Talk:Friedrich Nietzsche/Archive 7

message: ==== History of political reception ====
Many scholars have questioned Nietzsche's complex stance toward Judaism and anti-Semitism, and thus his relationship with Nazism. Among contemporary scholars searching for the roots of fascism, this question has become central to their readings of Nietzsche and other Enlightenment-era philosophers, especially those alive during nineteenth-century Germany.
YirmiYahu Yovel, for example, argues that Nietzsche's attacks on ancient priestly Judaism were as fierce and uncompromising as his assault on anti-Semitism.Yovel, YirmiYahu, Nietzsche Contra Wagner (2002), Nietzsche: Godfather of Fascism?, Princeton U. Press, p. 134 Yovel also wrote, that the anti-Semites accused Jews of having killed Christ, but Nietzsche accused Jews of having begotten Christ.Ibid., p. 135 According to Yovel, Nietzsche depicted ancient Judaism as grounded in ressentiment and as responsible for the corruption of Europe through Christianity.Ibid. While Walter Kaufmann praised Nietzsche as opposed to all Nazi intents and acts, scholars such as Steven Aschheim have placed Nietzsche as "the most acute anti-Semite that ever was",Aschheim, Steven, The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990 (1992), University of California Press, Berkeley, p. 245 because, he continues, as an example in The Antichrist, Nietzsche illustrated Judaism's role in Europe's spiritual history, namely, as one engendering Christianity itself, making the Jews "the most fateful people of world history."Ibid. He then further suggests "Nietzsche became a crucial source" for a particular variety of anti-Semitism he refers to as "anti-Christian anti-Semitism" as was "designated by Uriel Tal" in contradistinction to a Christian anti-Semitism.Ibid., p. 251
Inquiries such as these, however, have been known for decades, although in a perhaps different light. That Nietzsche has been marked in the political sphere as one among (or at least claimed as a precursor to these movements) the anarchists, communists, feminists, libertarianists, socialists, nihilists, fascists, anti-Semites, Nazis, etc. is a prevalent reading in the history of scholarship, in large part due to the manner in which Nietzsche was presented and appropriated by the Nazis, and similarly for other political movements, as one of their philosophical inspirators. While the legitimacy of Walter Kaufmann's work is frequently questioned, his intense scholarship during the 1950s onward attempted to dispel such views and present Nietzsche's writings in their appropriate historical framework, going so far to show them as strongly against these particular views. Contemporary scholarship in both North America and Europe and across languages nevertheless continues to plumb the nature of these indications with some in agreement and others in disagreement on Nietzsche's very complex positions on these issues, leaving the matter an unsettled question.
==== Discussion of 3rd draft ====
:Any comments on this version?  It probably needs some sort of conclusion, but I don't really feel like writing it right now - my suggestion would be for an editor other than my self or Petrejo to step up.  -Smahoney 20:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's looking much better now. I've done a few modifications to bring it into the realm of truthfulness (ie., grammar, better referencing, there is no "new variety of anti-Semtism"; you may also want to include your note about the "anti-Christian anti-Semitism"). I'll think about some sort of conclusion that will tie in this material without being partial for or against the O-so-prevalent reading of Nietzsche as proto-Nazi, fascist and anti-Semite that has been known for decades, due in part to the Nazis and other scholars' work. This material will best fit in the reception of Nietzsche section.Non-vandal 23:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've written a formal conclusion. It's quite generalized but it fits the picture and doesn't make itself reliant upon sources. I think it could certainly use more details and views from various sources, but a conclusion per se on this topic is far from adequate, because scholars themselves haven't reached a real conclusion. I lastly added a heading for the material. It can be changed to whatever might be better when it is placed in the article.Non-vandal 02:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously, as I've titled this material, it would lead to the suggestion of a much more intense and in-depth analysis of these receptions of Nietzsche. Consequently, an entirely separate article might be needed. Just a thought.Non-vandal 03:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In response to my last post and edit to the draft, I think this would best be placed in Social and political views of Friedrich Nietzsche; the main article is bloated already, and it lacks sources as it is, so I think when it comes to more detail as this, it should be placed into some subarticle. Any thoughts?Non-vandal 06:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would recommend removing the quotes around 'fascists', 'anarchists', etc.  -Smahoney 18:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am very pleased with the results of these efforts.  I say the third draft is ready to post.  Thanks, everybody, especially Smahoney, for your many weeks of effort.  Petrejo 10:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can openly say I agree with you here. It looks really good. I've asked Smahoney's opinion on where we'll place this: either some section of the article or a relevant subarticle are the obvious choices, but the latter seems best because of the article's large size.Non-vandal 10:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I have a few questions. Are Yovel and Aschheim scholars of such a high repute that their opinions should dominate this discussion? What was the scholarly reaction to Aschheim's accusation? I would be more comfortable if the passage quoted a scholar that I have heard of before. Nehamas, Thiele, Clark, Schacht, Magnus, Rosen, Cavell, Solomon...I am familiar with the names of lots of scholars. But I've never heard of Yovel and Aschheim. — goethean ॐ 14:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a very peculiar, and interesting, point, Goethean. I, too, would like to understand why exactly these two have been chosen among the throng of (bad) scholars. There are definitely more and better equiped scholars than these.Non-vandal 17:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like Safranski, who is quoted at the bottom of this page. We know that he is a importance scholar with a good reputation. And that he does not "whitewash" Nietzsche. — goethean ॐ 17:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In reply to Goethean, citing the new generation of scholars like Yovel and Aschheim doesn't constitute their domination of the discussion.  They supply the other side of the portrait of a mild-mannered Nietzsche that Walter Kaufmann offers.  Nietzsche was clearly passionate and sometimes ferocious.  To cite Yovel and Aschheim isn't domination -- it's balance. I agree with you that the scholarly reaction to their writing is relevant.  Petrejo 04:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am always immensely distrustful of attempts at 'balanced' discussions between two viewpoints. "The other side" and all that. It creates a center around which the discussion of the subject revolves, and narrows debate towards that discussion. I don't think much of the attempts to place Nietzsche in the continuum of anti-semitism (either as proponent or critic) because a discussion of discrimination of this sort is entirely besides the point concerning Nietzsche's philosophy. In my reading at least that is the meaning of his various (and, tellingly, tangential) remarks concerning anti-semitism and anti-semitists. I'd rather we not nail Nietzsche here on Wikipedia as either a pro or con. In my view a line or two on the subject would suffice - that he has been attacked for anti-semitism (like he has for misogyny, and racism) and that he has been defended, with the ambiguous tones and his unsystematic approach not allowing a definite conclusion to the problem, which never explicitely enters his work. Perhaps go as far that the consensus is that his remarks are at best contentious and at worst troublesome.--Marinus 01:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is interesting, and I agree with you on many points. Specifically, however, what would your opinion be about the above mentioned draft?Non-vandal 04:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think Yovel and Aschheim have a terrible interpretation of Nietzsche's genealogical technique, on that sets out to smear him (just as Kaufmann sets out to whitewash him). I definitely don't think they should be given such a clear and important position in the article, as opposed to Klossowski or Derrida (whose views carry much more currency right now). The second paragraph Without the second paragraph, however, it's something that I wouldn't mind seeing in the article. It could do with a reference or two, but I'm sure that wouldn't be too hard. --Marinus 07:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More to the point, Marinus, your distrust at attempts at 'balanced' discussions between two viewpoints, seeing the other side, directly confronts the Wikipedia ideal of the NPOV as constrasted with a one-sided POV.  Things won't be resolved with a couple sentences saying that Nietzsche was attacked for anti-Semitism and also defended -- that hides the issue.  There are historical nuances that deserve a hearing.  Much discussion on this point has already transpired since May.  Those who'd shun a 'balanced' hearing would seem to undermine the NPOV ideals of Wikipedia. Petrejo 04:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The reason I scarequoted 'balanced' is because I believe it isn't: like I said, by placing Nietzsche on the continuum you are making anti-Semitism a quality of Nietzsche philosophy (either himself as an anti-Semite, as is popularly supposed, or that he actually vehemently opposed anti-Semitism, as many claim with good reason). I think that this is POV: the question of anti-Semitism doesn't enter Nietzsche's philosophy. The influence of the Jews does, though we must be very careful about how we interpret Nietzsche when he talks about races because his account is full of subtleties and ambiguities: for one, he only characterises a people by their best qualities. Nietzsche viewed anti-Semitism as unimportant, and that is the view this article should have: anti-Semitism isn't important to Nietzsche's philosophy. As for him being called one, or being used by anti-Semites: that is another matter. That is why I recommended a seperate article for that question in the mediation case. --Marinus 07:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested addition - 3rd draft v2 

message: :Any comments on this version?  It probably needs some sort of conclusion, but I don't really feel like writing it right now - my suggestion would be for an editor other than my self or Petrejo to step up.  -Smahoney 20:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's looking much better now. I've done a few modifications to bring it into the realm of truthfulness (ie., grammar, better referencing, there is no "new variety of anti-Semtism"; you may also want to include your note about the "anti-Christian anti-Semitism"). I'll think about some sort of conclusion that will tie in this material without being partial for or against the O-so-prevalent reading of Nietzsche as proto-Nazi, fascist and anti-Semite that has been known for decades, due in part to the Nazis and other scholars' work. This material will best fit in the reception of Nietzsche section.Non-vandal 23:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've written a formal conclusion. It's quite generalized but it fits the picture and doesn't make itself reliant upon sources. I think it could certainly use more details and views from various sources, but a conclusion per se on this topic is far from adequate, because scholars themselves haven't reached a real conclusion. I lastly added a heading for the material. It can be changed to whatever might be better when it is placed in the article.Non-vandal 02:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously, as I've titled this material, it would lead to the suggestion of a much more intense and in-depth analysis of these receptions of Nietzsche. Consequently, an entirely separate article might be needed. Just a thought.Non-vandal 03:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In response to my last post and edit to the draft, I think this would best be placed in Social and political views of Friedrich Nietzsche; the main article is bloated already, and it lacks sources as it is, so I think when it comes to more detail as this, it should be placed into some subarticle. Any thoughts?Non-vandal 06:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would recommend removing the quotes around 'fascists', 'anarchists', etc.  -Smahoney 18:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am very pleased with the results of these efforts.  I say the third draft is ready to post.  Thanks, everybody, especially Smahoney, for your many weeks of effort.  Petrejo 10:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can openly say I agree with you here. It looks really good. I've asked Smahoney's opinion on where we'll place this: either some section of the article or a relevant subarticle are the obvious choices, but the latter seems best because of the article's large size.Non-vandal 10:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I have a few questions. Are Yovel and Aschheim scholars of such a high repute that their opinions should dominate this discussion? What was the scholarly reaction to Aschheim's accusation? I would be more comfortable if the passage quoted a scholar that I have heard of before. Nehamas, Thiele, Clark, Schacht, Magnus, Rosen, Cavell, Solomon...I am familiar with the names of lots of scholars. But I've never heard of Yovel and Aschheim. — goethean ॐ 14:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a very peculiar, and interesting, point, Goethean. I, too, would like to understand why exactly these two have been chosen among the throng of (bad) scholars. There are definitely more and better equiped scholars than these.Non-vandal 17:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like Safranski, who is quoted at the bottom of this page. We know that he is a importance scholar with a good reputation. And that he does not "whitewash" Nietzsche. — goethean ॐ 17:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In reply to Goethean, citing the new generation of scholars like Yovel and Aschheim doesn't constitute their domination of the discussion.  They supply the other side of the portrait of a mild-mannered Nietzsche that Walter Kaufmann offers.  Nietzsche was clearly passionate and sometimes ferocious.  To cite Yovel and Aschheim isn't domination -- it's balance. I agree with you that the scholarly reaction to their writing is relevant.  Petrejo 04:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am always immensely distrustful of attempts at 'balanced' discussions between two viewpoints. "The other side" and all that. It creates a center around which the discussion of the subject revolves, and narrows debate towards that discussion. I don't think much of the attempts to place Nietzsche in the continuum of anti-semitism (either as proponent or critic) because a discussion of discrimination of this sort is entirely besides the point concerning Nietzsche's philosophy. In my reading at least that is the meaning of his various (and, tellingly, tangential) remarks concerning anti-semitism and anti-semitists. I'd rather we not nail Nietzsche here on Wikipedia as either a pro or con. In my view a line or two on the subject would suffice - that he has been attacked for anti-semitism (like he has for misogyny, and racism) and that he has been defended, with the ambiguous tones and his unsystematic approach not allowing a definite conclusion to the problem, which never explicitely enters his work. Perhaps go as far that the consensus is that his remarks are at best contentious and at worst troublesome.--Marinus 01:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is interesting, and I agree with you on many points. Specifically, however, what would your opinion be about the above mentioned draft?Non-vandal 04:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think Yovel and Aschheim have a terrible interpretation of Nietzsche's genealogical technique, on that sets out to smear him (just as Kaufmann sets out to whitewash him). I definitely don't think they should be given such a clear and important position in the article, as opposed to Klossowski or Derrida (whose views carry much more currency right now). The second paragraph Without the second paragraph, however, it's something that I wouldn't mind seeing in the article. It could do with a reference or two, but I'm sure that wouldn't be too hard. --Marinus 07:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More to the point, Marinus, your distrust at attempts at 'balanced' discussions between two viewpoints, seeing the other side, directly confronts the Wikipedia ideal of the NPOV as constrasted with a one-sided POV.  Things won't be resolved with a couple sentences saying that Nietzsche was attacked for anti-Semitism and also defended -- that hides the issue.  There are historical nuances that deserve a hearing.  Much discussion on this point has already transpired since May.  Those who'd shun a 'balanced' hearing would seem to undermine the NPOV ideals of Wikipedia. Petrejo 04:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The reason I scarequoted 'balanced' is because I believe it isn't: like I said, by placing Nietzsche on the continuum you are making anti-Semitism a quality of Nietzsche philosophy (either himself as an anti-Semite, as is popularly supposed, or that he actually vehemently opposed anti-Semitism, as many claim with good reason). I think that this is POV: the question of anti-Semitism doesn't enter Nietzsche's philosophy. The influence of the Jews does, though we must be very careful about how we interpret Nietzsche when he talks about races because his account is full of subtleties and ambiguities: for one, he only characterises a people by their best qualities. Nietzsche viewed anti-Semitism as unimportant, and that is the view this article should have: anti-Semitism isn't important to Nietzsche's philosophy. As for him being called one, or being used by anti-Semites: that is another matter. That is why I recommended a seperate article for that question in the mediation case. --Marinus 07:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of 3rd draft 

message: I just noticed the following note at Template:Infobox_Philosopher:
:Entries in Influences, Influenced and notable idea should be explained in the main text of one of the articles. Those that are not mentioned in the main text may be deleted.
