Talk:Friedrich Nietzsche/Archive 5

message: Hi. I just wanted to make a little suggestion concerning the chapters 2 and 3. At the moment they give a view on many different thoughts of Nietzsche, but perhaps they should be merged. An outsider, who reads the text, would have problems to gain a general idea of Niezsche's work. I see two possible solutions, which would make things in my eyes clearer:
*a) We try to bundle up some passages to focus on Nietzsche's general thinking about basic topics like moral, metaphysic and science. For example the tiny chapter 2.4 about the master-slave-morality could merge with chapter 3. The problem I see about this way, would be, that in my eyes most of Nietzsche's concepts are closely related.
*b) I always like a historical view on things: First Nietzsche's view on the past is shown: That would concentrate on christianity, master-slave-morality and the death of god. Then the results are coming, what this brings to the world of modern man: Blind science and nihilism. And last Nietzsche's sometimes vague solutions for the future would be presented: The Übermensch and the fusion of science & arts. I'm not sure about the Ewige Wiederkunft, but I guess it fits in the part about the present. But I have no idea, what to do with the Wille zur Macht, because I actually don't know much about this concept of Nietzsche. --Kryston 22:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, I'm in agreement with many of your points for improvement and they are quite sound. b) Seems to be a much more functional approach for we thereby accomplish much more that would make the article malleable and simpler to deal with—for future additions and whatever else. Der Wille zur Macht I think should go before Übermensch and Ewige Wiederkunft since U and EW represents a kind of culmination of his thought where WM represents its basis (indeed for all of his mature thought generally speaking). — ignis scripta 22:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any discussion of reorganizing ther article needs to take into account that the article is too long, and if no text is superfluous, then some must go to sub-articles. — goethean ॐ 23:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is true much of N's thought is already partially treated here in piecemeal, and so I think a little reorganization will not do much harm—the main articles of the ideas themselves can give a much more detailed and integrated account of them, at least so it would seem. A simple trace of the development of the ideas throughout N's life (since this article aims to be biographical) would be a good basis from which changes could be made to this article. — ignis scripta 23:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: And didn't N use a French phrase for the eternal return? — goethean ॐ 23:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not recall specifically any French term, but I do not think it is of much consequence (unless you indicate otherwise). Another important note is to observe how the French/German/Polish version of the article has been laid out. It seems the French have taken a structurally sound approach that both the German and English ones lack, which is fundamentally irremediable at first sight, and the Poles have done a very simple method of sieving the various occurances in N's life. Could it be possible the FA regulations are more strict on the en-Wiki (simply musing)?— ignis scripta 23:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the reorganization, as you say, will yield the deletion of inessentials currently bound to the article. Yes, where the German's resources went—I'm well aware of that, which is good, and I suspect they'll go on to the other books as well. As for FA, this will be of interest, however, they are only criteria, or very serviceable suggestions, and not absolutes in any sense. Let's take this process step by step so as not to botch any material or inherent valuables. — ignis scripta 00:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose our primary model should be the German article, nonetheless. — ignis scripta 02:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Time is an unlimited factor, so that is no issue. After the reorganization, I'm sure we can also get around to substantiating this article with references that are conspicuously wanting, without which it is a useless article. — ignis scripta 01:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: That's a telling remark and I think it should be mentioned in the article. Very good.Non-vandal 06:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. One thing about his citizenship: wasn't he actually "stateless" for quite a while? (I can't find support for this right now, but I've read something about it in several places.) --Cultural Freedom talk 07:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, as a matter of fact he was. He applied for Swiss citizenship and was rejected. But I'm not sure of the dating on this, and I can't recall how long it lasted. Until then.Non-vandal 07:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  structure of the article: Nietzsche's thoughts 

