instinct" into the conception of slave morality.
Sheesh.
Oldseed 16:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whoever just made some changes RE: "will to power, overman, nihilism etc, December 1 2005

message: I know this may seem a strange place to announce this, but Nietzsche was an interesting fellow so I assume people who follow this page are interesting and always capable of expressing an interesting view.  Here goes: This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view.  In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Announcing NPOV proposal 

message: As a lot of articles of philosophy, this article is really very bad. --83.205.113.4
::Instead of complaining, why don't you point out specifically what is bad about it, and maybe even fix some of it yourself, instead of simply complaining, and smearing alot of other articles as well? --maru 15:37, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The introduction of this article is not neutral enough. The last sentence about Nietsche as a humanist is very dubious. Nietzsche is very pronounced in writing that humans shouldn't be pedestal. Nietzsche was one of the first to claim that the human kind would dissapear. He thought that humans would be replaced by a new specie evolved out of humans, but much more fittest in the battle for servival. He also thought that human behaviour is for a large part determined by nature, the animal instinct. Nietzsche can still be regarded as a humanist because he still sees a human as a single subject and he wanted to save the children from the slave morale, which is apparant in collective ideologees. He was in favour of unrestrained individualism and the building of a individual personality.--Daanschr 12:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree that i'm not an expert on Nietzsche. The point i wanted to make was that the introduction of the article on 26 august was not neutral. I don't know what to think about the Übermensch. It seems too hypothetical to me.--Daanschr 15:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is very bad 

message: It is stated in the politics section that Nietzsche "was also far from being a racist, believing that the "vigor" of any population could only be increased by mixing with others." This statement is misleading and one-size-fits-all POV (especially the word *any* when he only spoke of European Christians), because it represents someone else's interpretation of Nietzsche and thus not Nietzsche's own thoughts. Nietzsche did not promote ethnic mixing per se. He advocated what he considered "true" Aryan mentality, which was characteristic of the pre-Christian/pagan warrior folk. In Zarathustra, he suggested that Christianity as re-evaluation of what is Aryan was responsible of making Aryan culture rotten and degenerate. He suggested that the mixing of Jews and Aryans could free Europe from the slave morality by creating a new people. This is his only motivation why he advocates ethnical mixing, or at least contrary to what the statement above includes, he did not advocate mixing on any biological and genetical grounds. He condemned such grounds altogether on his objection to moralism, as he also called the ethnocentric proto-Nazis "moral masturbators". Also, from many of his statements I'd perceive him as an anti-egalitarianism, in some ways a supporter of eugenics (though in no way eugenics on racial grounds). --Klaviermannen
Your views, stated briefly, ignore, or simply do not divine clearly, the vast, manifold literature already established that addresses well in what way Nietzsche presented himself (e.g., Kaufmann who can in repose be alluded to more than nonce). However, I will later provide an elaboration on my propounded rejection of your statements when it is adequate for me to do so. Before then, I will shortly state that N's view is based on a cultural ground whereupon the characteristics of an individual are grown, embellished, sculpted, for self-control, etc., indicating that such mixing as you say, although in a different sense, is conducive to such developments.--Glyphonhart 7 July 2005 07:46 (UTC)
I urge you all to read The Antichrist, #4, second paragraph. Nietzsche states that quite frequently, in all cultures, an exceptional man arises that proves himself to be superior than the rest and thus he is able to influence his culture into representing his ideology. Therefore, he suggests that any man of any "race" is capable of superiority.  24 July 2005 Edher
:Why yes, this seems to me quite obvious in The Genealogy of Morals:
:"[The aristocratic men] enjoy their freedom from all social control, they feel that in the wilderness they can give vent with impunity to that tension which is produced by enclosure and imprisonment in the peace of society, they revert to the innocence of the beast-of-prey conscience, like jubilant monsters, who perhaps come from a ghastly bout of murder, arson, rape, and torture, with bravado and moral equanimity, as though merely some wild student’s prank had been played, perfectly convinced that the poets have now an ample theme to sing and celebrate. It is impossible not to recognise at the core of all these aristocratic races the beast of prey; the magnificent blonde brute, avidly rampant for spoil and victory; this hidden core needed an outlet from time to time, the beast must get loose again, must return into the wilderness — the Roman, Arabic, German, and Japanese nobility, the Homeric heroes, the Scandinavian Vikings, are all alike in this need. … The profound, icy mistrust which the German provokes, as soon as he arrives at power, – even at the present time, – is always still an aftermath of that inextinguishable horror with which for whole centuries Europe has regarded the wrath of the blonde Teuton beast (although between the old Germans and ourselves there exists scarcely a psychological, let alone a physical, relationship). … Granted the truth of the theory now believed to be true, that the very essence of all civilisation is to train out of man, the beast of prey, a tame and civilised animal, a domesticated animal, it follows indubitably that we must regard as the real tools of civilisation all those instincts of reaction and resentment, by the help of which the aristocratic races, together with their ideals, were finally degraded and overpowered; though that has not yet come to be synonymous with saying that the bearers of those tools also represented the civilisation. It is rather the contrary that is not only probable — nay, it is palpable today; 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. One may be perfectly justified in being always afraid of the blonde beast that lies at the core of all aristocratic races, and in being on one’s guard: but who would not a hundred times prefer to be afraid, when one at the same time admires, than to be immune from fear, at the cost of being perpetually obsessed with the loathsome spectacle of the distorted, the dwarfed, the stunted, the envenomed? And is that not our fate?"
:However, I would like to see the writings where Nietzsche describes the universal virtue of race-mixing, since the statement "the vigour of 'ANY' population could only be increased by mixing with others" implies its usefullness to be universal rather than particular to the Germans. (I am so far skeptical to whether there is a writing where Nietzsche describes that the only way to save Europe is through race-mixing, as well. Can anyone point me to the text?)
:--Klaviermannen
::culture mixing, not race mixing. He talks and praises other cultures and religions (but, only to make his point against the church, nothing more).  All in all, he's got nothing but flowers to throw to germans and if he were to compare races, you bet your ass he'd place the german race as the leading one.
::: Actually he is quite critical of germans.  Spacenookie 10:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nietzsche's thoughts on races 

message: "There's something missing in a life with no pain."
Nietzsche did'nt say the above but it does accord with his view on the role of pain in life. I disagree with him and think that he used the wrong word: instead of pain - which humans and all sentient beings will go to great lenth to avoid - he should have said effort. test
Just a thought. Fergananim
That misses the whole point. --DanielCD 4 July 2005 04:01 (UTC)
So what if Nietzsche believed in the above quotation?  Without pain there is no pleasure, without one, the other would not exist.  To what would one compare one's life if not 'pain'?  The point is, things can be worse, right?  The point is: to live.  In a Sadean gesture, I would say, pleasure is natural, as is pain. --Trtskh 05:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Nietzsche is wrong

message: I'm reverting a number of Glyphonhart's recent edits, and think I should say why.  S/he is devoted to getting Nietzsche right, whereas this is an encyclopedia:  at the most, it can represent opposing views, but it is not meant to supplant Nietzsche Studien.  This is especially so when the POV foisted upon the article here is, as best, contentious:  Walter Kaufmann is respected more for his translations than for his interpretation.  There also appears to be some disagreement about what constitutes proper English grammar, including the meaning of certain words.
*I am reverting the deletion of the existentialist and atheist philosophers categories:  people looking for the former will expect to see Nietzsche, while the dominant view among scholars is that he was indeed an atheist.
*It is a fact that Nietzsche is often listed as the forebear of existentialism and postmodernism.  That we disagree with the interpretations of those who make this identification (which I do) cannot be cause to deny that it is made.
*If Santayana's criticism is mistaken, then post another in addition.  We don't need a discussion of it attached to a link to an article of his.
*The Will to Power entry in the list of his works doesn't need to re-assert that the degree to which it represented Nietzsche's thought is disputed.  What I've deleted is also something of an exaggeration.
--RJC Talk 7 July 2005 13:09 (UTC)
:I heartily thank you for your response to my edits. From now on I will follow a more suitable approach to how I go about editing and the like.--Glyphonhart 7 July 2005 17:00 (UTC)
:I think that the following text should be moved to the article body:
::some see Martin Heidegger's as the greater influence.
:--goethean ॐ 7 July 2005 14:50 (UTC)
I thinking keeping it in the introduction will mollify those who would remove the sentence about Nietzsche's link to postmodernism entirely, condescending just enough to tell us that we've clearly misread Nietzsche if we think the link is even plausible. --RJC Talk 9 July 2005 17:41 (UTC)
*A crucial counterpoint to RJC's criticism of Kaufmann above and in my talk page is this uncovered and thoroughly well-formulated essay that leaves dispelled such extraneous influences that would otherwise prevent the pursuant development of the main article on Nietzsche. In short, Kaufmann is not to be relegated to a minute influence nor censured in any respect, insofar as the validity of his interpretations were not put into proper interrogation and under scrupulous scrutiny, and that was the case here. Please read: The Walter Kaufmann Myth: A Study in Academic Judgement by David Pickus for the belaboured particulars.
--Glyphonhart
I'm not sure I fully understand how this Wikipedia article has been censored to exclude Kaufmann's interpretation.  I was merely reverting some edits you had made which struck out substantive content in the article because it conflicted with his views:  this is different from declaring that Kaufmann is to be striken from the memory of the human race.  For anyone interested, I have criticized David Pickus' article on Glyphonhart's user talk page.  But to reiterate my initial post, the crucial point is not whether Kaufmann is correct or not, or whether he has been accorded the respect he deserves or not, but whether an article on Nietzsche in which his interpretation dominates reflects the consensus among experts (or in this case, where there is no consensus, the field of major viewpoints). --RJC Talk 9 July 2005 18:46 (UTC)
Since I have replied to RJC in his talk page, I will copy a portion of my descant that here also responds to what is stated above simply to elucidate any misunderstandings:
:"Your [latest] statement does indeed answer why Kaufmann has been paid the attributes that you elaborated, with which I was unfamiliar. In any case, my statement in the discussion page [above] was not about that Kaufmann was censored [nor has been] but, in lieu of Pickus's essay, that certain conditions should be heavily considered before such attributes are accorded to Kaufmann thoughtlessly. In sum, I think this has been resolved quite nicely with additional material that does us some great benefit in allowing us to fix the article."
--Glyphonhart 20:04, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Interpretation and NPOV

message: I'm inclined to revert User:Daanschr's edits as unencyclopedic. Does anyone want them salvaged?  --goethean ॐ 16:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Reversion is probably a good idea. --RJC Talk 22:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to change my edit. What is it what you don't like about the contents? I know my english is pretty terrible now and then. My first language is Dutch. If you don't agree with the contents: all information is from a scientific book (Nietzsche in German politics and society 1890-1918, see references), which is written by a historian. He has searched in several archives in Germany on the subject. Some professors has helped him in the research. Maybe my summary of the book is not very good. I hope you will react on this.--Daanschr 11:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

text: The relevant facts seem to be the Subversion debate and the fact that he influenced a number of peole on the liberal (though anti-Marx) left.  His being used by young men as an excuse to drink and a means to 'pick up chicks' seems off-topic (especially as young men tend to do these things with just about whatever they get their hands on).  Listing every group that liked him is probably a bit much. Of course, these groups misinterpreted him, just as did the right-wing groups that followed.  An account of his impact might be useful, but it would have to be rounded out before achieving some sort of balance.  Also, it would have to go in a different section, not one where his politics is described.  --RJC Talk 15:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a European. Liberalism has another meaning on our continent. Marxism and liberalism are something else. Liberalism reverts to ideal of liberty and marxism to the ideal of equality. In many countries liberalism is regarded as a right-wing ideology. About the young men: according to the book, there was an increase in immoral behaviour according to the conservatives. Nietzsche was the most important writer who got the blame for it. I agree with you that all the groups misinterpreted him. Their theories about Nietzsche are contradictive. The reason i brought the information in the chapter about politics was because of the paragraph about Nietzsche in nazi-Germany. The book of Hinton Thomas counters the idea that Nietzsche helped the nazis into power. Because before the nazis, Nietzsche was mainly popular among left-wing Germans. I don't know someone can interpret Nietzsche correctly. What i don't understand about Nietzsche is that he gives an evolutionary explanation about consciousness and language and he still can come up with the Übermensch. I followed a course about Nietzsche, and the teacher said that Nietzsche tried to prevend atheist people from regarding life as useless. I think that Nietzsche is the most important atheist philosopher.--Daanschr 07:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I want to apologize for posting my comments on the introduction of the Nietzsche site under the chapter called: this is a bad article. I write this because i have a complaint about the manners of many people here on Wikipedia. Why should this chapter be called Daanschr's edits which is created to delete my edits. I was appalled because of this. At first i thought that someone wanted to delete all of my edits anywhere on Wikipedia. Some other incidents has happened as well. For instance, i wrote down the German election results between 1871 and 1933 in a wrong chapter about election results of West Germany. These results were copied and translated from a book. Someone deleted half of it, while he could have put them in another chapter. I couldn't recover the data anymore. I also wrote a friend on his own talk page in Dutch. Someone promptly deleted the edit. And i was wondering why he didn't send a message back. I think that there is a serious attitude problem with many people who have the power to delete. I hope that people will be more friendly and that this project won't become a political waspnest.--Daanschr 20:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daanschr's edits  

message: Is Nietzsche of Slavic ancestry? He was born in Saxony, furthermore his surname suggests this. Meursault2004 11:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He would occassionally say that his name suggested a descent from Polish nobility, but there is no genealogical evidence to support this claim.  If some ancestors were Polish, their existence has been lost; the idea of being descended from nobility is just pure fancy on Nietzsche's part.  --RJC Talk 15:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Slavic ancestry

message: I am removing the list of quotations, as it has turned into a "cool stuff" place.  1) Several of the quotations are inaccurate, being things that were attributed to Nietzsche, but not the wording that he chose.  2) Several of the quotations are from bad translations.  3) All of them are taken out of context (all quotations are), and so don't constitute a further source of understanding his thought.  4) We have a Wikiquote page for this very purpose, linked to from the article.  5) Other biographies don't list random quotations, but instead have a link to Wikiquote; see John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, David Hume, etc.  6) At the very least:  "quotes" is a verb; "quotations" is a noun. --RJC Talk 15:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotations

message: (Comment to the removal of "In reality, Nietzsche was mainly popular among left-wing Germans instead of right-wing militarist nationalists before the nazis.":) What is it that makes a right-wing guy militarist and nationalist? Nothing else than that militarism belongs to the left side, makes any sense, as Hitler's national socialism was as socialistic and fascistic as socialism can be. Since there was nothing relevant to replace the sentence with, I simply removed the nonsense.
: As a matter of historical context, the right wing in Germany was nationalist and militarist.  The left was increasingly internationalist and loathed the military as it was dominated by the aristocracy.  Socialism may have been violent, but it claimed to oppose a prominent place for the military in political life.  The Nazis and their kindred parties had no support from the left in Weimar Germany; they were, however, supported by the right for their seeming ability to stop the socialist lawlessness that raged in the streets during the first few years of the Republic.  -- RJC Talk 14:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The right-wing Freikorps were lawless as well. What do you mean with socialists. The communists and the independant socialists wanted revolution, but the social-democrats (socialist majority), were lawabiding.--Daanschr 13:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Nationalist Militarist Right-Wing 

