Talk:The Antichrist (book)

message: I have a feeling that who ever authored this page was trying to guide visitor in interpretation of this Book. What Nietzsche was thinking and when and where and what he meant? Is that the way Wikipedia article should be?
I have read the book translated in my language and I cant find any base of many claims here. 
Saying that Jesus was an idiot and then saying that Islam was noble and then that Jesus was crucified on cross while in Islam is well known that Jesus was never killed. Obviously Nietzsche never felt to provide any evidence of his claims turning all meanings upside down excluding any other positive possibility in Jesus example. It is evident that atricle is not cosistent as Nietzsche was not either but here is even worst.
If Jesus was right in what he said then no death could affected him. Since God is all powerful and creator of all living things he would not have an issue to restore him or anyone else or even to give pure spiritual form. This is just one example. Claiming that God is dead with no support in evidence but just claim as any fool could do. Then authors of this article say that Nietzsche was referring to Christianity but not Christ. But then God is dead and how come he would make any different statement about Jesus who believed/knew that his father was God who is eternal and everlasting? That is nonsense. He portrayed Jesus as someone who wasted his life for nothing. How that can be unless his disbelief is taken as support. 
Why authors here misinterpret the book trying to twist what was said in the book? And it should not be like that at all here on Wikipedia to take POV on any topic but on this which is because of nature of people controversial not because of unclear Book.
--75.82.177.42 (talk) 06:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral stand point & Rreinterpretation of Book

message: Yes, I agree the title Antichrist is misleading, but, to whoever wrote the artcle, do you think it could really be appropriate to translate it as "Antichristian"?  After all, what is the whole of Nietzsche's philosophy but consists of puns on words and attempts to mislead; example: the best music of the future which has nothing to do the the music of the future (zukunftsmusik)
:"The Antichristian" suggestion is taken from Kaufman, and I've seen it elsewhere - not sure what my own opinion is on what Nietzsche actually intended. --Tothebarricades 02:29, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
:"Kaufmann rightly points out that N is trying to be a blasphemous as possible. Therefore "Antichrist" is considered the best rendering. Ethan.Meanor (talk) 20:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Henceforth the article has been moved under the heading "Der Antichrist", please make your redirects thereto. This will make it easier for translations of the title to be discussed. This has also been done in relation to The Gay Science, for the sake of order and so on. If any would like to, please also do the same with every other publication by Nietzsche for they are the original titles. I may do it when I have the time.--Glyphonhart 00:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made a reconsideration: that which was stated above is entirely unnecessary. The English title will make due--for the English wikipedia. Therefore, everything has been restored upto the latest edits hitherto under the original article title of "The Antichrist_(book)".--Glyphonhart 19:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Movement 

message: Isn't there a way to show that the title Der Antichrist should really be The Antichristian? Anyone who actually reads the book will see that it is not against Christ, but against Paul.
Lestrade 02:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It has to be obvious to anyone who reads the actual book, not someone else's opinion of it, that Nietzsche did not oppose Christ. He opposed the class of priests in the institutionalized church who maintain power by promoting what Nietzsche considered to be a decadent oposition to life.205.188.117.67 17:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: This is discussed in the second sentence.  It is hard to say it "should" be The Antichristian, since Nietzsche almost certainly was aware of the fact that his title had a double meaning in German, but it is (as noted) perhaps more accurate to translate it as such.  However, the standard title in English, for better or worse, has long been The Antichrist. --Delirium 03:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is extremely misleading. The book is not against Christ. Also, it is not about some humanoid, devilish "Antichrist" character. I believe that the Wikipedia article should strongly emphasize that the proper translation of Nietzsche's title is The Antichristian.Lestrade 01:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In a nutshell, the book is against the organized Christian Church and against the Christian priesthood. The book is not against Christ.Lestrade (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading title 

message: On the issue of the title I would say that in the English language it is normally published as the Antichrist (with a prelude describing its connotations).
*What bothers me more is:
"In reality there has only been one Christian, and he died on the cross."
About organized Christianity - "I call it the one immortal blemish upon the human race."
"The weak and the botched shall perish: first principle of our charity. And one should help them to it."
"What is more harmful than any vice—Practical sympathy for the botched and the weak—Christianity...."
Are these the best quotations of criticisms of Christianity that people could draw from the book?
*"have read the introduction preface of many books on this author and although the book was published as ANTICHRIST by his evil sister, the original title has been revealed to be Re-evaluation of all Values. this gives a whole new twist on the piurpose and intentions of Nietzsche. Nietzsche was a close friend of Pascal, a devoted Christian, actively working his Christian values...this contradicts the title given by his sitster, and past records by his sister who knew Nietzsche to be quite devoted to God and Christ.
--203.59.121.110 15:09, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Back to the Content of the Page

message: The suppressed passage does not appear in the H. L. Mencken translation that is referenced in the "External Links" section, at the bottom of the Wikipedia article. It is also suppressed in Walter Kaufmann's printed translation. However, it can be seen in the Kaufmann translation provided by the "Nietzsche Channel" website. It can also be seen in R. J. Hollingdale's printed translation. Lestrade 13:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: On the Suppressed Passage

message: Nietzsche wrote this book to oppose people who were against life. He considered the institution of the Christian church to be against life. He also considered people who were weak and sick to be haters of life. Since there are so many of these, they readily became Christians and Christianity became a dominant religion. Nietzsche's concern with people who were against life began when he reacted to the fourth part of Schopenhauer's main work. In this part, Schopenhauer wrote eloquently in praise of people who opposed life, such as ascetics, hermits, saints, and so on. For the rest of Nietzsche's life, he fought against this negative attitude toward life. This book, The Antichrist, was one of his last attempts to express a positive point of view toward life and condemn those who denigrated the world and life in favor of a life after death. So what happens? People look at the title and think that it is some evil book that is in opposition to Jesus Christ. They read through the book and do not comprehend Nietzsche's words, because they have never read Schopenhauer. This is a total, absolute misunderstanding. It is almost the direct opposite to the true meaning of the book. Wikipedia's job is to provide the correct description of the book. This can be done by people who have read and understood the book. It is for the benefit of those who have not taken the time and effort to read Nietzsche's book or any of the books that contributed to Nietzsche's way of thinking. Lestrade 14:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I interpreted the book similarly, but unless you have verifiable sources, all this amounts to is original research.Skomorokh 15:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The most verifiable source is a close and repreated reading of the book itself, as well as of books by writers who are mentioned by Nietzsche.Lestrade 15:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So why not use quotes from the book to show that your interpretation is the correct one? What's the problem here?Skomorokh 15:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll give it a try and we'll see what happens.Lestrade 00:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Misunderstanding

message: Nietzsche harshly criticized sympathy and compassion. This was in accord with his opposition to Schopenhauer. But, In the end, Schopenhauer seemed to have won. Nietzsche, while walking on a street, witnessed a horse being whipped. He ran to the suffering horse, embraced it, and lapsed into insanity. Fifty years before Nietzsche's breakdown, Schopenhauer had published the following words: "… the essential and principal thing in the animal and man is the same … persons of delicate feelings, on realizing that in a bad mood, in anger, or under the influence of wine, they unnecessarily or excessively, or beyond propriety, ill–treated their dog, horse, or monkey – these people will feel the same remorse, the same dissatisfaction with themselves as is felt when they recall a wrong done to human beings, where it is called the voice of reproving conscience."(Basis of Morality, § 19)Lestrade 00:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sympathy

message: Could someone update the page to suggest that Nietzsche's use of the word idiot to describe Jesus was probably a reference to Dostoevsky's Idiot? "The only psychologist from whom I have anything to learn" were Nietzsche's words on Dostoevsky, I think. Just saying "he described Jesus as an idiot" is misleading, though it's true that Nietzsche hates the idea of book summaries, so feel free to keep it as it is out of spite for your readers if you'd really like to. 131.215.169.187 10:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any evidence that Nietzsche read Dostoevsky's The Idiot? It is known that he read other works by that author, but not The Idiot. The works by  Dostoevsky that Nietzsche owned were Humiliés et offensés (The Insulted and Humiliated), Junger Nachwuchs (The Raw Youth), L'esprit souterrain (Notes from Underground), La Maison des Morts (The House of the Dead), and Les Possédés (The Possessed). He did not own The Idiot, but, of course, he might have read it. Lestrade 12:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Idiot" 

