Talk:Friedrich Nietzsche/Archive 1

message: anyone catch this:
"his embrace of a sort of irrationalism; and something he called 'the Will to Power' (Wille zur Macht), possibly best regarded as an early attempt at psychology."
i think it is quite an oversimplification to describe the will to power as and early attempt at psychology. Leaving aside for the moment that there were plenty of earlier attempts at "psychology", this kind of reference seems to discount how much more is involved in the Will to Power. I think this article would be stronger without this little phrase, although there is also room for expansion on this front, in order to elucidate this topic even more
---I don't think that acknowledging Nietzsche's interest in   psychological matters diminishes his theories, although the quoted passage could use some polish.  Walter Kaufmann's biography of Nietzsche, after all, was subtitled "Philosopher, Psychologist, Anti-Christ."  Moreover, both that book and Kaufmann's translations of Nietzsche's work contain frequent footnotes drawing parallels between Nietzsche's observations and Freud's work.  You do have a point, however, that the quoted passage seems a bit too reductionist.  Nietzsche's ideas, covering so many facets of the human condition, defy easy summation.
*** Indeed, Nietzsche seems to have thought of himself as a psychologist more than a philosopher. The real question though is whether "power" is a good way of translating "macht." In reading N. I have always had the impression that it was something rather more specific than "power" --
Power, in my opinion, is really the best word to convey the intended meaning. In German, the word "Macht" means: to do. In the literal sense, he did mean, "Will to do", but that's a bit ambiguous and insubstantial. Dan Asad 18:54, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Will to power more than psychology 

message: < http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/05/1051987657451.html >
Nietzsche 'died of brain cancer' - Octothorn 16:20 22 May 2003 (UTC)
Or a link claming syphilis by the author of POX: Genius, Madness, and the Mysteries of Syphilis. --ssd 03:24, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The anti-Sax comments I saw were dated October 2003, obviously predating the article, so they were objecting to other things Sax apparently said before this article.  As to the time scale of syphilis--there really isn't one.  It can kill in 6 months or easily let you linger for a decade in the tertiary stage while going in and out of insanity with frequent bouts of intense pain.  Many who had it didn't die of it and only suffered mild symptoms, or died of syphilis induced heart or lung troubles while mostly sane.  Actually, I don't think anything short of a blood test can actually refute that someone had syphilis.  All we can really say is that they died of something else or not.  Insidious disease it is. --ssd 05:13, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: This debate is on the Syphilis talk page as well, as a former editor used Nietzsche as an example of a syphilis fatality.  Does the statement in this article reflect the concensus from your discussion above?  If so, we may need to edit him out.  Please chime in on the Syphilis page.  Thanks.  WBardwin 02:54, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nietzsche "died of brain cancer" or syphilis? 

message: Reading Zarathustra, I have the impression that Nietzsche's justifications for the struggle and strife mandated by people fully exerting their will to power all boil down to the will to power being "natural", "healthy", and/or inherent in the definition of "living". Is there any sense to this impression? If this is so, what might Nietzsche respond to someone who disagreed about what was "natural", "healthy", or "alive"; or to someone who agreed that the will to power was "natural", but who thought that we should not go from what is to what ought to be? --Ryguasu 22:49, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Justifying will to power? 

message: Hey all, I was wondering a bit about this line (and a couple lines around it) in the brand, spanking new (and fabulous) Will to Power section:
"(This is part of a more general claim that all facts are false, roughly because none of them more than appear to correspond to reality.)  Instead, ethical statements (like all statements) are mere 'interpretations'."
While I had understood Nietzsche to be, epistemologically speaking, something of a skeptic, what always struck me as more important in his writing was not whether or not anything is in fact true or false, but why it is true or false, to which he seemed to be saying something like, "a true statement has been made true" - that is, there aren't states of affairs in the world that are true in and of themselves, just truths made true by humans.  If we're going to be discussing his epistemology and/or metaphysics in this article, I'm all for going all out on it, rather than just a sentence or two stuck in the Will to Power section, which without a big old chunk of text explaining it might be misleading.  Any objections?  Normally I'm a bit more brazen about editing articles, but this one has had some big improvements lately and I didn't want to interrupt the flow.
--Seth Mahoney 17:59, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Nietzsche and epistemology