message: The reason I changed the end of the paragraph (which you then reverted) was that it didn't make sense. Think about it: Here's the ending you want:
... the crisis faced by Western culture in the wake of the irreparable disturbances to its traditional foundations (i.e., "European morality" and values in Nietzsche's phrase).
But Western culture includes morality; and "Western" means European, for Nietzsche. This means the ending you want is:
... the crisis faced by Western culture in the wake of the irreparable disturbances to its traditional foundations (i.e., "Western culture" and values in Nietzsche's phrase).
So it sounds like Western culture is disturbed by its foundations, which = Western culture. So Western culture is disturbed by Western culture.
Nietzsche has two genealogies dealing with the traditional foundations of Western culture: the one starting with Socrates, and the one starting the Jews and Jesus. (One doesn't need a reference for that!) That's why I made the change I did. Otherwise, the sentence doesn't make sense.Cultural Freedom talk 21:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I second guessed myself there and thought it was fine, only it needed a reference where it was treated closesly, such as Beyond Good and Evil. No problems here.Non-vandal 21:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Beautiful! A triumph of collective Willen! :) Cultural Freedom talk 21:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to get the term secularization in the paragraph somewhere. I think that it encapsulates the crisis of nihilism. — goethean ॐ 21:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that secularization has a lot to do with the crisis of nihilism, but speaking about secularization and nihilism in connection with Nietzsche is tricky. For Nietzsche, the seeds of nihilism were already in the Jewish/Christian experience of slavery, which led to "reactive" definitions of the Good, the will to truth, etc. The will to truth -- and as I noted before, there's the parallel genealogy that starts with Socrates -- then "turned against itself," and this lead to nihilism. But that doesn't mean we can't talk about secularization; we just need to make sure to highlight how, for Nietzsche, it's (at least mostly) an internal development within Christianity itself. Cultural Freedom talk 07:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "traditional foundations"

message: You know, I prefer the previous, minimalistic version with just the link to Kierkegaard comparisons under "see also". Is it necessary to have so many "see also" links in this already excessively long article? These are all linked to in the article body. So many articles could be linked to, where does it end? I suspect that this is our Stirner-pushing friend at work again. — goethean ॐ 20:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Actually, it turns out that I lied: Menno ter Braak, Emil Cioran, and Philipp Mainländer are not mentioned in the article. They should be added to the "reception" section. — goethean ॐ 20:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If that is the case, you can go about adding them there, whilst I go to the simpler version of see also, klar? — ignis scripta 20:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ja wohl. — goethean ॐ 20:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The See also guide isn't that specific, but I would agree with that in principle. — ignis scripta 20:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to his article, Philipp Mainländer was a (negative) influence on Nietzsche, so I added him to see also until he can be added to the appropriate biographical section. — goethean ॐ 20:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: No, but yeah, as a style issue, that is what should be done. Links in context are much more informative than when taken out of context. -Smahoney 20:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With that I most certainly am in agreement. — ignis scripta 21:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The see also section is absurd, Phillip Mainlander should certainly be mentioned in context, perhaps in relation to Nietzsche's desire to oppose nihilism, and the less man which Mainlander's thought represents. If the Kiekegaard/Nietzsche similarities could be addressed in the article then the link could be given in context.That way the section could be scrapped. Or it could be improved, by adding only influenced by and similar thinkers, as influenced would be the most extensive list. But the two links out of context just seem odd --Itafroma 14:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  see also 

message: I suggest, to shorten the article, one of three options: either move the political and views on women to a new article called Nietzsche's social and political views, or to move the Reception of Nietzsche section to a new article, or move both sections to new articles. We will leave one paragraph and use Wikipedia:Summary style, as with the other sections. Thoughts? — goethean ॐ 19:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, how about it?Non-vandal 21:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd wait until more editors agree before making major changes. I'll be offline for the weekend. — goethean ॐ 21:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, no big deal. Time is all we have it seems...Non-vandal 21:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: oops...I couldn't resist and did it. — goethean ॐ 22:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I passsed thorugh here in a short break from my WIki-absence, and I like what you did. --Marinus 00:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Your sources omitted L. Ron Hubbard who cited Nietzsche as a source in the frontspiece of 'Scientology 8-8008'.  So: Aleister (666) Crowley, Lawrence of Arabia, Hesse, Alfred (tough love) Adler, self-styled selfishness guru, Ayn Rand, a Templar poet, a couple of playwrights, newspaper journalist Henry Mencken, Anton LaVey and L. Ron Hubbard.  Yep, sounds like Classical Philosophy -- to the average American. Petrejo 06:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey! I'm glad you actually saw those flaws. No one said the article was perfect (apparently many think it could use a lot of work). Perhaps you could go about improving it rather than attempting to denounce everyone here? That's why anyone can edit the article. But before doing that you might want to brush up on policies and all that. Some of your edits already show an ignorance of how Wikipedia works which is easily fixable.Non-vandal 07:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to hear a reason why the fact of Nietzsche's influence on these literary figures should be omitted from the article. This stuff is in Kaufmann's Nietzsche if you want a reference. — goethean ॐ 21:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article length 