message: :Image:The Anti-christ.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:The Anti-christ.jpg

message: I wonder why the article is decorated by an image of H.L. Mencken's translation. This translation is the least valuable because it is based on the translations of Anthony Ludovici and Thomas Common. These, in turn, were translations of highly edited German texts that had suppressed several important passages due to the controversial nature of Nietzsche's ideas. In contrast, the more recent translations by R.J. Hollingdale and Walter Kaufmann are based on totally complete texts.Lestrade 15:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: :Image:The Anti-christ.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:The Anti-christ.jpg

message: The article doesn't actually cite many of Nietzsche's arguments (which are often hidden, by the way). For example, I remember that in first sections he points to arguments against the concept of free will; and also around sect. 25, afair. When he talks about the genesis of values, he also suggests that what we call higher moral system was based on the lower, the "evil", and therefore it is absurd to condemn the former (this is stated more clearly in Twilight of the Idols, c.6, s.8). Next, he notes that the word "truth" was abused, i.e. in that rather rational epoch people generally believed in their reason, considered truth to be what is one and coherent and in contact with the external reality; this is actually very strong argument, because Christians (even if they themselves refuse reason in certain aspects) have to pretend that something is reasonable, to hide various errors, to imitate a coherent reasonable system, when transmitting their ideas (i.e. spreading faith). – When Nietzsche talks of creation (and God's mortal terror of science), he brings the problem of time and eternity to the light. Also, by portreting the history of knowledge as the total opposition of godliness, he points to the fact that in order to know something, it must be simplier than us, less teleological (mere cause-effect), emptier of reason, stupider, more "evil", in general bringing evil people to victory (and gaining power, even spiritual power, over other people). The sole nature of progress (which is demanded by the sole value "truth", worldly truth) is denying both God-the Creator and the Moral God, that is what is said in section 48. And also: that mankind should not seek help from God, because the Deluge (greatly destroying the civilization, the "edifice of knowledge") was his last attempt.
From my side, I could say that also the end of the evil world (the only one where truth, science, is possible) is not approaching, rather the opposite, basing on John 10:16. Also, what is interesting is that Nietzsche's concepts on the teaching of Jesus are much confirmed by the Gospel of Thomas (to which, of canonical Gospels, John's is most similar in the whole way of expression; note that John was the youngest of apostles and it's likely he remembered the sense best). Also, when Nietzsce says that the teaching of personal immortality in its literal sense was especially supported by Paul, we could say that the evidence of this lays in his letters where he confirms many Christians don't believe in eternal life.
77.114.118.110 (talk) 04:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Lacking arguments

message: I'm not quite sure how I feel about the introduction including the fact that the shooter sent this book to his girlfriend prior to the shooting.  Chapman had The Catcher In The Rye on him when he shot Lennon yet there's no mention of that in the introduction to that book.  It's not really relevant to the book on a grand scale, I'd call it distasteful but I feel like that in itself would be in bad taste, it just seems ill-placed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quixulous (talk • contribs) 01:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the Northern Illinois shooting 

message: at the recently improved article in the German wikipedia :de:Der Antichrist. Some of the pictures I have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons might be of use.--Chef aka Pangloss (talk) 13:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please have a look ... 

message: This book is highly subjective and has is based wholly on Nietzsche's point of view. Therefore, it is not out of place for me to make a personal comment. It seems to me that one of the most important sections is "Paul and the promise of eternal life."  Like Islam's afterworld, Christianity's doctrine of resurrection is a strong appeal to every person's will to live. It has a most powerful attraction and cannot be resisted by most people. In selling a religion, this is the best selling point that any salesman could ever offer. Many people will not read Nietzsche's book for fear of divine punishment. Many people who do read it will not understand it at all. It is a kind of detective story in which the brilliant sleuth (Nietzsche) uses intuitive guesswork and ratiocination to understand the mind of St. Paul and to expose his machinations. He wrote The Case of Wagner in the same spirit. However, the book cannot be read as though it provides factual truths. Even though Nietzsche may have intuitively hit upon the truth, there can never be any certain proof to the conclusions of this very unscientific artwork.Lestrade (talk) 19:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Che Guevara, you seemed to imply above that Nietzsche was not against Christ but against Paul, i.e., not against Christ, but against Christians.  Take a closer look at Section 39.  He wrote: "...at bottom there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross... In fact, there are no Christians. The “Christian”—he who for two thousand years has passed as a Christian—is simply a psychological self-delusion."  Q.E.D.  Teetotaler 6 January, 2009  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.81.197 (talk) 06:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good, but what does this have to do with the wikipedia page?Ursus Lapideus (talk) 05:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The Saint

