Talk:Friedrich Nietzsche/Archive 3

message: Maybe, to make the article smaller, most of the section on Master and Slave Morality could be moved to the red link near the top to start a new page, similar to the Overman section. Bill Sayre 01:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In certain respects that is a veritable assertion, but this is only possible, to be sure, by way of neglecting the basis upon which "influence" itself is formulated—to be influenced by the elements of another's thought does not necessarily presuppose a kind of understanding in finality, which, you may be inclined to admit, is absurd to confer, since nothing is "understood" from "first" to "last", and rightly so. Invariably, I say his influence is there, and it will not be removed from the article or from historicity regardless of how widespread these "misunderstandings" of his work are. If anything, these are stronger indications of his influence rather than not, and every difference of interpretation is of markedly profound interest, for which I am extremely glad you have posted Conway's considerations (below) for all to witness, though the particulars of his argument (if there is one at all, that is, if the argument itself is not yours, with regard to them being "liars" in this manner) are missing, not to mention prospective criticisms of such an assessment (such as the one I propose). Be that as it may, I agree the biography in the article is outfitted nicely, whereas the other sections are severely lacking in both scope and depth, which seems to be the article's enduring and disappointing disposition. Another note about Nietzsche's "truth"-mongering, you must realize, as he himself said, that was mere seduction, and holding his thought to such an absolute (e.g., "truth" as it is typically interpreted) is possible either by way of infirmity of thought or abuse toward what Nietzsche said, that is, by ignoring what he said. Although, this is not to say Nietzsche abandoned the notion of "truth", but rather that he revised it into a more suitable fashion, the form of which is perspectivism and is very deserving of consideration by philosophers.—IGNISSCRIPTA— 05:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: move "Master and Slave morality" to a new page?

message: Just rewrote the ethics section in a fairly proper fashion.  Each of the subtopics could use some elaboration.  All comments here, please, this discussion page is getting very long.  Not2plato 05:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: proper?   you left out all the reference, the reader now has no way of verifying your claims.   you also managed to somehow remove most of ther the pertinent common-sense parts and replaced them with specifically philosophical terms.  the article isn't for philosophers.  perhaps this section should be moved to nietzschean ethics or something, then there could be room to have the citations, the common sense interpretations, and the philosophy.  --Buridan 11:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Place in Ethics Rewritten

message: The sentences: "In Ecce Homo, Nietzsche stressed his Polish ancestry repeatedly--which became very uncomfortable for the Nazis. A retired major named Max Oehler, who was a relative of Nietzsche's, wrote even a work to prove that Nietzsche was racially pure from the Nazi perspective called "Nietzsches angebliche polnische Herkunft" ("Nietzsche's alleged Polish descent"))." are a possible copyright infringement. It seems that they are taken from the website http://www.pejmanesque.com/archives/008028.html
--Klingsor 17:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll rewrite the passage so it conforms to Wiki's copyright standards --Marinus 23:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done! --Klingsor 11:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright infringement? 

message: Fixed lots of typos and combined what was previously written in the section with parts of the entry that can be found at Eternal Return (eternal recurrence is directed to this article) in the Nietzsche section.
This edit helped decrease the article size, put forward a better written section (I think) and corrected typos (particularly the repeated misspelling of Nietzsche's name - there are probably more I missed).
I suspect that this section can be further reduced in size by moving some of the information to the Nietzsche section of the Eternal Return article.
Also, I took out a significant portion concerning the Will to Power. As we've discussed here in editting the section on that topic, it seems irresponsible to cite the book without noting its controversial nature. Also, I think I managed to preserve most of the core content that caused the book to be invoked.
Over the next few days (or hours depending on my will to power) I'm going to try to tackle reducing the other sections and outsourcing to other articles whatever can be reasonably outsourced. Help, suggestions and critiques are, of course, welcome. John T. Reuter 01:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Eternal Recurrence concept was important to Nietzsche because it epitomizes the attitude of a person who absolutely affirms life. See the section on "Schopenhauer and the Eternal Recurrence," below. Nietzsche struggled continuously with Schopenhauer's description of life as something to be abhorred and denied. As a young man, he was strongly influenced by Schopenhauer's eloquent descriptions of asceticism and the denial of the will to live. This is not evident to readers who have never read Schopenhauer's writings, especially the fourth book in the first volume of his main work The World as Will and Representation.Lestrade 20:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eternal Recurrance and other Key Concept Sections 