message: Nietzsche did question religion early in his life - he goes on about this in On the Genealogy of Morals. He may have been pious as a child, I don't know about that.--XmarkX 05:44, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: Considering this statement: 
:"Moreover, his idea of noble men imposing their own values on the world suggests a non-skeptical meta-ethical view, namely ethical subjectivism."
Is this saying that Niezsche believed in having "noble men" (ubermensch?) impose their values on people?  Something like a Platonic "Philosopher King?" If so, this statement is patently false.  That idea goes against the core of Nietsche because he dispised any kind of imposed morality.  Comments? --DanielCD 20:49, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nietzsche and "Philosopher-Kings"? 

message: Go to google and type in "bicameral system of culture" in quotations as thus. You'll receive several hits on this obscure reference to this 'theory' of Nietzsche's that I've never before heard of, but which sounds very interesting nevertheless. Does anybody know the source of this reference and these terms and maybe where Nietzsche can be sourced for it? Nagelfar 11:39, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, Thank you for the corroboration with my thought that such terms were never used by him. Nagelfar 08:46, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Dividualism?' Nietzsche's "Bicameral System of Culture"...? 

message: As far as I know, the English translation of Der Antichrist is incorrect. "Christ" means "(a)Christian (person)" in German, thus "Der Antichrist" would be more accurately rendered as "The Anti-Christian". --Tamas 14:32, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Antichrist

message: "Other ideas similar to Nietzsche's are Taoism, which holds that to follow one's own natural wills will bring about a happier existence, and Hegel's theory of history.  "
:What? The Taoist vision of following one's "natural will" ultimately stems from a pantheistic or monistic concept of the operation of the Tao in all beings and bears little to no resemblance to Nietzsche's concept of power; furthermore, Taoism consistently advocates metaphors of weakness, feminity, and even deformity in contrast to the image of active masculine power which it frequently denigrates, which is actively contrary to the Nietzschean view. And Nietzsche was profoundly anti-Hegelian, so a case for their similarity (and what sort of similarity is it supposed to be?) would have to overcome this. Can anyone help me understand what these lines are doing in this article? -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 18:55, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taoism? Hegel? 

message: I know I'm no fun, but. Someone added the quote "My genius lies in my nostrils." The only reference a9 finds is , which I'm loathe to consider authoritative, and it's hardly representative of his work anyway. Thoughts?
- sam_jam00
Well, it's in my copy of 'Why I am so Wise' and I think it's representative of Nietzsche's character: he was, after all, very self confident in his sensitivity (did he not say that he felt ill in the presence of a German?). And he did say it, making it a quote (of course he probably said 'pass the peas' but I wouldn't include that). But you're right, I was mainly being facetious, because I think it's quite an amusing quote.
Mote 01:41, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nostril quote 

message: I'm just a week-old newcomer from the far east, yet knowing little of wikipedian manner, but at once praising much its free, easy, general, and neutral spirit. Excuse me for all my faults if any for the time being at least. But last Friday i put down my first contribution to "edit" by appending the following QUOTE of three paragraphs to the existing one under the subtitle "Criticism of the idea." The next day it was found completely deleted to my "reactive" dismay and sense of edit war. NPOV appears in danger. In a sense the whole article is critical. Or such a title is reasonably expected really critical. Nevertheless all criticism against the central idea of ultimate "Power" is reduced to a word "harsh" or at best a single concessive clause "Although the idea may seem harsh to some" strongly suggesting subjective impression. Elsewhere his sister appears only to blame for Nazis using it, which seems not really under her control. The idea itself looks like a manifestation of "Will to Power" as a theory of everything. As such it is in danger of "eternal recurrence" of abuses by any neo-aristocrat and power-greedy overlord 'over mankind.' We need a safeguard measure. The tougher figure the tougher measure to criticize. Isn't it fair enough? 
I greatly admire Wikipedia as the closest idea to the Wellsian ideal of "World Encyclopedia" and "World Brain" along the line of The Enlightenment and Encyclopedism, devoted to authority "critically presented" free to the general population rather than "for the gentlemen by the gentlemen" of power. As a social reformer, he must be sick and tired of propaganda by dictators and scholars as well. To make hero of someone is likely to make fool of everyone, degenerating the general enlighenment. And NPOV as well! Partial scholarship may be as sinful as they make fool. All sholarship may be simply evolutionary dialectic "reactions," or "conjectures and refutations" as claimed by the seminal Karl Popper, or even "anything goes" as claimed by Paul Feyerabend. I hope my edition or addition is not wholly useless and worth complete delete. I quoted a passage from Taoism in Wikipedia to mark the disparity from Will to Power, as the similarity alone would be misleading to other than Taoism. Somewhere in the "discussion" the very similarity was bitterly disputed but in vain. On the other hand, suppose my idea were so striking or undermining as to be deleted and buried deep in secret. Then even piracy would be suspected of at worst, I'm afraid. At least, the manner would matter. I too should have invited discussion here prior to my "edit" in a hurry. This is a bargain; we'll feel free to do it starting from now on...
< QUOTE >
 