message: Nietzsche never claims directly that God is dead, so I made a few changes to reflect that. If anyone can find a quote where Nietzsche directly makes this claim, please let us know. Cultural Freedom 10:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm really beginning to think this is an overemphasis on your part to the point of obscurity. Section 108 is a case in point here. Simply saying "He put it in quotation marks" seems superfluous in all seriousness. He did state it, and the proclamation, on his view and part, is no different if he rephrases it differently afterward. So, I really think the phrase "typically placed in quotation marks" with the reference is pointless. For all it does, vaguely, is give a sample of how he expounded upon it. And so in this context, an encylopedia, it does not fit at all. What I'm getting at is why include this specifically when it is already mentioned (i.e., "The Madman" and AsZ)?Non-vandal 09:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point, but there's an important answer to your question (of why to include it): It's extremely important to point out that Nietzsche in no way believed that God is dead. There's a bunch of scholarship to support this (going way back, in fact, but more recently with Breazeale and Pippin, and of course Derrida). To put it too coarsely: we have to make sure we don't turn Nietzsche into Bertrand Russell (a "pale atheist"). I'm not saying you or anyone here is trying to do that, but I think we have to highlight Nietzsche's self-distancing from "God is dead." And the reason he almost always -- I'm embarrassed that I forgot about FW 108, but there's an explanation for that -- puts it it quotes is that he also believes "God is alive": it is the very will to truth (which comes from Christianity, and is obviously with us, and even with Nietzsche) that, paradoxically, makes atheism, including the atheistic streaks in Nietzsche's own thought, possible. (See the profound, and tragically overlooked Section 346 of The Gay Science: "Our Question Marks.") I like your recent rewrite, but I think the point that it's in quotation marks really needs to stay, otherwise a vital aspect of Nietzsche's struggle with nihilism risks disappearing. Cultural Freedom talk 09:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the swift reply. I agree largely, and I see where you are coming from: Nietzsche due to the demands of intellectual integrity leaves the question of God quite open (he's not out to "destroy God" and the like, etc), and the distancing is indeed there. I simply needed a clearer formulation of your premises and that fits the bill.Non-vandal 10:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And thanks for your swift reply! (I'm going mostly off-line for a while -- possibly a few days -- starting in a few minutes; might be able to check in quickly, though, while on the road, but no more swift replies for a while.) A quick thought: maybe we can bag my claim, but then have an entirely separate section, called something like "Interpretive Challenges" or "Nietzsche's Esoterism" or "Irony in Nietzsche", or something like that, where we could take up a couple of the obvious (and well-discussed, and easily citable) interpretive difficulties with Nietzsche: 1) "God is dead" 2) Übermensch (did Nietzsche really believe the Übermensch was coming, or is Zarathustra's (wavering) belief in the Übermensch yet another example of nihilism, "taken to its limit",) etc., etc.Cultural Freedom talk 10:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I like the significant interest that will garner. But debits and credits aside (I like the "Interpretive challenges" title, for it's most open), it would have to be integrated very carefully with the Key concepts and the Influences and reception somehow. This article has existed for so long in this cobbled state... Well, let's give ourselves time to think this one through. For example, decadence plays a key role in his "higher men", "new philosophers", and other creations, and these haven't even been mentioned! I suppose we can take this further at a later time.Non-vandal 10:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Although it is true that Nietzsche places the quotation in mouths of his characters, I dislike putting the quotation marks around God. — goethean ॐ 14:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry -- you put quotes around 'death', not 'god'. Your version is acceptable, but the previous version is preferable to me. — goethean ॐ 15:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One objection is that Nietzsche called it the death of God, not the "death" of God. — goethean ॐ 15:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, though I'm not sure that matters in this context. Either way, I changed the quotes. If you want to include the "the", feel free! My main point in making the change was just to emphasize that Nietzsche never claimed that God is dead, so as long as that point doesn't get lost in the section title, I'm happy! Cultural Freedom talk 15:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although we have no evidence that Nietzsche read Hegel, and plenty of evidence that he didn't, still, 19th century Germany was buzzing with the ideas of Hegel, and in 1807 Hegel shocked many with his  discourse on the death of God in his Phenomenology of Spirit (para. 752).  That is probably what Nietzsche refers to in his Zarathustra and other places.  (Although Hegel was widely misunderstood -- he was actually referring to the crucifixion of Christ.)  Also in his 1807 book, Hegel introduced a lengthy dialectic about the Master/Slave relationship (para. 178-196) that shook Germany for generations.  The German discourse on Hegel is probably what Nietzsche refers to in his own writings on Master/Slave morality.  In sum, the 19th century European buzz about Hegel formed the environment in which Kierkegaard and Nietzsche wrote.  They didn't have to read Hegel to hear his ideas everywhere. Petrejo 11:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Does one keep indenting, or should I have gone back to my three-colon indent above?) Agree completely about the Hegel milieu that informed Nietzsche's thought, and agree, too, that it surely had an influence on Nietzsche's thought about Christianity in (then) modern Europe. But I think your point has a far deeper and broader implication here: that we need a "Background" section (or maybe a separate article?) that takes this up, not just a fix to the bit about "God is dead." Moi, no time now, on the road. Cultural Freedom talk 15:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like an excellent idea. (Indenting is fine. As for the vandalism: vandals have nothing better to do than cause trouble, so don't worry about it.)Non-vandal 21:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "God is dead" 