Based on this guideline, aristotle, dostoevsky and voltaire can be deleted immediately. hegel and socrates are mentioned, but not as influences. they are only compared to N in the main article. — goethean ॐ 17:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look carefully, I said the very same about the guidelines: "provided the article notes [those influences and those influenced] appropriately (this also means someone can come around and remove those that aren't)"; and "I think some cleaning up of these parts may be in further order." Well, I'll go ahead and delete those that aren't mentioned in the article (the ones you listed), which is what I was "fighting over" as you put it.Non-vandal 18:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, live and learn. I think that we should amend the article to cover Nietzsche's rivalries with both Socrates and Jesus. — goethean ॐ 18:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is in such sorry straits as it is: only a few references are given in it... I find that to be the foremost and most serious problem with it. I have nothing against adding material on Jesus and Socrates (as long as it's sourced, etc., etc.) - they are important - but my priorities are slightly different. Anyway, where would you put such information as the article currently stands?Non-vandal 18:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The stuff on Jesus can go in the Christianity section. Socrates might need a new section on Nietzsche's views of philosophy or something. But really, both Jesus and Socrates have to do with Nietzsche's ideals, perhaps closest to the Ubermensch. — goethean ॐ 19:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is justifiable sourcing, we can include them in the Uebermensch section where Goethe is passingly noted. Either that or we put only Socrates there and put Jesus in the Christianity section... I would really like to keep things as compact as possible.Non-vandal 19:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  infobox yet again 

message: The claim that Sigmund Freud gave Nietzsche the highest possible praise isn't verified, and it smacks of POV hyperbole.  The writer cited Ernest Jones' scholarly biography, but not the actual page number.  I've read Jones, and I don't recall that high praise, only Freud's denial that he owed anything to Nietzsche.  Please supply the page number, or remove the claim.  Also -- another famous person who claimed Nietzsche as an influence was L. Ron Hubbard, founder of the Church of Scientology.  It's right in the frontspiece of his 1952 book, Scientology 8-8008.  I added that fact a day ago, and now it's been erased.  Why? Petrejo 05:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dunno.  But Don King also claimed Nietzsche as a huge influence in an interview.  Some line-drawing needs to be done. --Knucmo2 10:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The editor probably assumed that it was added by a troll with an anti-Nietzsche agenda. — goethean ॐ 23:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: On Freud, Jones and Nietzsche — goethean ॐ 15:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's nice to see a book cited, but for those of us that don't have a Google account could you quote the relevant segment, Goethean? Thanks in advance.Non-vandal 19:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. It says that the Jones quotation is on p 343 of The Life and Work of Sigmund Freud, and backs up Pretrejo's point that Freud claimed to have never read N.  — goethean ॐ 19:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Goethean.  I request that the claim that Nietzsche influenced Freud be removed from this section, as an evident inaccuracy. Petrejo 11:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you actually read the passage that I linked to, however, it's clear that it is a complex relationship. And here's a little-known fact: Nietzsche had a book with Sigmund Freud's name on it in his library. According to Kaufmann, Freud translated a book by John Stuart Mill which Nietzsche owned. — goethean ॐ 15:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A complex relationship?  But the question is about a simple relationship, namely, that Freud's scientific discovery was influenced by his alleged reading of Nietzsche.  Now, Freud clearly denied that.  What's the complexity?  Petrejo 04:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I recommend Paul-Laurent Assoun's Freud and Nietzsche on the subject. Assoun catalogues every reference to Nietzsche by Freud and his close associates and contextualises it in Freud's changing thought. Freud's position on N changes over time - at the very first an enthusiastic interest is suggested by Freud's leading role in a circle of Viennese students who went gaga about N, then it becomes clear Freud didn't take much part in said enthusiasm even if it gave him some contact with N. At two seperate occasions N is brought up as a subject during the Wednesday Lectures (where psychoanalysis was initially hammered out by F and his close associates) and F dismissed the topic both times. His exact claim is not that he hadn't read N, but that he hadn't studied him, that his "studies into Nietzsche have never progressed more than half a page" (Assoun reminds us that N is aphoristic philosopher and half-a-page is enough for a real impact). Later in the Lectures F would himself bring up N, saying that "never before has anybody had such insight into their own mind, and doubtlessly never will anybody again" (the praise in the highest terms). All this is from my memory, but I've got the book back home and am busy reading it and putting my notes in order. It is a certain and verifiable fact that Freud reservedly but tellingly gave Nietzsche immense praise for his psychological insight. --Marinus 23:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The article's 'Influence and Reception' section still contains a one-sided quotation from Nietzsche that slams Anti-semites, which, in the interest of NPOV, should be balanced by one of the many quotations from Nietzsche that slams Jews.  Show both sides. Petrejo 04:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how that constitutes "both sides". They each constitute one side of indirectly related matters. Don't try to lump his statements about Jews with Anti-semitism - that is the duty of scholars, and doing otherwise is POV - which, as we all know, is a contested view. Anyway, to say it better than you did, as the article stands (again, as we all know), it fails WP:NPOV on many points. Some issues, like the one you mention, aren't sufficiently raised in it. So, yes, it is a problem. The 3rd draft 2nd ver, which some of us have worked on, that you added was removed, because we still need to discuss the articles' structures. For what has been proposed, this means the draft needs to be much more comprehensive than it is.Non-vandal 05:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article as it stands remains slanted with the subtle message that since Nietzsche passionately disliked Anti-semites, that he must have always printed kind things about Jews.  That's historically inaccurate.  I've posted several direct quotes from Nietzsche in which he says hateful things about Jews, and they've all been erased, usually within minutes.  But the quotes are real.  They exist.  They are palpable.  Why are they hidden?  Doesn't that suggest an attitude of shame over what Nietzsche actually wrote?  If so, isn't that a POV?  As for the 3rd draft, 2nd version that many here worked on, it was the product of efforts going back to May.  It's now August.  Can we finally post it somewhere in this new structure?  Otherwise, some may rightly question whether the suppression of this 3rd draft is due to technical reasons or to its controversial content that has been consistently suppressed for many months. Petrejo 04:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh-huh. So you deny that Nietzsche ever wrote about his intense antinomy towards Anti-semitism and anti-semites, and that, because of what he wrote about Jews, as if that were itself "anti-semitic", he necessarily is for anti-semitism and is himself anti-semitic? Again, no original research. I said it before; the reason why, if you need one: it is a contested interpretation, and it may be found as no longer credible. So far you're ignoring some material that Nietzsche wrote in order to place precedence over some other written material, which isn't particularly comprehensive. Anyway, do not misjudge my removal of the 3rd draft as "suppression". There is as yet no consensus as to where it should go nor if it stands as a suitable piece of material for inclusion to wherever. Please get your facts straight and calm down. We're all trying to improve this article, but here you're imposing your perspective and it must stop so we can move along properly.Non-vandal 04:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  influences and reception 

message: The article says "Ultimately, however, Nietzsche claims that, unlike the overman, who embraces life, Jesus denied reality in favor of his 'kingdom of God'." Is it to be taken then that Nietzsche's opposition to Jesus of Nazareth as an approximate kind of Übermensch is not derived from Jesus' apparent elevation and glorification of a truly slavish slave-morality? Does this mean that Nietzsche's concept of slave-morality is subordinate to his concept of Übermensch--or to put it differently, is the Overman accountable to the master-morality in any way at all? (It certainly appears to me that the two are interdependent upon each other, but it still does not preclude one of those apparently nasty contradictions in Nietzsche's thought.) 71.76.135.102 15:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article as it stands appears somewhat ashamed of Nietzsche's Antichristian legacy, and seeks to whitewash it.  Nietzsche had some positive and negative things to say about Jews, and in the same way, Nietzsche had some positive and negative things to say about Jesus Christ.  The article hides those negative sayings, and seems to try to convince the reader that Nietzsche loved Jesus Christ but only hated (N's word) Christians.  My example is Nietzsche reading Jesus' saying, 'this generation will not pass away until I come in glory,' and Nietzsche remarked, "well-lied, lion!"   So, to try to convince readers that Nietzsche was a loyal follower of Jesus Christ who only wanted to improve Christianity by his criticism wouldn't wash with Nietzsche himself.  It would seem that Nietzsche's most acute Antichristian attacks came later in his writing career -- he gradually increased his attacks, as though testing the waters.  Petrejo 11:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Provide demonstrable examples before claiming the article "appears somewhat ashamed of" and "seeks to whitewash" whatever. Frankly, though the article needs improvement, I disagree with this assessment. Again, no generalizations drenched in POV rhetoric, but real problems with the article. Don't pontificate, elaborate.Non-vandal 00:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nietzsche's work is stridently Antichristian -- from his break with Wagner until his last book, Nietzsche delivered blow after blow to the head of Christian culture.  This was a repetitive theme for him.  Why not point this out in the very first paragraph?  Why not point it out in every section?  It's clearly a key issue for the writer who wrote, The Antichrist, and who also repeatedly, year after year, accused Christianity of corrupting the human species.  In 1881 Nietzsche called Christianity a 'disease'.  In 1882, after announcing that 'God is dead,' Nietzsche charged Christianity with being a control trick.  In 1886 he returns to the idea that Christianity is a disease.  In 1887 Nietzsche charges that Christianity is cruel and perverse.  By 1895, Nietzsche openly 'condemned' Christianity.  Why not admit this openly?  That's my elaboration. Petrejo 04:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Why not point this out in the very first paragraph?" Because the paragraph already mentions it. Look, I realize the "centrality" of Nietzsche's thought against Christianity as an institution, but it must be reckoned that these were secondary to a much more important matter. Sure, the article lacks coverage of the attacks themselves, but that doesn't mean it's "whitewashing" or whatever. About condemnation: that isn't a position we're to take, and the nature of it is not a trivial question or even if it was one as such. Again, please raise real issues demonstrated by scholars, not your opinions. Heck, his attitudes to Christians and Christianity can be seen as very different. So, really, it's just jive.Non-vandal 04:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It sure isn't 'jive' Non-vandal, it's a valid objection.  The centrality of Nietzsche's thought against Christianity can't be denied, and in fact it isn't already mentioned in the first paragraph -- on the contrary -- it's hidden in the first paragraph.  But most of us know the social pressures one is under to speak of these things -- it takes a certain kind of personality to directly confront these issues. Petrejo 17:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't have to mention Nietzsche's favourite food in the opening paragraph because some 21st century scholar deems it to be a crucial issue in the face of most other scholarship. Similarly, (mention of) his "anti-Christian" stance is moot, that is, debatable, and in such countless ways. Firstly, though it is a motif, Christianity is not seen as the very core of N's concepts. In other words, he didn't put pen to paper to bash Christianity, or Jews for that matter. The most trusted Nietzsche scholars (Kaufmann, and I believe Hollingdale and Menken as well) take this stance. Secondly, if you say he is anti-Christian, should you not also mention that he is anti-Kant, anti-Wagner, anti-Semetic, anti-anti-Semetic, etc.? The thing is, these stances all follow a nice arc of thought which really isn't to be fought on the point-to-point, quote-versus-quote battleground. In any case, without reliable secondary sources, no matter how obvious it may seem to you (for it is not obvious to me, and it doesn't seem obvious to many others here), it would be OR and POV. -Bordello 17:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nietzsche's bombastic title, The Antichrist, offers some direct insight.  Already in 1878 Nietzsche called Christianity, a "sickness."  