On the other hand, the mother nature, heaven and earth, or perhaps God is not merciful or affectionate. So suggested Lao Zi, the legendary father of Taoism, the backbone of the so-called oriental mysticism or paganism. It is not that she is merciless, but she simply goes her way or Tao regardless of individual creatures whose fate is destined. Nevertheless men will or wish for her mercy in vain. Instead they would better follow her way, loving her and fate, namely, amor fati. For she is not affectionate but affective overwhelmingly. 
Thus, to live is mostly to react passive and effective rather than act agressive and affective, though it may be often more or less affective in effect. The servant or slave morality, say to God, is deeply engraved here. "Act in accordance with nature, and with finesse rather than force." Prefer inaction and reaction to action of force. So suggests Taoism, rather in a passive mood. In a Confucian mood, do to others as you want them to do to you. Buddhism strongly suggests causal chain reactions. Neither is exactly active but rather reactive. 
The idea of Will to Power, particularly as a theory of everything, may be better replaced by that of Will to Reaction, to be precise and scientific. The sensation undergoes a series of responses to external stimuli. The mind is widely regarded as the mirror of nature, however strongly Richard Rorty may deny. As to behavior, no one but Americans can vote against George Bush at free will. Without Newtonean reaction, spacetime would not make sense of it at all. All the physical and chemical reaction processes would begin and end all at once, once and for all! Why not physiology and psychology in reaction to make sense of spacetime? The binary opposition is the most elementary order of things, as manifested by mathematics and computing. Such may be enough for why yin-yang of ancient oriental paganism is an absolute must. Newton may have rediscovered part of it. Nietzsche is rediscovered for his fatal contribution to recover such paganism.
< ENDQUOTE > Sincerely yours --KYPark 11:19, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While I don't agree with DanielCD that this article must be limited to biography, I do not find KYPark's contribution acceptable. Wikipedia is not the place for original research. --Goethean 15:33, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say it had to be limited to biography. --DanielCD 22:02, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What an instance of reactionism! 

message: The statement that Nietzsche lost his faith because of David Strauss was written in the appendix to the Slovenian translation of the book by dr. Vittorio Messori: Ipotesi su Jesu. 
The appendix was written in collaboration with V. Messori by prof.dr.Anton Strle, a now-deceased recognized Slovenian prelate and the professor of dogmatic theology and of patrology on the Faculty of Theology in Ljubljana. Unfortunately it is not available in English, but the source is reliable. --Eleassar777 16:22, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't inspire confidence. --Goethean 16:31, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't think anyone can make the statement that any one thing made him lose his faith. Statements like that are just too presumptuous. Any reference would have to be widely known and approved of by multiple scholars, and even then would be weak. It's really more of an opinion. It may have played a part, and that might be a better wording. Like: "{this book} is believed  by {so and so} to have contributed to Nietzsche's loss of faith." or "According to {so and so}, this book played a major part in N.'s loss of faith. --DanielCD 16:36, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why Nietzsche lost his faith

message: Substituted at 20:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment