Talk:Friedrich Nietzsche/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Suggested addition - 3rd draft v2

History of political reception

Many scholars have questioned Nietzsche's complex stance toward Judaism and anti-Semitism, and thus his relationship with Nazism. Among contemporary scholars searching for the roots of fascism, this question has become central to their readings of Nietzsche and other Enlightenment-era philosophers, especially those alive during nineteenth-century Germany.

YirmiYahu Yovel, for example, argues that Nietzsche's attacks on ancient priestly Judaism were as fierce and uncompromising as his assault on anti-Semitism. Yovel also wrote, that the anti-Semites accused Jews of having killed Christ, but Nietzsche accused Jews of having begotten Christ. According to Yovel, Nietzsche depicted ancient Judaism as grounded in ressentiment and as responsible for the corruption of Europe through Christianity. While Walter Kaufmann praised Nietzsche as opposed to all Nazi intents and acts, scholars such as Steven Aschheim have placed Nietzsche as "the most acute anti-Semite that ever was", because, he continues, as an example in The Antichrist, Nietzsche illustrated Judaism's role in Europe's spiritual history, namely, as one engendering Christianity itself, making the Jews "the most fateful people of world history." He then further suggests "Nietzsche became a crucial source" for a particular variety of anti-Semitism he refers to as "anti-Christian anti-Semitism" as was "designated by Uriel Tal" in contradistinction to a Christian anti-Semitism.

Inquiries such as these, however, have been known for decades, although in a perhaps different light. That Nietzsche has been marked in the political sphere as one among (or at least claimed as a precursor to these movements) the anarchists, communists, feminists, libertarianists, socialists, nihilists, fascists, anti-Semites, Nazis, etc. is a prevalent reading in the history of scholarship, in large part due to the manner in which Nietzsche was presented and appropriated by the Nazis, and similarly for other political movements, as one of their philosophical inspirators. While the legitimacy of Walter Kaufmann's work is frequently questioned, his intense scholarship during the 1950s onward attempted to dispel such views and present Nietzsche's writings in their appropriate historical framework, going so far to show them as strongly against these particular views. Contemporary scholarship in both North America and Europe and across languages nevertheless continues to plumb the nature of these indications with some in agreement and others in disagreement on Nietzsche's very complex positions on these issues, leaving the matter an unsettled question.

Discussion of 3rd draft

Any comments on this version? It probably needs some sort of conclusion, but I don't really feel like writing it right now - my suggestion would be for an editor other than my self or Petrejo to step up. -Smahoney 20:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It's looking much better now. I've done a few modifications to bring it into the realm of truthfulness (ie., grammar, better referencing, there is no "new variety of anti-Semtism"; you may also want to include your note about the "anti-Christian anti-Semitism"). I'll think about some sort of conclusion that will tie in this material without being partial for or against the O-so-prevalent reading of Nietzsche as proto-Nazi, fascist and anti-Semite that has been known for decades, due in part to the Nazis and other scholars' work. This material will best fit in the reception of Nietzsche section.Non-vandal 23:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've written a formal conclusion. It's quite generalized but it fits the picture and doesn't make itself reliant upon sources. I think it could certainly use more details and views from various sources, but a conclusion per se on this topic is far from adequate, because scholars themselves haven't reached a real conclusion. I lastly added a heading for the material. It can be changed to whatever might be better when it is placed in the article.Non-vandal 02:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, as I've titled this material, it would lead to the suggestion of a much more intense and in-depth analysis of these receptions of Nietzsche. Consequently, an entirely separate article might be needed. Just a thought.Non-vandal 03:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

In response to my last post and edit to the draft, I think this would best be placed in Social and political views of Friedrich Nietzsche; the main article is bloated already, and it lacks sources as it is, so I think when it comes to more detail as this, it should be placed into some subarticle. Any thoughts?Non-vandal 06:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I would recommend removing the quotes around 'fascists', 'anarchists', etc. -Smahoney 18:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I am very pleased with the results of these efforts. I say the third draft is ready to post. Thanks, everybody, especially Smahoney, for your many weeks of effort. Petrejo 10:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I can openly say I agree with you here. It looks really good. I've asked Smahoney's opinion on where we'll place this: either some section of the article or a relevant subarticle are the obvious choices, but the latter seems best because of the article's large size.Non-vandal 10:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I have a few questions. Are Yovel and Aschheim scholars of such a high repute that their opinions should dominate this discussion? What was the scholarly reaction to Aschheim's accusation? I would be more comfortable if the passage quoted a scholar that I have heard of before. Nehamas, Thiele, Clark, Schacht, Magnus, Rosen, Cavell, Solomon...I am familiar with the names of lots of scholars. But I've never heard of Yovel and Aschheim. — goethean ॐ 14:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

That is a very peculiar, and interesting, point, Goethean. I, too, would like to understand why exactly these two have been chosen among the throng of (bad) scholars. There are definitely more and better equiped scholars than these.Non-vandal 17:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Like Safranski, who is quoted at the bottom of this page. We know that he is a importance scholar with a good reputation. And that he does not "whitewash" Nietzsche. — goethean ॐ 17:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

In reply to Goethean, citing the new generation of scholars like Yovel and Aschheim doesn't constitute their domination of the discussion. They supply the other side of the portrait of a mild-mannered Nietzsche that Walter Kaufmann offers. Nietzsche was clearly passionate and sometimes ferocious. To cite Yovel and Aschheim isn't domination -- it's balance. I agree with you that the scholarly reaction to their writing is relevant. Petrejo 04:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I am always immensely distrustful of attempts at 'balanced' discussions between two viewpoints. "The other side" and all that. It creates a center around which the discussion of the subject revolves, and narrows debate towards that discussion. I don't think much of the attempts to place Nietzsche in the continuum of anti-semitism (either as proponent or critic) because a discussion of discrimination of this sort is entirely besides the point concerning Nietzsche's philosophy. In my reading at least that is the meaning of his various (and, tellingly, tangential) remarks concerning anti-semitism and anti-semitists. I'd rather we not nail Nietzsche here on Wikipedia as either a pro or con. In my view a line or two on the subject would suffice - that he has been attacked for anti-semitism (like he has for misogyny, and racism) and that he has been defended, with the ambiguous tones and his unsystematic approach not allowing a definite conclusion to the problem, which never explicitely enters his work. Perhaps go as far that the consensus is that his remarks are at best contentious and at worst troublesome.--Marinus 01:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That is interesting, and I agree with you on many points. Specifically, however, what would your opinion be about the above mentioned draft?Non-vandal 04:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Yovel and Aschheim have a terrible interpretation of Nietzsche's genealogical technique, on that sets out to smear him (just as Kaufmann sets out to whitewash him). I definitely don't think they should be given such a clear and important position in the article, as opposed to Klossowski or Derrida (whose views carry much more currency right now). The second paragraph Without the second paragraph, however, it's something that I wouldn't mind seeing in the article. It could do with a reference or two, but I'm sure that wouldn't be too hard. --Marinus 07:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

More to the point, Marinus, your distrust at attempts at 'balanced' discussions between two viewpoints, seeing the other side, directly confronts the Wikipedia ideal of the NPOV as constrasted with a one-sided POV. Things won't be resolved with a couple sentences saying that Nietzsche was attacked for anti-Semitism and also defended -- that hides the issue. There are historical nuances that deserve a hearing. Much discussion on this point has already transpired since May. Those who'd shun a 'balanced' hearing would seem to undermine the NPOV ideals of Wikipedia. Petrejo 04:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The reason I scarequoted 'balanced' is because I believe it isn't: like I said, by placing Nietzsche on the continuum you are making anti-Semitism a quality of Nietzsche philosophy (either himself as an anti-Semite, as is popularly supposed, or that he actually vehemently opposed anti-Semitism, as many claim with good reason). I think that this is POV: the question of anti-Semitism doesn't enter Nietzsche's philosophy. The influence of the Jews does, though we must be very careful about how we interpret Nietzsche when he talks about races because his account is full of subtleties and ambiguities: for one, he only characterises a people by their best qualities. Nietzsche viewed anti-Semitism as unimportant, and that is the view this article should have: anti-Semitism isn't important to Nietzsche's philosophy. As for him being called one, or being used by anti-Semites: that is another matter. That is why I recommended a seperate article for that question in the mediation case. --Marinus 07:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hume + InfoBox

Within the influences section of this page i was rather surprised to find Hume. I am completely unaware of any major influence Hume had on Nietzsche, i would much appreciate it if somebody could state how he influenced Nietzsche, to give a reason for his name being among Nietzsche's influences. I have also made the additions of Dostoevsky, Plato, David Strauss, and Darwin to that section. If anybody disagrees with these additions please say so. Thank you.--Itafroma 11:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)itafroma

Hume had some genuine influences on Nietzsche in how he approached humans' attitudes to the world around them in a psychological manner and in other ways. It isn't really surprising. I removed Dostoyevsky, Strauss, and Darwin: they either weren't philosophers or didn't have a genuine influence upon Nietzsche (and remember: influence does not equal criticism).Non-vandal 14:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree about all three of the removed influences. I believe that it was David Strauss's 'Life of Jesus' that upon reading at a young age, Nietzsche made the decision to abandoned his faith and theological studies. Nietzsche has famously said about Dostoevsky that he was "the only psychologist from whom i had something to learn." He was very impressed by 'notes from underground' especially, and i would find it hard not to call Dostoevsky a philosophical writer atleast, and if a composer can be an influence i believe a writer can also. Comments about Darwin and Darwinists in Nietzsche's writings may be harsh but this is partly due, in my opinion, to Nietzsches staunch anglophobia, he certainly didn't agree with Darwin's theories absolutely, but his work on struggle and evolution influenced his own work on power (see 'Nietzsche's new Darwinism' by John Richardson). I don't quite understand the influence does not equal criticism comment, as if you mean criticism from Nietzsche, he has harshely criticised nearly all of the individuals on the influences list, most notably , Schopenhauer, Socrates, Spinoza, Wagner and Plato. In fact despite Nietzsche's admiration for Plato and Socrates their epistemology is almost the antithesis of his own.--Itafroma 13:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

We need to rely on citations from secondary works here. — goethean ॐ 15:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The history links David Strauss with Nietzsche's Wagner period. Wagner used Nietzsche's devotion and his writing talent as a valuable press agency for his operas. David Strauss had soundly criticized Wagner's expressions, and Wagner urgently wanted revenge on David Strauss. This was a viable reason for inciting the young and impressionable Nietzsche against David Strauss. In your theory, Itafroma, you've made Nietzsche into a pro-Strauss reader, but Nietzsche came out as early as 1873 with attacks against David Strauss. History would seem to explain this by Nietzsche's willingness to defend his idolized Richard Wagner in this period of his life. Going by his own statements, he chose to abandon his theological studies at a very young age due his his smothering mother's pious posturing. Wagner, evidently, gave Nietzsche the courage to make the break.

One more thing, Itaforma; what do you mean by, 'influence'? If you mean Philosophical influence, we have scant evidence that Nietzsche did anything but dabble in 19th century, formal Philosophy. He wrote no formal tomes on Philosophy. He was well-read in the Greek Classic Philosophers, but that was common in Philology (in which he held his degree). Now, if you mean Literary influence, that's another matter. Nietzsche was a genius who stayed well on top of the buzz in Germany, and he would have engaged as a layman in many debates between devotees of Hegel, Schopenhauer, Feuerbach, Kant, and so on, exactly as Wagner did in his many aristocratic parties that the young Nietzsche attended for 10 long years. Petrejo 04:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

A point about the Kantianism of Nietzsche if I may. I believe that recent scholarship has gone a long way in showing that Nietzsche was far more immersed in the Neo-Kantianism of his time than is generally thought. Some of these books are:

Green, Michael Steven, Nietzsche and the Transcendental Tradition, University of Illinois Press, 2002.

Hill, R. Kevin, Nietzsche's Critique: The Kantian Foundations of His Thought, New York: Oxford University Press, 1983.

Small, Robin, Nietzsche in Context, Ashgate Publishing Company, 2001.

Perhaps some representative quotes might be in order:

"His [Nietzsche's] exposure to philosophy primarily came from two sources. He knew a great deal about ancient philosophy, especially Plato and the pre-Socratics by virtue of his philological training. And he had read a number of philosophers in the nineteenth-century Neo-Kantian tradition, such as Schopenhauer, Friedrich Albert Lange, Gustav Teichmuller and Afrikan Spir. It is to these writer we should primarily look to understand what Nietzsche was talking about, not Derrida or Foucault and not Tarski or Quine." (Green, Introduction, p. 3.)

"If we are to read Nietzsche, not as the legislator of a new post-theistic religion or as the bellelettrist of acute psychological and cultural observation, that is, if we are to read him as a philosopher, we will be led inexorably to the context of Neo-Kantianism, and to the highly peculiar things Nietzsche did with Kant." (Hill, Conclusion, p. 232.)

Now, perhaps this interpretation is too recent to be incorporated into a Wiki, but I think this is something that editors of future revisions might want to take note of. Pomonomo2003 03:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a little comment: It is or should be a well-known fact that Nietzsche read David Strauss' Leben Jesu in spring 1865 and that this (perhaps among other readings and of course his own thoughts) contributed to his decision to quit with theology, as well as it did lead to severe conflicts with his mother. So one could argue that Nietzsche was influenced by Strauss as early as 1865. And, although it is true that he wrote his 1872/3 attack on Strauss' Der alte und der neue Glaube partly because of Wagner's sentiments against Strauss, Nietzsche would comment much later, in the Götzen-Dämmerung (ch. Was den Deutschen abgeht, 2), that he felt Der alte und der neue Glaube was a sign of Entartung unsres ersten deutschen Freigeistes, des klugen David Strauss, that his, he still may have held his earlier (critical) works like Das Leben Jesu in higher esteem. - That being said, I do in fact agree that Strauss should not be listed in the infobox, but would deserve a few words in the article.--Chef aka Pangloss 19:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It's nice to see you endlessly use POVs as "facts". Haven't you realized yet that your views are not valuable unless direct sourcing is given?Non-vandal 05:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Neither of those points on Dostoyevsky and Strauss are conclusive - they are your interpretations. (Especially as concerns calling Dostoyevsky a "philosopher".) To elaborate my "influence doesn't equal criticism" comment: just because Darwin was criticized by Nietzsche doesn't mean the implication he was influenced by Darwin is a valid one; ie., influence doesn't necessarily bear upon subsequent criticism (this almost goes without saying; but some scholars sometimes tend to think otherwise... ). Again, I'm going to remove Dostoyevsky and Strauss (and again Hume) until reliable and verifiable sources are set up that point to the genuine and significant influence of these individuals upon Nietzsche's thought. (I think some cleaning up of these parts may be in further order.) Also on the interpretations that Darwin somehow influenced Nietzsche, scholars are by no means agreed (eg., see Gregory Moore's Nietzsche, Biology and Metaphor, etc.); moreover, it could be said this interpretation is inaccurate.Non-vandal 02:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

"Neither of those points on Dostoyevsky and Strauss are conclusive - they are your interpretations. (Especially as concerns calling Dostoyevsky a "philosopher".)"

This I simply do not understand. Do you have to write a book of ideas without a storyline to be considered a philosopher? Nietzsche was a philosopher in the same rite as Dostoevsky was if we are to talk about concepts, and even then, D. wrote extensively on his own interpretations and analyses of human conduct and character. D. is a literary philospher as N. was in Zarathustra, and perhaps more so. I feel they, D., Strauss, and others, are far better suited to be in N.'s influences than Hume because Nietzsche simply derived so much more from them. Consider Emerson; he is both philosopher and essayist. Because much of his philosphy was amplified in letter and essay form doens't discount him from being a philosopher, and his influence on Nietzsche is only too great. "they are your interpretations", what other criterion do we have? If we cannot interpret someone's writings as philosophy, considering anyone a philospher is undeterminable. But that's my humble opinion. -Bordello 03:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

And if we're talking about verifiable sources, there are many books discussing Nietzsche's connection to D., as well as this prominent quote from Twilight of the Idols, written by Nietzsche himself (as made above): "The testimony of Dostoevski is relevant to this problem — Dostoevski, the only psychologist, incidentally, from whom I had something to learn; he ranks among the most beautiful strokes of fortune in my life, even more than my discovery of Stendhal." -Bordello 03:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Not according to WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Look, I know how important Dostoyevsky was for Nietzsche. But don't you see how poor this article is? Things have to change if it's going to get any better, and to do that a certain standard has to be consciously enforced. The infobox doesn't require "philosophers" anyway (I was mistaken there), so that isn't a problem anymore (and I still disagree with calling him one - no scholars and such look at him in that light, but this doesn't mean he wasn't a brilliant individual in his own right).Non-vandal 03:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