message: Shortened it as part of plan to reduce article described above. All information that was removed is still availible on The Will to Power article page. John T. Reuter 03:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Will to Power 

message: Shortened section as part of plan to reduce article described above. Removed quote from Will to Power as per earlier discussion here. All core ideas preserved, most content preserved. John T. Reuter 19:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nihlism and the death of God 

message: Shortened poltiical views by cutting and moving some things to the Nietzsche's Influence and Reception. I'm going to try to start shortening them as well as the key concepts (also, I should start mucking around in the Gender views section soon). Content has been mostly preserved. John T. Reuter 22:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political views and Influence 

message: Moved Style section to Thus Spoke Zarathustra article because it only concerned that book. All content is preserved on that page. This is part of my effort to help shrink this page to a reasonable length. John T. Reuter 00:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style Section 

message: Hello, I have got some remarks concerning the biography section. Sorry for any mistake, English is not my mother tongue. Since this section seems to be based on the one in :de:Friedrich Nietzsche to which I have contributed, I will try to localize possible misunderstandings.
*... under the guardianship of a local magistrate, Bernhard Dächsel.
:::de:Bernhard Dächsel was Friedrich Nietzsche's Vormund after Ns father had died. :de:Vormundschaft seems to be a judicial term not exactly to be found in Anglo-American law, although Legal guardian seems to be the most fitting circumscription. Still, Bernhard Dächsel seems to have been a more formal guard for Nietzsche: he administered Nietzsche's money and was asked for approval to N studying philology/theology, but he did not play a vital role in young Nietzsche's life. They did never live in one house, Dächsel even moved away from Naumburg in 1852. (An interesting detail is that many years later, in 1884/5, he would give legal advice to N in his troubles with publisher Schmeitzner.)
*In 1854, he began to attend a Catholic preparatory school
::The :de:Domgymnasium Naumburg was Protestant (Lutheran).
*during his time at Basel was a frequent guest in Wagner's 'House of the Masters' in Tribschen
::Seems to be a misunderstanding: in the German article, we have "Gast im Haus des 'Meisters'", which is "guest in the 'Meister's' house". "Meister" (master) was and is a common title referring to Wagner, used with admiration by the Wagnerites and irony by the anti-Wagnerites. (Btw, the relationship to Wagner (or Wagners, as Cosima is important too) is something which needs deeper insight in both de an en wikipedia).
*and also began a friendship with Paul Rée, an influence for the pessimism in his early writings.
::No, Rée is commonly seen as an influence on Nietzsche's dismissal of his earlier Wagner-Schopenhauerian pessimism.
*Nietzsche undertook more experiments, attempted to find a wife, and pursued Malwida von Meysenbug to no avail.
::Does this imply that Nietzsche thought to marry Meysenbug? This was not the case. In fact, Meysenbug urged Nietzsche to find a young wife, herself being ten years older than Nietzsche's mother. Btw, an en: article for Malwida von Meysenbug (de:Malwida von Meysenbug, fr: Malvida von Meysenbug, sv:Malwida von Meysenbug would be good.
*Peter Gast (born Heinrich Köselitz), became a private secretary.
::"sort of". Although Köselitz was arguably the man who saw and corresponded with Nietzsche more often in the 1880s than anyone else outside the family, he was of course never officially employed by him (which makes him more or less a slave-disciple). This should be clarified if it could provoke a misunderstanding.
*chaperone
::Nothing wrong, I just like this word formerly unknown to me :-). But:
*Through various avenues of intrigue, Elisabeth broke up Nietzsche's relationship with Rée and Salomé in the winter of 1882-83. (Lou Salomé eventually came to correspond with Sigmund Freud, introducing him to Nietzsche's thought.)
::It's true that Elisabeth's intrigues played a role in the tragic end of the "trinity" Nietzsche-Rée-Salomé, but they were not the single reason. AFAIK, the whole story of their friendship and breaking up is complicated, and Nietzsche's own letters from this time appear as cryptic to many Nietzsche scholars today as they did to Rée and Salomé back then. It should at least be noted that in the end, it was Nietzsche who broke with them - and, for some time, with his family too. - As for Freud, is there a source that Salomé introduced him to Nietzsche? I'm not that familiar with Freud and would like to learn more about his reading of N.
*he sent short writings to a number of friends, including Cosima Wagner and Jacob Burckhardt, which showed signs of a breakdown.
::I personally think that this is an understatement - they are obviously written in a state of madness - but I know this is a controversial point especially among Nietzsche 'followers'. Also, I do not see why the apocryphal story of the horse should be retold here again (except for the purpose of clarifying that it is apocryphal), or why one of the madness letters - and then, why exactly this one - should be quoted here.
So much for now, thanks for reading and regarding.--Chef aka Pangloss 22:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because noone complained, I tried to change these points myself. The last one ist still open.--Chef aka Pangloss 17:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some remarks concerning biography section 