message: I know of only Die fröhliche Wissenschaft, section 108. Any others? To Chef aka Pangloss, thanks for the reminder about Section 108; about my claims: they are hardly speculation, but I'll leave them out until I recall something to cite. Best, Cultural Freedom talk 18:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could we please try to resolve this peaceably? — goethean ॐ 20:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The I part of "we" is happy to! :) Cultural Freedom talk 21:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Section 343 clearly shows what grounds I come from, plus Schacht in his Nietzsche talks all about how "God is dead" pervades Nietzsche's cosmology and biological thought. So at best, like Pangloss said, your edits are "speculation" and unmerited. "God is dead" is not some literary element (or "trope"), more significantly it plays into Nietzsche's philosophy.Non-vandal 21:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: There are several issues here. (1) My claims about why Nietzsche almost always puts "God is Dead" in scare-quotes are not simply speculation, but are the conclusions of many Nietzsche scholars. (2) However, without having the time to get the references, I agree they should be left out. (3) Nietzsche was a master rhetorician, and chose his words exceedingly carefully. The fact that he almost always puts the words "God is dead" in someone else's mouth means this article cannot reflect the questionable view that "Nietzsche believed that God was dead" (or any such statement). "God is dead" may be more than simply a trope, but Nehamas, Derrida, and many others believe its function as a trope was important to Nietzsche. If you want to remove the word "trope," I won't fight it. Just don't leave the article in a state where someone reading it would believe that a significant element in Nietzsche's philosophy was his claim that "God is dead", for that is incorrect. At a minimum "The statement addresses the impending crisis..." is, at a minimum, horrible English, and should go. Cultural Freedom talk 21:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: CF, How is that phrase horrible English? — goethean ॐ 21:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I understand. — goethean ॐ 21:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See my change- (Note: we're all capable of horrible English when grappling with Nietzsche! Even Kaufmann's generally majestic translations have their occasional muddy parts!) Cultural Freedom talk 21:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I have no problem with the note on "scare-quotes", but if you are going to write something about the matter, use references, otherwise it looks like your work. Sure it functions as a trope but that doesn't mean it doesn't function philosophically.Non-vandal 21:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree! But, you have to admit, there's a lot of stuff here without references that has stood unchallenged for a long time.... Cultural Freedom talk 21:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's about time to start, don't you think? I'd like that. People here have plans of getting this thing to where it deserves.Non-vandal 21:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree! This is good cause. I might be off-line for a week or so, but if so, I'll definitely be back. Cultural Freedom talk 21:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: CF, you just lost half the article in an unsuccessful revert. Pls stop reverting and discuss this. — goethean ॐ 21:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, G, it was your ref, I fixed it.Non-vandal 21:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thnx, sorry, etc. — goethean ॐ 21:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "God is dead": Where stated directly by Nietzsche? 