He repeated this in harsher tones in Daybreak (1881).  In The Gay Science (1882), Nietzsche condemned Christianity as a control trick.  In Beyond Good and Evil (1886), he repeated his theme that Christianity is a disease.  In Genealogy of Morals (1887), Nietzsche condemned the Christian conscience as the internalization of sadistic cruelty.  In that book, too, he affirmed that Judeo-Christianity was not just an example of Slave Morality, but the clearly historical essence of Slave Morality.  Nietzsche blamed Christians for bringing Jewish culture into Europe -- and that was an unforgivable sin in Nietzsche's lifelong paradigm.  All this (and more) led up to The Antichrist as perhaps Nietzsche's last gasp before slipping into madness.  Is this not more than a motif, Bordello?  Is this not a life-long hatred -- a reliable thread that one can trace through most of Nietzsche's writings?  (Nor is this my original research; I've supplied dozens upon dozens of quotations from scholars to support this.)  If one finds ambiguity about Christ here and there, well, perhaps even Nietzsche himself was sometimes impressed by the vast reach of the Christian culture.  The whole thing falls into insipidity, however, when one recognizes that the Christianity that Nietzsche attacked was a straw dog.  Nietzsche's theory that Judaism created Christianity in order to wreak revenge upon the Roman Empire -- it's just a tad too paranoid. Petrejo 05:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "In Genealogy of Morals (1887), Nietzsche condemned the Christian conscience as the internalization of sadistic cruelty." - I don't think it is as clear as that. He described it as such, but condemn? I believe not. The tone throughout 'Genealogy' is highly ambiguous, and I don't believe that he condemned Christianity the way you describe it. While the works of 1888 are highly polemic, I think that your painting of Nietzsche as a rabid Christianophobe misses the mark (despite how inflammatory Nietzsche makes his statements). I think Jörg Salaquarde's essay "Nietzsche and the Judeo-Christian tradition" in The Cambridge Companion to Nietzsche gives a thorough run-through of the point. and represents the majority opinion that Nietzsche did even surce Christianity, but was always careful to note its contribution (it's positive contribution at times, like described in Genealogy) to the developement of Western civilisation and culture. This is also, as far as I can tell, the majority (almost consensus) view of current Nietzsche scholarship.--Marinus 07:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think you have understood the question. I don't dispute or doubt that Nietzsche was very critical of Christianity; what I am asking is if Nietzsche's conception of the Übermensch entailed any accountability to his conception of slave/master-morality. In other words, if N says that the Overman creates his own values, could these values be anything the Overman likes, or do they have to be in accord with his depictions of "healthy" and "weak" values? Why wasn't Jesus considered by N to be an Overman, given that he did succeed in creating his own system of morality? Was it because he chose to create the wrong kind of morality/values? 152.23.84.168 03:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. I think Nietzsche doesn't call Jesus an übermensch because the übermensch is (in my reading) not something that exists but a metaphysical trick whereby to dismiss metaphysics and place the body and life at the center of philosophy. Nietzsche was very sympathetic to the figure of Jesus (who is one of the figures in Part IV of Zarathustra), and identified many übermenschliches qualities in him including, as you've said, that Jesus was able to create a new morality. --Marinus 03:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nietzsche and Christ 

message: I have heard from somes sources, including about.com, that Nietzsche dropped the middle name Wilhelm from his name, but it doesn't seem to be mentioned in this article (I can't find it).  Is it true and should it be mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirveaux (talk • contribs)  23:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's pretty interesting (why would he do that and when?), if true. I don't recall anything mentioned. But I'll try to look around in tactile sources to see what's up.Non-vandal 00:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, Kaufmann noted in his Nietzsche... on p. 22 that he shed his middle name. (Why and when aren't discussed.) I don't really think it's important anyway but I'll add a note.Non-vandal 02:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks,  I was very curious about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirveaux (talk • contribs)  05:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that Nietzsche dropped his middle name because he didn't like being named after the king.--Itafroma 10:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very possible, but sources go before any "I think"s.Non-vandal 11:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmm, he usually signed with F W Nietzsche during his Schulpforta years, but all his writings (beginning with the philological ones in 1867/68) have the author's name as Friedrich Nietzsche (or latinized Fri(e)d(e)ricus Nietzsche). He seems to have used both in his early student years; the last "FWN" I found is from a letter to Deussen, April 4, 1867 (might be wrong, did not make a profound search here). His Zeugnis der Reife (1864), doctorate certificate (1869, in Latin, "FRIDERICVS GVILIELMVS NIETZSCHE") and also his :de:Sterbeurkunde (sort of an official death certificate) and the death entry in Röcken's :de:Kirchenbuch (1900) have the "Wilhelm"; on the other hand, his sister's death announcement, his habilitation certificate (1869, before the doctorate degree but perhaps made in a rush) and his headstone only have "Friedrich Nietzsche". I do not know if there is a statement of his own about this. Seems probable that his official name always was Friedrich Wilhelm, he just did not use his second name any more (neglect of second names and initials is quite common in Germany). - Friedrich Wilhelm IV. had already died in 1861, the new Prussian regent was his brother Wilhelm I. It should be noted that Naumburg and Schulpforta where Prussian, Bonn too (since 1815), but Leipzig was not (Saxony even was in war with Prussia in 1866). As long as no one knows of anything Nietzsche said, there is much room for speculation.--Chef aka Pangloss 16:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wilhelm 

message: "According to at least one authority, the Slovenian scholar Anton Strle, Friedrich Nietzsche lost his faith around the time he was reading Leben Jesu." - Taken from the David Strauss article.
"*David Strauss was the famous author of 'the life of jesus'.Thois, Strauss's most notorious book, had a profound effect on the young Nietzsche and contributed greatly to his loss of faith when he was twenty years old (Hayman 1982, 62-63)" - Taken from a note on p32 in 'The Nietzsche Canon a Publication History and Bibliography' by William H Schaberg
Do any other users still object to any inclusion of Strauss in the influences section? Or atleast some text in the article stating a possible influence from Strauss.