message: In the section upon Nietzsche's views on woman's role in society, it is noted that 
"...both [sexes] are capable of doing their share of humanity's work, with their respective physiological conditions granted and therewith elucidating, each individually, their potentialities." 
I find this to be misleading somewhat to Nietzsche's views. He (as far as i can tell) was very resistant to any speak of 'humanity' as a whole, and would have seen any moralising in terms of 'for the greater good'/'for humanity' as rather Christian and part of the slave morality he speaks so strongly against.
While i understand the writer's desire to provide a more balanced interpretation of Nietzsche's writings on women, i feel that comments like the one quoted above, and some others in the article sacrifice a good understanding of his philosophy for the sake of what ends up reading as apology.
Does anybody have any suggestions for ways to remedy this? 
I feel we need to give a well balanced reading of Nietzsche's views, but need to stick to the 'facts' as much as is possible (somewhat difficult with someone like N.) metro.tramp 15:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gender Views 

message: Wouldn't those two things be condsidered mutually exclusive?-PlasmaDragon 17:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because a person can change their mind (as Nietzsche did). — goethean ॐ 17:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: As goethean (sort of) points out: Nietzsche was first a Wagnerite then changed his mind and attacked his former friend thus becoming an Anti-Wagnerite. Mikker ... 20:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this article in both Category:Wagnerites and Category:Anti-Wagnerites? 

message: In light of Nietzsche's proclamation that he was himself an "immoralist", and he advocated for the disestablishment of mainstream religious morality, did he even have any concrete provisions for any condemnation of something like murder? It seems that if one makes his own morality, then it ought to be beyond anyone else to condemn such actions (even if they allow/encourage something like murder or rape). I guess what I'm basically asking is if Nietzsche would have objected to say the adoption of his philosophy by Leopold and Loeb. Would he have been justified by his own philosophy if he condemned or pushed for prosecution of their acts? - 3-25-06
:There's a difference between being an immoralist - that is, against traditional moral values - and being a nihilist - that is, against all values -; while Nietzsche certainly held a fight against morality, it is important to note that he also held a fight against nihilism. Thus, even if we can't ethically condemn actions such as rape, murder and misappropriation, we can condemn them based on other values - be them pragmatic, aesthetic or simply life affirming.Daniel Nagase 18:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Morality 

