Talk:Friedrich Nietzsche/Archive 4

message: As above. I'm reluctant to move one of them, as they may have different content. Anyone willing to do a comparison of the two copies? Sorry if I sound lazy, but I don't have enough time right now. -66.82.9.87 03:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch. Quick diff shows only one difference, the recent edit by Igni. Deleted duplicate sections accordingly. Ig0774 04:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Um, there are two copies of "Gender Views" and "Political Views"

message: I removed this material to my talk page. If anyone is interested, it can be found there. --DanielCD 23:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nescio and DanielCD

message: I've made some significant changes to the God is dead article:
I've tried to address three distortions which I think the earlier version had:
*That Nietzsche put the phrase in the mouth of a madman, implying he did not himself belive that god is dead,
*That Nietzsche 'lamented' the death of god,
*That Nietzsche wanted to base morality on some 'natural' ethical standard.
This has resulted in a significant change to the tone of the article, so I'd appreciate feedback from other people interested in the subject. Cheers, --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 23:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, a lot of change. Thanks for mentioning it here. Some of the wording might be improved, but I myself don't see any major problems. I do think the older material was a bit more clear. But perhaps these problems can be addressed as others look it over. --DanielCD 23:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I've recently done some cleanup. In addition to this, I plan on further expanding it so that it may more closely describe what exactly N means when he refers to "God is dead" in relation to Christian morality, value-feelings, and so forth.ignisscripta 00:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Belated kudos for these corrections to a misleading section of text, although I am left to wonder if it makes the God is Dead article to Nietzsche-centric. Nevertheless, this is an issue for the editors of that article and not here. iggytalk 01:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[God is dead]] 

message: Most references to N's Übermensch in English use overman or superman, (including Übermensch). 'Overhuman', as well as being a grimly ugly neologism, is not the normal way to describe the idea, and WP should reflect that. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 09:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These are all hideous neologism, IMO. But I strongly object to making a "man" out of "human," given Nietzsche's exaggerated reputation for misogyny. Perhaps we should render Menschlich, allzu Menschlich as "Manly, all too Manly." If overhuman and superhuman are not to people's liking I would suggest we keep Übermensch auf Deutsch, with an explanation at its first occurence. mgekelly 09:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go along with leaving it in German, which is also an option some translators use. The point is that we shouldn't make up terms not usually used (so 'Human, all too Human' is the only contender for that title). Anyone object to using the German word with an explanation? --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 09:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ja, Übermensch auf Deutschsprechen ist sehr gut. In other words, I think there are no problems with that. Even more, this would be benefit the Übermensch article as well. One last note, it would be of great import to note that Nietzsche borrowed this term from Goethe who used it in Faust, where the "Spirit" uses it in reference to Faust ironically. — ignis scripta 21:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: We can link to the discussion of the matter. — goethean ॐ 21:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the article is seriously overweight now, and the last thing we need is the discussion of a possibly ambiguous term which will add to the confusion of the article even more.  Goethean's strategy is the best idea.  The exposition of the theory must be based on what Nietzsche meant, and sources should be quoted from both N himself and scholar's (e. g. Kaufmann) interpretations. --Knucmo2 15:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Super/overbeyond man/human 

message: To all editors: Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 04:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Jossi, the warning was very clearly in order. Hopefully, things will resolve in due time. — ignis scripta 04:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:3RR]] warning 

message: Bottom of the page--catagories. Why is Nietzsche both in Wagnerites and Anti-Wagnerites? Sorry if the article explains, I'm just using part for school, and this caught my eye. Nyctalopia 22:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See here. — goethean ॐ 22:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thanks. Niki Whimbrel 22:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dumb Question