"But don't you see how poor this article is?" You're absolutely right. We need reform! And I was reading the resolution to this discussion below (which I should have done in the first place), which, albiet, doesn't resolve a whole lot, but does answer exactly the questions I asked. Perhaps once we discover more on the link between Dostoevsky and Nietzsche we can put them in the info box, but not before then. It need be mentioned in the article as I understand, no? "a certain standard has to be consciously enforced" earnestly asking, what do you mean by this? NPOV? Or simply better research and clear, concise presentation? I suppose it needs both. Thanks for your response. -Bordello 03:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW, what secondary sources should we turn to? I have a few books on N lying around, but really only by Kaufmann. If I find something in there, will it do? -Bordello 04:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems fine, but we should also be careful not to use too much by Kaufmann, though (it may lead to systematic bias). So, yeah, you can add something in the article on Dostoyevsky's influence as stated by some scholar (make sure to use the <ref></ref> tags) then add Dostoyevsky to the infobox. Sound good?Non-vandal 04:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Z'aright? Z'aright. But, I don't understand the ref-tag thing. But that only means I'll have to look it up. Thanks. -Bordello 04:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

How about from Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist:

"But apart from Goethe and Schopenhauer-- and perhaps Burckhardt-- none of the men chosen by Andler seem as important to Nietzsche's thought as Heraclitus, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics, Spinoza, Kant, Hegel, Heine, Darwin, and Dostoevsky." (p. 306n)

"Even without the still more offensive explicitness of the censored passage-- which reads, "the word idiot"-- it seems plain that Nietzsche conceived of Jesus in the image of Dostoevsky's Idiot. This conception of the Redeemer is the clue both to Nietzsche's reverence for Jesus and to his critique: his whole attitude toward Jesus hinges upon the 'something' he 'learned' from Dostoevsky." (p. 340)

"While Nietzsche never mentions "The Idiot", he freely owns how deeply he was impressed by Dostoevsky after discovering him early in 1887-- and it was in the following year that the word "idiot" assumed a sudden significance in Nietzsche's writings." (p. 340n)

I can give you more context if you like, but I feel these are mostly self-evident. Hope it helps at all. -Bordello 04:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I figured out <ref></ref>. That was a lot of fucking work to tag on one more name there. I suppose rigor is good, and so I hope this validates things once and for all (at least for a couple days.) Reform, reform! What else needs citation? -Bordello 04:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Well done Bordello, i had given up on Dostoevsky. A much required inclusion.--Itafroma 12:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you pointed out Dostoevsky was missing in the first place! Do you see anything else missing? Can you add to the to-do list above? -Bordello 00:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Infobox again

Non-Vandal, on what do you base your contention that the influences section is only for philosophers? — goethean ॐ 14:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Simple: we're talking about a philosopher. Sure, Nietzsche had widely divergent sources and effects, but we must limit ourselves to {{INFOBOX_PHILOSOPHER}} to what is most pertinent. If we don't, it will also become a huge mess. If there are other notable influences and those influenced N, then we can state them in the article. The rest are clearly laid out in the INFOBOX itself.Non-vandal 14:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. What if Nietzsche's most important influences happen to have been literary or aristic, but he was a philosopher? I see no reason to exclude them from the infobox. — goethean ॐ 15:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

So do I. Why don't you take a closer look at my edits? If you do, you'll happen to see that I'm more than willing to compromise on this distinction (nevertheless keeping it because that is what the INFOBOX was mainly designed for). Two good examples of this are: Goethe and Wagner.Non-vandal 15:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