message: From the edit: "Trivia - Along previous lines, went to make more plain. Question: is this section worth anything?"  22:53, 21 September 2005 Glyphonhart
: Yes.  Thanks for the additions, I was unaware of them (Jung's work is only somewhat of interest to me).
# Jung's base typology is somewhat fractured and incomplete.
# He happens to be right (triangulating from what others have stated wrt Nietzsche) in this particular instance. 
#* For those wishing to understand the base axiomatic assumptions Nietzsche is making (pre-cognitive assumptions), in order to understand his philosophy/worldview/music, it helps knowing that it is emblematic of specific clusterable/categorizable personality/cognitive characteristics (and thus not unique to him: witness Trent Reznor).
#* Even though his characterization is incomplete (in Psychological Types, though not necessarily other works), it's better than nothing (and is nice to base one's research on if one doesn't do an ab initio typology.
#Philosophies (the only thing that makes Nietzsche worth remembering) always rests on the personality of the philosophizer. 24.22.227.53 03:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, didn't see the talk page before removing the section.  What I agree with is that this section might just turn into the "Quotes" section again, i.e., without unifying purpose.  What does Carl Jung's analysis add to the understanding of Nietzsche?  If we had a section "Reception of Nietzsche's Thought," it might be appropriate, but wouldn't such a section just turn into a battleground over whose opinions to include and constant revert-wars over weasel words as each editor put in his/her two cents on his "true" interpretation and significance? -- RJC Talk 14:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: You should compare the introduction of the English and the German version of the Wikipedia:
>>>
Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (October 15, 1844 – August 25, 1900) was a profoundly influential German philosopher, psychologist, and classical philologist. Particularly aggressive, he was a severe critic of morality, Utilitarianism, contemporary philosophy, materialism, German idealism, German romanticism, and of modernity in general. He is among the most readable philosophers and penned a large number of aphorisms and varied experimental forms of composition. Although his work was distorted and thus identified with Philosophical Romanticism, Nihilism, Anti-semitism, and even Nazism, he himself vociferously denied such tendencies in his work, so much to point of directly opposing them. In philosophy and literature, he is often identified as an inspiration for existentialism and postmodernism. His thought is, on many accounts, most difficult to comprehend in any systemized form and remains a vivacious topic for debate.
Contents
<<<
While the German version simply says: "Was a German philosopher and classical philologist." Why is the English version so much longer without saying nothing more than the German one ? Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ )
: I think the English version is perfect, I can find many examples of Nietzsche's misrepresentations and critiscisms. For instance Utilitarianism was slated when Nietzsche talked about his ideas of Master/Slave morality etc. I think the German edition needs more addition. --80.2.175.184 15:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison 

message: In the biographical section, I believe there is a disproportionate amount on Nietzsche's breakdown. Though it is certainly a point of psychological interest, I dont think it should be given at the expense of other important details of his life. There is superficial coverage of his relationship with Wagner, which was highly important in shaping his early writings, and his break with Wagner, which had influence on a lot of the others. Prometheus912 00:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There could also be more mention of Overbeck, Nietzsche's two marriage proposals (particularly the later one), the controversy with Paul Ree and Lou Salome, and the importance of his time spent in France and Italy. These are just a few suggestions - Basically I would like to see either the biography bulked up or the section on his breakdown reduced. I don't think Nietzsche should be made to appear as a philosopher who went 'too far' and thus insane, nor that his breakdown has much to do with his work or ideas. Focussing on the 'juicy' points of the 'decline' into madness, rings of certain celebrity/ gossip magazines, and is in bad taste - it distracts from what is crucial. Perhaps adding more subheadings would also reduce the impact of this little 'imbalance'. Prometheus912 00:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  An Imbalance 

message: I am adding the attention warning for two reasons:
#The failed feature vote - obviously the article wasn't good enough to be featured.
#The inaccuracies that have been highlighted on this discussion page.
People have also suggested a substantial rewrite. I think viewers have a right to know about this when they visit this page and because of it I'm putting the attention warning on the page. This may also attract qualified editors for this page.
(Bjorn Tipling 14:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Attention Warning 

message: Looking at the philosopher profile box on Nietzsche, specifically the major works section, I think that perhaps "The Will to Power" ought to be removed.  This work is in fact just a compilation and consolidation of Nietzsche's writings from his notebooks.  Though the content is Nietzsche's, the work itself belongs to the editors (the original German editors, Schlechta, Kaufmann and Hollingdale).  This is a relatively minor complaint, given that the entire article needs drastic revision.
:Apologies for this section of the template - I am considering moving this out of the main philosopher template because the list can become very large or disputed where in other cases it would be clear cut.  I'd appreciate more feedback on the philosopher template in general - I'm going to be massively revising it soon.  Thanks.  FranksValli 08:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Major Works" 

message: * Paul Carus published Nietzsche and Other Exponents of Individualism in 1914.  
Mr. Nietzsche has been a controversial person for awhile.  
TooPotato 13:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: An early book discussing him

message: Is this article a supposed to be a defense of Nietzsche? Because it seems very much like that. 
It's embarrassing to see the parts that try to defend him against anti-semitism, racism, sexism, etc... on a wikipedia page.  Also, the part mentioning "memetic virus" is really ridiculous. The popular positive attitude toward him as a "hero" philosopher is too obvious in the article.
I think we should put a POV warning label on the page, and, perhaps, do a complete rewrite of the latter parts?
Reminds me of what Foucault said in What is an Author: "The author is therefore the ideological figure by which one marks the manner in which we fear the proliferation of meaning."
Alex 05:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are, I'm sure you're aware, lots of ways of reading Nietzsche, and privileging one (say, one that valorizes him, or one that condemns him, or one that claims he was a racist, etc.) over the others isn't going to make the article NPOV.  This is one of those articles we're going to need to be careful on, since we can't assert one reading as the correct one.  I'd be just giddy with someone incorporating other readings into the article, though.  Go for it!  -Seth Mahoney 05:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. What I meant was to incorporate other possible ways of looking at his writings, as you said. Maybe we shouuld add some quotes and criticism in the parts about women and racism that *might* be lead to charges of anti-semitism or racism etc., as well as the responses to those criticisms. The article right now is a one-sided defense of Nietszche. In some sense, we are changing many of his views so that they would fit today's world of anti-racism and gender equality and I suspect, in doing so, many of his ideas lose their meanings. Alex 15:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just so its out there and there aren't any surprises, I tend to take the side of those who insist Nietzsche wasn't racist or particularly woman-hating (and, to top it all off, don't see myself as an apologist - as far as I'm concerned, its all there in Nietzsche's writing plain as day).  So, although I wouldn't say that Nietzsche was like a giant care bear that just wanted to hug everything, I also wouldn't say that we are revising his views if we argue that he wasn't racist, etc.  But I agree - the article is one sided and would benefit from, say, classic feminist positions on Nietzsche.  On the other hand, there are two things I don't want to see happen: A criticism section longer than the actual article; and any of that "some say", "others reply" nonsense - sourced criticisms (and replies) only.  Sound fair?  -Seth Mahoney 17:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This whole article is a big giant turd. You could write all over with Crayons and post arbitrary German folk-music lyrics for all I care. It's pointless to try and improve it, a never ending army of college freshen who think they know Nietsche only as God would will just ruin it again in time with their drivel and misunderstandings. (Bjorn Tipling 10:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: I can't read German, but they appear to be selling something
Nietzsche's writing ball
http://www.eberwein-typoskriptverlag.de/
--Jim 03:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isn't this just a link to advertising? 

message: To 84.188.193.167 Why was this:
"Nietzsche received recognition during the second half of the 20th century as a highly significant figure in modern philosophy."
replaced by this:
"a highly significant figure in modern ideological and political struggles."
Why remove philosophy?  Are you implying he wasn't "a highly significant figure in modern philosophy"?  
Also, when you make anonymous changes, there's no way to evaluate the source of the change.  There is no way to IM, email you or leave a message on your talk page.  Why not register since it is so quick and easy?  If you give your email address it still remains anonymous to readers, but at least people have a way to contact you.  It is natural to wonder the motives of those insisting anonymity.--Jim 19:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see 84.188.193.167 was just a vandalizer and has been blocked.  I wonder what motivates these idiots, since 99% of the vandalizim is corrected or reverted with in a few minutes? --Jim 19:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  anonymous persons making questionable changes 

message: I think the writing style for the intro paragraphs gets a bit heavy.  Especially considering it is just the introduction.
...Why use reason where Irrationality is the stipulated alpha and omega?
Such a stance has often been charged with an intellectual indolence which absolves itself of the historic duty of philosophy to debate finer points of logic, science and ethics
How about:
Why use reason where Irrationality rules? (though I'm not too fussed on this point)
and
Such a stance has often been charged with an intellectual laziness, contrary to the historic duty of philosophy: to debate finer points of logic, science and ethics.
Or something similar.  I understood the meaning, but I don't think there should be long words where simpler ones suffice.  It slow you down =)
I've put this as a comment rather than directly editing; style is a matter of taste.  Let me know if you think this merits an edit to the article.
Ben
Ben Gaskin 15:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verbose wrtiing style of the article intro 

message: I was thinking a more portrait style, rather than profile style, photo would be more appropriate for the initial photo-image of Nietzsche in the article. I am well aware the current one at the top is a very famous photo of him, but I believe a photo suiting to biographical encyclopedia entries should show a clear visage of the individual captioned. However, I'm putting it here for someone else to decide to make that step, or vote on whether it should be done before I go ahead with it. Nagelfar 21:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo of Nietzsche 

message: Is this applicable? Nietszche mentions Epicurus, both for and against, but he mentions many, many people. It's much more plausible to have Homer, Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides up there than Epicurus.
While I'm on the subject, why aren't Jesus and Socrates on the list? They are explicitely mentioned b Nietzsche as enormous influences, especially later in his life. --Marinus 15:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Socrates rather than Epicurus. — goethean ॐ 15:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: That is, I agree with inserting Socrates' name rather than Epicurus' — goethean ॐ 18:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Epicurus as influence 

message: "Santayana's Criticism of Nietzsche." According to George Santayana, Nietzsche was "the belated prophet of romanticism" who preferred "the bracing atmosphere of falsehood, passion, and subjective perspectives" to truth.
The above is the disputed addition to the article. Can we all please make suggestions of how to improve it and expand the crit section generally? (BTW if we ever want to get the article from "good" to FA we will def. need a crit section, it will never pass WP:FAC w/o one...) Mikkerpikker ... 21:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mike, the text above can certainly be re-worded. But Goathead will have to stop deleting the link. The REAL issue here is that he doesn't want the page to be objective. He wants it to fawn all over Nietzsche. Well, that's not going to happen. 68.104.183.247 22:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please try to assume good faith on behalf of other editors... I don't know goethean but I'm sure she/he knows enough about NPOV to know we can't have a fawning article. I think goethean's main concern seems to be copyvio & the structure of the article. (given what is written below, it does seem having "reception" and "criticisms" sections may be a bit awkward. Perhaps we could first discuss whether we want a reception section with positive/negative reactions or a crit section with just negative sections. What do you think? Mikkerpikker ... 00:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop putting this passage in: paraphrase Santayana and come back with better entry please.  Yorick, Jester of Elsinore 01:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, my intention for the "reception of Nietzsche" section was basically a history of nietzsche scholarship which would include short accounts of both his admirers and detractors. — goethean ॐ 21:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds the best idea.  It's done on Hegel's page fairly well. --Knucmo2 21:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes it is, both by critics and fans alike in a single section. Yorick, Jester of Elsinore 01:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Speaking of FAC, I think that we should make this article shorter by moving some of the text on N's various doctrines to their own articles, and use the "Main" template. — goethean ॐ 22:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree with you on that point. Also, IMO all those big block quotes could be paraphrased and thus made much shorter... Mikkerpikker ... 00:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in favor of a "Criticism" rather than "Reception" section, with a discussion of FN's strengths and weaknesses. The Santayana link should definitely be included, with others. 68.104.183.247 00:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Criticism of Nietzsche" section 