message: Hi, over at HuWiki there's a long-winded discussion about whether Nietzsche can be listed as an atheist or whether his atheism is being disputed by scholars.
Can you offer any good references to support either view?
Thanks,
-- nyenyec ☎ 01:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that Nietzsche can best be described as an agnostic. He was mostly concerned with the socio-cultural effects of the phenomenon of secularism, which he saw as a done deal. He called the Will to Power a metaphysical principle (although I can't provide a reference). At some points in Kaufmann's edition of The Will to Power, he refers to nature as "a monster of power", which sounds a bit pantheistic. He wrote so much in so short a time, that he is pretty much uncategorizable in several ways. — goethean ॐ 15:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a fair assessment, goethean, that also seems to be much more along the lines of what Nietzsche himself said across the whole of his philosophical praxis. He is in no way a nihilist (he very clearly was in bout against it) but rather a very radical thinker in terms of value assessments and their sociological implications through comparative anaylsis of various, contested values—the whence and why of their inception, etc. The case however seems to lead to an exponential in terms of classifying him as being with agnosticism and atheism, that is, overfull to the point of nullified meaning of those terms in his case. Although it can be said equivocally that he withholds agnostic and atheistic traits. In the face of this problematic, I'm more inclined to say he is quintessentially unclassifiable (after all, he is a philosopher of life and knowledge and the attempt to arrive at this distinction is naïve, not to mention deriving a clear picture of this aphoristic philosopher's personal sentiments—which change, tend to be contradictory, and are intricately and profoundly related when viewed overall—is also misguided or at least very difficult) into either heading entirely and this is certainly interesting to add into the article. At this point, such a statement seems too unrefined for addition, however. Keep all eyes focused on scholars' statements; I have no available references at this unfortunate moment. Sadly it seems this does not fundamentally solve this contentious addition to the article itself but further feedback can easily solve this.— igni scripta 03:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I think Nietzsche was a pretty strong atheist. If I remember correctly, there is a long discussion of the non-existence of god in Daybreak. Mikker (...) 20:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Nietzche's view leads to nihilism I think.  If this is right then he is an atheist.  I don't know if my 2 cents helps at all...  FranksValli 02:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, he definitely describes himself as atheist. From Ecce Homo: "I do not by any means know atheism as a result; even less as an event: it is a matter of course with me, from instinct. I am too inquisitive, too questionable, too exuberant to stand for any gross answer. God is a gross answer, an indelicacy against us thinkers — at bottom merely a gross prohibition for us: you shall not think!" ("Why I am so Clever") Daniel Nagase 21:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that that is a perfectly acceptable interpretation based on citation, but that alone at face value is inextricably misleading, as are taking all his statements out of their context, with hidden attempts to press into him a particular reading. Even with that said, until a clearer assessment may be made, he is an "atheist" (mind the condom quotation). What I am trying to say is that in order to show he was an "atheist" by personal decree, it must be shown how his philosophical outlook shows this on its own terms, not summarily classified as such with little or no insight and by way of quotations. I say this because his writings demand intense scrutiny.—IGNISSCRIPTA— 21:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I am extremely pleased to see someone who's well-aware of these things from the German Wiki—if only more cross-Wiki discussions would take place, we would be better off. What you say, at any rate, I find to be sound and certainly accurate. It is a shame that these designations (theist, agnostic, atheist, etc.) simply do not function properly but the case remains thus with Nietzsche in many ways (in order to pin-point him for ease of summary and in order to be done with him entirely—to get loose of him is extremely difficult in this manner). In short, I think it is fair to say in the article he is "atheistic"/"agnostic" but it must be written carefully, not sweepingly, keeping these things in mind.—IGNISSCRIPTA— 13:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not sure what you mean by "atheistic/agnostic". Nietzsche, clearly, by his own words, did not believe in God. I did not even know there was a polemic about this. Considering that he condemned any belief which gives inherit meaning to reality, it follows naturally that he was an atheist (that is, he did not believe in God). Daniel Nagase 01:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely, as you say, he "did not believe in [the] God" of Christianity and its sects or of any other religion at the culmination of his life and work, but by contrast, in the attempt to be careful and conscious of the intent behind words, which is fundamental when understanding texts, especially Nietzsche's work, he does not outright "condemn any belief which gives inherit meaning to reality" (including the illogical syllogism of quoted premise that he is an atheist). For one of the most centrally emphasized aspects of his work was to show the importance of an aesthetic outlook towards life in order to give it a meaning according to an individual's perspective (e.g., his "perspectivism" and statments on art), that is, valuation itself. He even goes so far as to relate these things to physiology, saying that our perspectives toward the world are a result of our interpretations of our muscles and so forth.Such a false statement, this assertion disproved by way of overviewing Nietzsche's works, is simply due to a gross ignorance of his work. From the very beginning, in The Birth of Tragedy he discusses a particular aesthetic and this is later contrasted with Schopenhauer, Christianity, Buddhism, etc. (refer to The Will to Power's Index on "nihilism" in particular and to the whole body of his work), as it was further ramified by his thought witnessed in his later works.My modesty with the terms "atheistic" and "agnostic" is from an awareness of the conditions behind the characteristics of Nietzsche's thought, not from an allusion to an implicit scholarly polemic in academia, which can be rather languid, especially as it attempts to apply only analytic readings to Nietzsche that are essentially flawed when Nietzsche himself was not analytic in style or in manner. It is in addition to this, Nietzsche is also no nihilist in the meaning that there is "no meaning in the world", etc., but he at one point also illustrates the importance of nihilism for valuation. It is significant as we change our values from time to time, since negation is also necessary as a touchstone for affirmation.