I was also considering adding Philipp Mainländer to the Influences section, any thoughts?--Itafroma 11:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't think either of them fit in there (also see User:Chef aka Pangloss's response to you in the relevant section). But Mainlander is already mentioned in the article. All that's left is some text on Strauss and that'll do, I think. Non-vandal 11:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: No doubt about Socrates, but, hey, the article is in a really bad way now - as it has been for a long time. It's a real shame. As for Strauss, you really should source it, like Strauss's article does, because if you don't it doesn't get this article anywhere. The "faith" part definitely needs sourcing, too. There are "citation needed" tags to show you where they're needed. Here's the text you wrote on Strauss, which I've removed for now (add it once you have proper sourcing)Non-vandal 00:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After one semester and to the anger of his mother, he stopped his theological studies and lost his faith.Schaberg, William,The Nietzsche Canon, University of Chicago Press, 1996, p32. It has been suggested that this may have been partly due to his reading of David Strauss's life of jesus at the time, which had a profound effect on the young Nietzsche.Schaberg, William,The Nietzsche Canon, University of Chicago Press, 1996, p32. Added to biography section --Itafroma 20:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influences - Strauss, again 

message: :"In the following few days, he sent short writings to a number of friends, including Cosima Wagner and Jacob Burckhardt, which showed signs of a breakdown."
There is a bias in the above description in the article which trivializes Nietzsche's experience and ignores Nietzsche's own triumphant proclamations of god realization contained in these letters, in favor of the normalizing perspective that it is a breakdown as opposed to Nietzsche's own descriptions of his experience as a breakthrough.   I find it quite offensive and disrespectful of Nietzsche to so blatantly ignore his own account of his experience and trivialize it with the word breakdown.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.138.137.6 (talk • contribs • WHOIS) 10:15, 1 August 2006(UTC)
:The whole section is biased in the same way (I mean it's filled with OR and POV) ... but I fixed the part you noted.Non-vandal 10:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias in 'Breakdown' description

message: The Nietzsche article is very long. I think that we should follow the example of the Kierkegaard, Philosophy of Søren Kierkegaard, and Theology of Søren Kierkegaard articles and break out N's thought from the biographical article. the biographical article would consist of:
:Biography 
:1.1 Youth (1844–1869) 
:1.2 Professor at Basel (1869–1879) 
:1.3 Free philosopher (1879–1888) 
:1.4 Mental breakdown and death (1889–1900) 
:2 Nietzsche's thought 
:3 Nietzsche's influence and reception 
:3.1 History of political reception 
:4 Selected works 
:5 Notes 
:6 External links 
:6.1 Full texts 
:6.2 Other sources 
The Nietzsche's thought or Nietzsche's philosophy article could merge all of the assorted articles that we have now into one large article:
:1 Key concepts 
:1.1 Nihilism and God is dead 
:1.2 Master morality and slave morality 
:1.3 Christianity as an institution and Jesus 
:1.4 Amor fati and the eternal recurrence 
:1.5 Übermensch and Last Man 
:2 Place in contemporary ethical theory 
:3 Social and political views 
Does anyone support this? — goethean ॐ 18:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed the Social and political views title.Non-vandal 18:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *One thing, though, if we are going to go ahead with that table, is I suggest putting "Übermensch and Last Man " sequentially after "Master morality and slave morality" for sake of chronology. -Bordello 02:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Chronologically in terms of N's thought, or....what? — goethean ॐ 18:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'm not absolutely sure, but I think it would be both in terms of his thought and simply following a more legible order. It seems Nietzsche presents most of his speculations and ideas as a cannon, anyway, so I thought it would be clearer to most for it to follow. What order should it be in? It would be almost impossible to trace back every train of thought to its origin in time, so it seems reasonable to follow the concept of Master-Slave Morality with the Overman. What do you think? -Bordello 02:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yes, it does seem like there might be a logical order to the doctrines. — goethean ॐ 14:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes please (that's a Yes vote).  FranksValli 00:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. Strongly supported.--Itafroma 12:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow flattered, you'd adopt my Kierkegaard divisions Poor Yorick 08:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  article length proposal 

message: I don't know how to archive a talk page, but it seems about time don't you think? -Bordello 15:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Darn right. archive 6 Poor Yorick 08:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Its long, but actually I'd say wait - the discussions were all active in July, which is pretty recent.  -Smahoney 18:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. -Bordello 02:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: To provide a more succint (by expanding the article *sigh*) and informative main article, especially as we need to seriously devolve it, I've followed the example of the Michel Foucault page in particular and set out a "Works" section of the article, including very brief summaries of major works by Nietzsche, linking to the main article on the subject and sprinkled with links to more detailed discussions. Because at the moment we have a long and informative biography and a hyper-contentious section on interpretations of Nietzsche, and nothing else. If this is done well we can trim the rest of the article into a form where it is more than a biography - currently it offers nothing to someone who wants an overview of Nietzsche's philosophy (which is why people come to the page). My contribution is little more than a rewrite of the Nietzsche entry in the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy ( Wicks, Robert, "Friedrich Nietzsche", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2004 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2004/entries/nietzsche/> - the only reference in this article! ) and only covers the first two books. I'll leave a more rounded and complete rendition to my fellow editors and myself when I have more time and resources at hand. --Marinus 01:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm also using The Cambridge Companion to Nietzsche as a reference for this section, since it has a very helpful essay giving an overview of Nietzsche's works. Between this and the Stanford Enc. of Phil. entry I think this section has all the references it needs (two standard overviews of the field). --Marinus 03:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's looking really good, Marinus, even if the article is stretched to its limits. You might want to consider tying in secondary sources for these summaries, like the ones you mention here.Non-vandal 04:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My references are noted in the "References" section (which I edited to suit this - "Notes" now serves to cite the sources for quotes and specific claims). I'd rather avoid the citation-per-line style that I ended up using in "Nietzche's Views on Women" since I think it's distracting, ugly and restrictive. I've avoided specific claims, citing them as necessary, rather summarising my two sources (that are themselves summaries and, more importantly, highly encyclopaedic). We'll see how that goes. Hopefully after this is done I can uncontentiously rewrite the useless "Key Concepts" section, and (hope above hope) edit the problematic "Reception" section into near oblivion. Why we must have a role-call in an encyclopaedic article is beyond me. I intensely dislike the tendency to having full-blown attacks and appropriations without an actual description of the man's philosophy. --Marinus 05:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, now I really am finished with this section. --GoodIntentionstalk 07:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent work, GI. It looks truly superb.Non-vandal 07:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmm. Like it. Tiny fix needed: nachlass is a redirect to 'literary executor', which isn't appropriate here. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Squiddy. I did check the link when I wrote the section, and I thought that what Nachlass redirects to was amusingly appropriate considering just how troublesome the interpretation of Nietzsche's literary estate has been. An encyclopedic joke, if you will. --GoodIntentionstalk 04:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Works 

message: Another influence that "Schopenhauer as Educator" may have had on Nietzsche was in his decision to leave teaching. Schopenhauer had abandoned his academic career and spent the remainder of his life as an independent scholar. How delicious that must have seemed to Nietzsche, whose early The Birth of Tragedy had effectively ruined his philological career. Nietzsche developed several non-verifiable ailments, such as headaches and stomach disorders. These provided a public justification for his departure from professorial life after having stayed long enough to earn a small pension.Lestrade 12:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He also had immense trouble with his vision. If my memory is correct he was also discharged from the military for illness. --GoodIntentionstalk 12:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Philologers need to be able to read. I think your thesis is a little far-fetched - Basel's pension was a very generous one, more than he could rightfully have hoped for. --GoodIntentionstalk 13:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Philologists can read very well with the aid of eyeglasses. The generosity of Basle's pension was a strong motive to develop unverifiable illnesses and, as a result, become a free writer in the footsteps of Arthur Schopenhauer.Lestrade 13:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I belive he was short-sighted actually, reading was'nt the problem, rather the cause. He had been advised to stop reading so much by one doctor (advice he didn't take), as it was making his short-sightedness worst.Itafroma 13:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Early Retirement

message: How could Freud say that Nietzsche had more knowledge of himself than anyone else? Could Freud compare Nietzsche's knowledge with Nietzsche's self and then make the judgement that they corresponded? How could Freud know what other people, past, present, and future, know about themselves? Freud's statement reflects very poorly on his intelligence.Lestrade 18:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nietzsche, following Schopenhauer, de-emphasised consciousness and took that to a new degree - his 'psychology' basically concerned what Freud would term the "Unconscious". In giving special attention to dreams, to conceiving of the Ego as a surface to the Unconscious and in a few other important insights Nietzsche was described by Freud as his "precursor". So Freud admired Nietzsche for his clarity of understanding and seeing through the fictions of psychology coming before him. This is all discussed in length by Paul-Laurent Assoun in Freud and Nietzsche --GoodIntentionstalk 12:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Self-knowledge

message: Obviously, these are far too many works to put on the main page. I have only tried to put together a representative list of books that should be considered for the bibliography of books about Nietzsche. Since these books come from my own library they are mostly paperbacks and later editions. All the dates and publishing information only reflect the editions I happened to buy. There are several schools of Nietzsche interpretation (e.g., Anglo-American, Continental, Postmodern and 'Straussian') that I respect and have tried to include books from all these schools. But perhaps some of the above works seem idiosyncratic and thus need to be explained. The Foucault book contains two very important essays on Nietzsche: "Nietzsche, Freud, Marx" and "Nietzsche, Genealogy and History" that have been very influential. The Gaultier book, written around 1900, is key to seeing the connection between 'Nietzschefied' Neo-Kantianism and postmodernism. The Steiner book might be of interest to those that want to find an 'occult' or spiritual meaning to Nietzsche's work. The Lampert book, Leo Strauss and Nietzsche, contains the important essay by Strauss, "Note on the Plan of Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil," and thus would serve both as an example of Strauss and also the 'decoding' of his method. At some point Volume III of my Heidegger books 'grew legs' and walked away; I would be grateful if someone would supply the correct information for Volume 3. I include MacIntyre on this list because Nietzsche's position is a possibility that MacIntyre, in his 'trilogy', wishes to foreclose. If his books need to be cut I think it would be best to drop Whose Justice first and only then After Virtue. I would hope that his Rival Versions makes anyones final list. There is an emerging anglo-american Kantian interpretation of Nietzsche (Green, Hill, Small, e.g.) and I do hope some of these books make the final cut. I think Stambaugh's dissertation on time a classic that is often overlooked. Hopefully it too will make the list. Rosen's book on Heidegger references Nietzsche throughout but most especially in the second half of that book. Well, I could probably write a little something on several more books that might not be obvious choices but that is enough for now. Apologies for spelling, typos, etc. Pomonomo2003 23:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I put your list in a new article: List of works about Friedrich Nietzsche. — goethean ॐ 14:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  :::: Proposed Bibliography of Works on Nietzsche