nevertheless keeping it because that is what the INFOBOX was mainly designed for

Where are you getting this from? My understanding is that it was designed to list the subject's influences, regardless of whether those influences were philosophers or someone else. — goethean ॐ 15:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It would seem I made an incorrect assumption. No problems then. Since anyone can be added to the list of influences and influenced, provided the article notes them appropriately (this also means someone can come around and remove those that aren't), the only limit is moderation. So, don't you think having too many listed is a problem, like I do? It's rather absurd (and nauseating) to list the dozens and dozens of those influenced, for example.Non-vandal 18:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I basically like the way both the "influences" and "influenced" sections look now, although (on my reading of N) Aristotle and Hume are too minor of influences to mention. I'm not particularly opposed to mentioning dostoevsky, although I wouldn't add him myself, because I feel that it's a rather minor influence. — goethean ॐ 19:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Some readings do in fact suggest those two "too minor of influences" are key in some ways, so I think it would be best just to leave them in - for now.Non-vandal 19:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Goethean here. The word before the colon is "influences", not "philosophers who influenced Nietzsche." And I have to ask: since you state that Darwin and Dostoevsky are not philosophers, what criterion are you using to make that statement? Being explicit about this can help us in several list and category discussions. Cheers, Universitytruth 18:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

My "criterion" is I've never heard anyone refer to these two as "philosophers". Have you? (I doubt it in all seriousness.) Sure, they're important historically, but they aren't philosophers at all; it is redundant even to contest (or to address for that matter) it, unless you can cite a source. Besides, in our discussions at Talk:List of German-language philosophers, I've been more than clear about my thinking.Non-vandal 18:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No need for anyone to be snippy. I'm not arguing for the inclusion of D&D, simply asking you what criterion you are using for inclusion in the category 'philosopher'. So far, it seems to be 'having heard of anyone refer to X as a philosopher.' But we can discuss this further on the other Talk page. Or you can announce that you've been more than clear about your thinking, and stop discussing further. But I hope not.Universitytruth 14:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Darwin should not be included, but because he's not a major influence on N's thought rather than because he's not a philosopher. — goethean ॐ 19:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

As you can see, we both agree, thoroughly.Non-vandal 19:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I personally see Emerson, Hume and Voltaire as very minor, although i know little about Emerson admittedly, and i think Voltairre was mentioned in an outdated preface to human all too human, and thats all i'm aware of, but please correct me if i'm wrong. If they are included then Darwin can be included. I can live without Darwin being included, but Dostoevsky and Strauss really are key in my opinion. See above for my reaons stated briefly.--Itafroma 13:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Itafroma

The only thing that I can say in favor of keeping Hume and Voltaire is that Kaufmann emphasizes that N did think of his project as one in keeping with the values of the Enlightenment. But I've never Hume & Voltaire mentioned as important influences on N. Against the inclusion of Darwin, see here. — goethean ॐ 16:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is another very interesting link: "In every one of his protracted and volatile struggles with historical figures or symbols, with Wagner, Socrates, Goethe, Christ, Schopenhauer, and, I would suggest, Schiller, love and hate can scarcely be disentangled." — goethean ॐ 16:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

What is meant by including psychoanalysis under School/Tradition? Freud specifically said that he didn't consult the writings of Nietzsche in his discoveries. (The error is suggested again in Influences/Reception, citing Jones' biography of Freud but without a page number. Please share the page number, especially in light of Freud's firm denial.) Petrejo 22:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

A solid a month and still no reply to this straightforward question! Petrejo 04:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

He didn't say that he did not consult Nietzsche - he says explicitely that he limited his consultation of Nietzsche. I answered this same question somewhere else on this page: P A Assoun's Freud and Nietzsche gives a comprehensive discussion of the relation between the two. It (sensibly, in my view) states that trying to make psychoanalysis Nietzschean is inaccurate, as is framing him only as a precursor to Freud (the way Freud describes him, btw). But the influence exists. Quite an interesting book, widely praised as well. How it affects the infobox I won't venture to say. --Marinus 07:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the question Petrejo raised here is rather redundant, but I only noticed it until now (granted the talk page has been extremely bloated with on-going discussions). Saying he was a "precursor" is not an inaccurate claim, esp. where attention is given to his thoughts on human psychology. Much N scholarship validates this statement, like Marinus also points out. So I think the claim in the infobox is fitting and telling information.Non-vandal 07:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

infobox yet again

I just noticed the following note at Template:Infobox_Philosopher:

Entries in Influences, Influenced and notable idea should be explained in the main text of one of the articles. Those that are not mentioned in the main text may be deleted.