—IGNISSCRIPTA— 12:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: In "Human, All Too HUman" Neitzsche says "One level of education,itself a very high one, has been reached when man gets beyond superstitious and religious concepts and fears and, for example, no longer believes in the heavenly angels or original sin (...). Once he is at this level of liberation, he must still make a last intense effort to overcome metaphysics. Then, however, a retrograde movement is necessary: he must understand both the historical and the psychological justification in metaphysical ideas." Then, at some other point he says "It is true, there might be a metaphysical world; one can hardly dispute the possibility of it..", then goes on to state how that world would not at all be important to us because of our inability to access it. Thus one can conclude that he is a nilihist, but not necessarily an atheist. (Inside0ut37 19:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is truly misplaced to think inverse-synecdochically that a finger of Nietzsche's work somehow comprises the whole body of it, as if one statement could possibly account for all of them, not to mention absurd inasmuch as such a view simply does not know what constitutes a philosophical argument.—IGNISSCRIPTA— 12:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that one or two quotes from Nietzsche do not "comprise[.] the whole body of it [sc. Nietzsche's work]", but partly because there is no "whole body" of Nietzsche's work at all. Even if there were, there is no a priori reason for anyone to assume that you have definite knowledge of it, so you would still have to give some evidence for your statement, and not only reject evidence for the opposite case (even if you're right in this). - Not meeting with these standards of my own, I give my view in stating that Nietzsche did never think of "any belief which gives inherit meaning to reality" as true in the classical-philosophical meaning of the word. This does not necessarily mean that he overall "condemns" any such belief. He seems to do so in his middle period - InsideOut's quote is an example here - certainly not in his early works and arguably not in his later works. In the Antichrist for example he praises or at least does not oppose to the ancient Jew's belief in their nation's god Jahve, whereas he strongly condemns the Christians' belief in a universal, ghost-like and pitiful "good" god. This does not imply that he believed in the existence of the first one; it seems quite fair to assume that he did not in either case. (Neither does it imply, that to be clear, that he would suggest to modern people to rebuild the ancient belief in a strong, nation-bound god - he seems to be quite aware that this option does not exist anymore.) He is, my POV, far beyond the question. You can call this atheist, you can call it more atheistic than most atheists, you could also call this agnostic. But these words do not help to understand, they even put up a barrier to understanding, by putting an answer in front of a question. You have said this is necessary "in order to pin-point him for ease of summary and in order to be done with him entirely". But a summary is worthless when it gives rise to a misled understanding. And, being an evil reader: "To be done with Nietzsche entirely", well, this is something many have tried, many are working on, and many have succeeded with, but only by sacrifizing Redlichkeit and Wahrhaftigkeit. The more I get a glimpse of an overview I can state that we are not done with Nietzsche and will not be for a long time.--Chef aka Pangloss 07:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How close we are in our opinions! Only I have failed to make this apparent for myself, which is  frustrating, but as you've stated such for yourself this does make matters simpler. It is quite true Nietzsche's approach in philosophical terms changes abound, but it is safe to more or less presume his latest works dominate the entirety of it. It is also in lieu of these alterations that it becomes difficult if not entirely impossible to use "agnostic" and "atheistic" in order to categorize Nietzsche—his work sought to go beyond the merely normative and ordinary modes of thought (and I should say he succeeded to a remarkable degree). What then do Honesty ("Redlichkeit") and Truth ("Wahrhaftigkeit") represent for us anyway? these terms are not remotely applicable in their usual senses.When I mentioned, as you say, "But these words do not help to understand, they even put up a barrier to understanding, by putting an answer in front of a question. You have said this is necessary 'in order to pin-point him for ease of summary and in order to be done with him entirely'. But a summary is worthless when it gives rise to a misled understanding", I am actually in agreement, because I also feel "he is quintessentially unclassifiable" according to the terms "atheism" and "agnosticism" (said above, by me).In contrast, I hardly think that there is no body to Nietzsche's work, it is merely submerged from our sight, for a great deal lies within his Nachlass, and to say this implies neither that his philosophy is "systematically developed" which is obviously untrue (which means it can still be a "system" or "body") nor that the intricacies of his thought are in some way tenuously related. This instigates heuristically plumbing his work which has already been done by others elsewhere—hence I do not confer upon this discussion my "opinions" alone—therefore, I'll proceed with sufficient intimations of his work through quotations to show this:
Subject and object:Perspectivism:Further epistemic relation of subject with substance:[The whole of sec. 486 and 488]Substance is not reified:Anthropology of knowledge:Will to power as pathos:As you can see quite readily, there is a body clearly active in his work, and I can go on with many more quotations to indicate how pervasive these trends are but I will not for sake of time and space.Through these inferences made more or less evident for us and to lay bare the extent at which the article currently stands, I must say it is far behind what heurmeneutic studies are currently doing, and we are well along the way towards making these things clearer—the immensity of Nietzsche's thought is again and again gleaned. We must take great care and caution with these proceedings.—IGNISSCRIPTA— 18:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The contention is not wether he was one or not, but rather in connection to the whole of his thought, why and how he was one. I've clearly stressed this throughout my previous posts, and if the point was scarcely taken, I will gladly revamp my meandering statements cogently, simply. That he stated he was by instinct an "atheist", what do you suppose that instinct was? —— "Perspectivism". After all, he even mentions one of his highest skills is turning perspectives. And so you see these considerations on this are of a much higher fidelity to his thinking and should not so readily be dismissed or misconstrued as a sort of apprehensiveness while determining whether he was or was not an "atheist".—IGNISSCRIPTA— 05:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I must say I am puzzled. First you dismissed my claim that Nietzsche was an atheist because of his disdain for theories which tried to provide inherit meaning to reality. Now you reaffirm precisely that point, by claiming that Nietzsche was an atheist because of his "perspectivism" - which is just the academia term for the disdain I described earlier. So which is it? Daniel Nagase 06:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dismissed your claim that he was an atheist precisely because of its falseness for stating that Nietzsche had a "disdain for theories which tried to provide inherit [sic] meaning to reality" (to say it more clearly, I am saying he does not have any such disdain for values that give meaning to reality since mankind needs values in order to live, this is at the heart of perspectivism). For Nietzsche, everything we do is concerned with such valuation based on our needs and utility (e.g., he called this "perspectivism"). I thereafter asserted Nietzsche is an atheist because of his perspectivism, that is, due to the way in which he understood valuation as such (as I said upon my rejection of your statement: For one of the most centrally emphasized aspects of his work was to show the importance of an aesthetic outlook towards life in order to give it a meaning according to an individual's perspective (e.g., his "perspectivism" and statments on art), that is, valuation itself.). I think you have simply misunderstood the underlying tenets of our entire procession, that is, what "perspectivism" meant to Nietzsche as it is seen in his works, hence your puzzlement. I will add an illuminating passage for musing in this connection:
—IGNISSCRIPTA— 06:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  I believe there is a misunderstanding here. I never said Nietzsche had a disdain for any life evaluation; that would make him a nihilist, a title he would have repudiated. What I did say, and you quoted, was that he had a disdain for theories which aim to show an inherited meaning in reality. We must invent meaning, not "inherit" one from above; the first is an artistic perspective, the latter a Christian one. Hence my puzzlement: such a position is perspectivist - even though I hesitate before using that label on Nietzsche -, yet you disparaged it as a misreading of Nietzsche, only to affirm the very same position later on. I think we are in agreement; if you read what I said more carefully, perhaps you will see that as well. Daniel Nagase 15:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have remediated this small problem, to show, in fact, we are in essential agreement and rightly so. My problem, as I now see it, with your statement was the word "inherit", as you had first said, where I thought you meant to say "inherent", since "inherit" was grammatically incorrect in your first statement, which you now explicate as "inherited". A single word can be troublesome, lest the signified is to be conveyed imprecisely. I'm glad this was rectified—that you have restated your position within its own terms. Furthermore, our human contributions to all that we perceive are not disregarded by Nietzsche: "your descent, your past, your training—all of your humanity and animality" are intertwined with everything we do and so forth (The Gay Science, sec. 57). Therefore, it cannot readily be assumed that Nietzsche is somehow advocating something irrespective of what constitutes us, merely classified as being "artistic", which is meant much more broadly, and so this inventive drive is indeed better recognized as an entirely human affair, tinctured by and suffused with the conditions of our existence, as the garner of our interpretive faculties, through which the world is "humanized" as we experience it (his views on science show this as well). His position is, nonetheless, much more complex than I make apparent, wherein he asserts, though aware that this too is interpretive, "truth" is inextricably perspectival and "knowledge" is interpretive; and his "perspectivist" views are partially elicited in this instance here. For this terminus ad quem, the case here shows I am amenable to our statements characterized as coextensively being of efficacious similarity now that these omissions have been sufficiently filled. Conclusively, I accept this (revised) statement: "Considering that he did not cling to and even condemned any assertion which gives an inherited and transcendent meaning to reality and alone as being supreme (e.g., with regard to various, collective, moralistic interpretations), it follows naturally that he was, non-normatively, an atheist (that is, he did not "believe in" and essentially discredited the God of the Christian sense), in other words, an immoralist, since, as he viewed it, such values were epistemically erroneous and superficial"; through which, of course, I interpret (it as) your position, and even if this is not yours in all of its particulars, it is indeed my own.—IGNISSCRIPTA— 01:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nietzsche's atheism 