message: I don't know how to say this with tact. But the recently re-written section on the "overman" is horrendous. It doesn't even make sense. Reads like a 1st-year philosophy paper by an over-opinionated pompous ... How about a reversion or a re-write please? 
Take a look at this hilarious snippet:
"Rather than an individualist ideal, Nietzsche's concept of the overman hence represents a positive and temporary state of the multiple forces composing the human body, and, therefore, consciousness: health against illness - and Nietzsche never stopped from changing states, ill or in good health, in particular in the mountains, at Sils Maria [3]."
What the heck does this mean? Anyway, the section goes further to say overman has nothing to do with a person. Let's get real here. It is used everywhere in Zarathustra and other works in reference to a single individual, a person. The German "ubermensch" contains the word "mensch" which of course refers to a person. To stretch out all this to mean something like "positive and temporary state of the multiple forces composing the human body" is a tad out of line. Hell, I'm not sure Nietzsche himself ever even used words like "the human body" or "positive and temporary state" or even "consciousness". I strongly urge a reversion or a rewrite.
Oldseed 10:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To think that the overman refers to a "single individual" or a "person" is, at best, a lack of understanding Nietzsche's main philosophical points (criticisms of the subject, substance and causality), at worse a perversion of his work. I don't take it at bad at all criticisms about my "style" of writing, but I'll like to remind you that philosophy is a complex matter, and Nietzsche all the more. I know we're in Wikipedia, but it is not a reason to maintain gross misunderstandings of Nietzsche's thought, which have led to Nazi appropriation and so on. The hilarious snippet may not be the correct way to present things, although it is more or less paraphrasis of Pierre Klossowski. This reading of the overman as a state is shared by Klossowski, Foucault, Deleuze, Derrida and others, notwithstanding differences between themselves. Furthermore, to state that Hitler or Napoleon may even be thought a second to be an example of the "overman" is utterly ridiculous, as Nietzsche despised this kind of hero (for the reason that has been written in the subsection; however, the simple idea of it is ridiculous). Artists is a bit closer, although it you read Nietzsche against Wagner, you will see that Wagner wasn't exactly Nietzsche's conception of an overman. I'm sure there is place for a philosophical debate between philosophers about the exact way Nietzsche does conceive consciousness and individual subjects: as Foucault for example has shown, if the subject is an effect of power and the ideological atom which passes the social contract, this does not mean however that he is unreal (i.e. ideology is not simple fiction, it is real and material). But the overman has absolutely nothing to do with an individual subject, and the important part in "ubermensch" is not "mensch" but "uber", if you had payed any attention to Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Lapaz 12:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: this is not a debate about how philosophers have interpreted nietzsche, nor even an elucidation of how philosophers have interpreted ubermensch. the word literally means overman. there are plenty of other words for consciousness, etc., none of which nietzsche chose. By the way, quoting Pierre Klossowski is ridiculous for any interpretation of Nietzsche. Either have a whole section dedicated to how other philosophers have interpreted Nietzsche, or have none at all, and use direct quotes from Nietzsche. I will remove this reference to P.K. soon, and we shall see how it goes if it gets reverted.Oldseed 16:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree with you on presentation, I don't follow why you dislike quoting Klossowski. I for one think that "Nietzsche and the Vicious Circle" is a bloody good book. We also have to make some use of scholarship of Nietzsche - the man was in no hurry to explain himself, and while I've got quite a lot to say on the matter WP is no place for my opinions, it is the place for generally accepted scholarship. Am I misreading you? --Marinus 10:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: There is also Heidigger's insistence that neither Nietzsche's übermensch nor his own Dasein are subjects in the philosophical meaning of the word. Nietzsche nowhere describes what the übermensch actually is - he describes some qualities, but those are qualities in man that can be said to be "übermenschies" ("like the overman" - this translates even worse than "übermensch"). My view is that the übermensch is in large part a metaphysical trick to cement the material as the sole focus of human action, and if I could find the correct references I would rewrite the section to reflect that . --Marinus 01:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism of "overman" section

message: The sentence "Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (October 15, 1844 – August 25, 1900) was a philosopher of German-Polish descent" is wrong. The "Polish descent" is nothing but a Nietzschean family-joke. The name "Nietzsche" seems to be Polish, but there are no real traces to a Polish descent in the history of Nietzsche's family. --Klingsor 18:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I see his continual referring to his Polish heritage in Ecce Homo as Nietzsche's attempt to distance himself from the rising German nationalism of his time, and in the style of Ecce Homo he does so through half-joking. Concidering that the Poles were stateless at this time (as was Nietzsche) he could gain exactly nothing from linking himself to them. I quite like what he did in this regard, personally. --Marinus 20:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  German-Polish