message: Hello.  I am looking to collaborate with a Nietzsche scholar.  The focus is specifically geared towards unravelling N.'s last two works: Twilight of The Idols and The Anti-Christ.  I have to be extremely judicious (conservative) in my attribution of themes to Nietzsche, so I'd like to have someone more tapped into the peer-reviewed, manistream consensus of standard Nietzsche scholarship to mediate and provide guidance to the claims I am about to make.  Either contact me here-> 
-- Contributions/Skychildandsonofthesun SKYchild  07:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  CALL FOR: Nietzsche scholars 

message: I would like to bring to your attention someone is attempting to essentially argue and debunk Nietzsche in the Scientific Method section, and his so called support is not even anykind of source that is usable. Probably intentional tampering to enspouse his opinion, please edit this section, this isn't a debate forum, it's an online encyclopedia...--24.154.20.241 (talk) 03:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that too. For now I'm going to remove that section entirely, especially considering its lack of sources.Ursus Lapideus (talk) 02:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Scientific Method" section that was there had the sources of §13 and §14 to the book, which was appropriate for those bits of information, however there were no sources to an anecdote it was referencing. The anecdote was about Nietzsche breaking down in the street from seeing a horse being whipped and that he ultimately contradicted himself. The current version is good.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ursus Lapideus (talk • contribs) 18:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific Method: Someone's Screwing Around 

message: The book should be heavily and systematically criticised by many authors (making Nietzsche a "holy pagan" in the wordings of Zwingli). Where is that? It should be interspersed in the text here and there. (Personally I cannot wait biking to the library to borrow my copy). Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 08:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism?

message: * (cur | prev) 05:32, 14 January 2013‎ Medeis (talk | contribs)‎ . . (35 bytes) (-6)‎ . . (this is by far the central meaning, see http://stats.grok.se/en/201210/The%20Antichrist%20(book)) (undo)
* (cur | prev) 05:14, 14 January 2013‎ Neo-Jay (talk | contribs)‎ . . (41 bytes) (+6)‎ . . (redirected to Antichrist (disambiguation). if The Antichrist (book) is really the primary use, then The Antichrist (book) should be moved to The * Antichrist and a process described by Wikipedia:Requested moves is needed) (undo)
*(cur | prev) 01:35, 3 October 2012‎ Medeis (talk | contribs)‎ . . (35 bytes) (-6)‎ . . (the rock songs and album are hardly main topics for this title) (undo)
* (cur | prev) 00:22, 8 October 2009‎ 78.34.216.176 (talk)‎ . . (41 bytes) (-401)‎ . . (redirect to Antichrist (disambiguation), this is just needlessly confusing otherwise) (undo)
pasted to make sense of below In ictu oculi (talk) 04:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes to "The Antichrist" redirect to lead here

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Antichrist (book). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080227173029/http://www.mic.ul.ie/stephen/vol10/Jesus.pdf to http://www.mic.ul.ie/stephen/vol10/Jesus.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Can someone please double check the books put in the Translated Editions tab? I think it is missing a translation from Hollingdale, which was made available in the 'Penguin Classics' series. Here is the amazon link for it: https://www.amazon.ca/Twilight-Idols-Anti-Christ-Penguin-Classics-ebook/dp/B002RI945U
Below are the ISBN numbers for the book.
ISBN 10: 0140445145 
ISBN 13: 9780140445145  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.253.203.20 (talk) 03:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translated Editions?