message: it is time once again to prune the article back and create sub-pages for those things that should be independent articles.  Everything other than his bio should be 1 or 2 paragraphs at most, then link to the appropriate sub-page.  like ubermensch and will to power.  This page was a great page once before it was bloated to its current page, let's take it back to the facts about Nietzsche and move his philosophy, ethics, to the subpages.--Buridan 01:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: article length and sub-pagination

message: Nietzsche was impressed by everything that Schopenhauer wrote. In his The World as Will and Representation, Schopenhauer described the person who affirms life. Such a person would be one 
Lestrade 14:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article had claimed that Nietzsche first came across the idea of eternal recurrence in his reading of Heine. However, it then describes Heine's notion as that of a person in the future who has the same thoughts as a person in the past or present. This has very little to do with Nietzsche's themes. However, the passage from Schopenhauer that is quoted above is very close to Nietzsche's eternal recurrence. It relates to the unconditional affirmation of life, as well as the eternal recurrence of all events, not simply one thought.Lestrade 12:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nietzsche criticized Schopenhauer, but was enormously influenced by him. Anyone who has read both authors would see the relation. Almost all of Nietzsche's writings were an attempt to oppose Schopenhauer's conclusion that the highest way to react to life's suffering is to deny the will to live. But you have to crack open Schopenhauer's book and actually read it in order to understand this.Lestrade 12:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Schopenhauer & the Eternal Recurrence