message: I'm not so sure about using the literal translation, Overman, in place of Übermensch. The German word über is used in a much more general context than the English over, so I think, rather than a literal translation, it should be either left as Übermensch with "Overman or Superman" written in brackets on the first instance, or Superman should be used with the alternative Overman given. Übermensch has become a well accepted term in English in relation to Nietzche, so I am in favour of the former option. In various books, I've seen all three forms (Übermensch, Overman and Superman), but I just think Overman looks a bit silly, because it doesn't really make sense in English, whereas Superman (derived from supercede) makes a bit more sense. Opinions? --Nathan (Talk) 01:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Übermensch 

message: Would anyone object to a small section on 'decadence' under Key Concepts?  I was thinking something like this (taken from http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Cult/CultScot.htm):
"While Nietzsche used the term "decadence" throughout his published writings, in the late works he used it more frequently, and it took on the status of a technical term. Decadence, for Nietzsche, refers to the decay of values, which Nietzsche thought was inevitable because they are basically rationales for existence, and since there is no objective truth they can only be subjectively true-true only for certain people and certain times. When they are no longer true, they decay. Nietzsche claimed that decadence was the problem which "preoccupied [him] more profoundly" than any other because this inevitable decay of values was a threat to the culture, and by extension, the human species. (1) Values or rationales for existence are so important because in order to survive, let alone flourish, human beings require the creation of values. These values provide rationales for why we suffer and aid us in surviving and hopefully flourishing in spite of that suffering. (2) Without them, Nietzsche claimed that we would be in a condition of nihilism which would lead to mass suicide. Since Nietzsche placed value on a culture based on the type of great, flourishing individuals it produces, if its values are in decay, then it will be unable to produce these great individuals and it will be in decay. This then is the paradox of decadence: human beings have to create values, but any values that they will create will eventually decay."
And a section on 'the will to power' (the idea, not the book) should also be included, I think.  These should be brief of course, but after deleting these unnecesary quotations they should fit in nicely. Dume7 16:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Decadence

message: In the article, it says his name comes from a king or something? You mean, I'm guessing, his parents named him after that king? Could someone rephrase that a tad? Niki Whimbrel 17:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Nietzsche has the same birthday like the Prussian king Friedrich Wilhelm (=Frederic William). In the 19th century Prussia had a strong alliance between the king and the local church. Because Nietzsche's father was a priest, he wanted to show his allegiance to the king.--Kryston 20:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarifying that in the article. Niki Whimbrel 01:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know if this is important enough for a description of Nietzsche... --Kryston 06:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nietzsche's Name

message: Sorry if this all seems a bit anal of me, but in the sidebar, the Apollonian and Dionysian links in Notable ideas go to the same place, and I wonder if making them one link might be easier.Niki Whimbrel 18:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To address this issue, I have created an article stub at Apollonian and Dionysian. I plan on transferring some of the material that is currently at Birth of Tragedy to the new article. — goethean ॐ 20:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another nitpick

message: I deleted the huge and becoming-more-political references section. Why: this article needs real references.Non-vandal 07:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References