Based on this guideline, aristotle, dostoevsky and voltaire can be deleted immediately. hegel and socrates are mentioned, but not as influences. they are only compared to N in the main article. — goethean ॐ 17:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

If you look carefully, I said the very same about the guidelines: "provided the article notes [those influences and those influenced] appropriately (this also means someone can come around and remove those that aren't)"; and "I think some cleaning up of these parts may be in further order." Well, I'll go ahead and delete those that aren't mentioned in the article (the ones you listed), which is what I was "fighting over" as you put it.Non-vandal 18:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, live and learn. I think that we should amend the article to cover Nietzsche's rivalries with both Socrates and Jesus. — goethean ॐ 18:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is in such sorry straits as it is: only a few references are given in it... I find that to be the foremost and most serious problem with it. I have nothing against adding material on Jesus and Socrates (as long as it's sourced, etc., etc.) - they are important - but my priorities are slightly different. Anyway, where would you put such information as the article currently stands?Non-vandal 18:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The stuff on Jesus can go in the Christianity section. Socrates might need a new section on Nietzsche's views of philosophy or something. But really, both Jesus and Socrates have to do with Nietzsche's ideals, perhaps closest to the Ubermensch. — goethean ॐ 19:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

If there is justifiable sourcing, we can include them in the Uebermensch section where Goethe is passingly noted. Either that or we put only Socrates there and put Jesus in the Christianity section... I would really like to keep things as compact as possible.Non-vandal 19:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

influences and reception

The claim that Sigmund Freud gave Nietzsche the highest possible praise isn't verified, and it smacks of POV hyperbole. The writer cited Ernest Jones' scholarly biography, but not the actual page number. I've read Jones, and I don't recall that high praise, only Freud's denial that he owed anything to Nietzsche. Please supply the page number, or remove the claim. Also -- another famous person who claimed Nietzsche as an influence was L. Ron Hubbard, founder of the Church of Scientology. It's right in the frontspiece of his 1952 book, Scientology 8-8008. I added that fact a day ago, and now it's been erased. Why? Petrejo 05:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Dunno. But Don King also claimed Nietzsche as a huge influence in an interview. Some line-drawing needs to be done. --Knucmo2 10:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The editor probably assumed that it was added by a troll with an anti-Nietzsche agenda. — goethean ॐ 23:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

On Freud, Jones and Nietzsche — goethean ॐ 15:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It's nice to see a book cited, but for those of us that don't have a Google account could you quote the relevant segment, Goethean? Thanks in advance.Non-vandal 19:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. It says that the Jones quotation is on p 343 of The Life and Work of Sigmund Freud, and backs up Pretrejo's point that Freud claimed to have never read N. [1] — goethean ॐ 19:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Goethean. I request that the claim that Nietzsche influenced Freud be removed from this section, as an evident inaccuracy. Petrejo 11:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If you actually read the passage that I linked to, however, it's clear that it is a complex relationship. And here's a little-known fact: Nietzsche had a book with Sigmund Freud's name on it in his library. According to Kaufmann, Freud translated a book by John Stuart Mill which Nietzsche owned. — goethean ॐ 15:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

A complex relationship? But the question is about a simple relationship, namely, that Freud's scientific discovery was influenced by his alleged reading of Nietzsche. Now, Freud clearly denied that. What's the complexity? Petrejo 04:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I recommend Paul-Laurent Assoun's Freud and Nietzsche on the subject. Assoun catalogues every reference to Nietzsche by Freud and his close associates and contextualises it in Freud's changing thought. Freud's position on N changes over time - at the very first an enthusiastic interest is suggested by Freud's leading role in a circle of Viennese students who went gaga about N, then it becomes clear Freud didn't take much part in said enthusiasm even if it gave him some contact with N. At two seperate occasions N is brought up as a subject during the Wednesday Lectures (where psychoanalysis was initially hammered out by F and his close associates) and F dismissed the topic both times. His exact claim is not that he hadn't read N, but that he hadn't studied him, that his "studies into Nietzsche have never progressed more than half a page" (Assoun reminds us that N is aphoristic philosopher and half-a-page is enough for a real impact). Later in the Lectures F would himself bring up N, saying that "never before has anybody had such insight into their own mind, and doubtlessly never will anybody again" (the praise in the highest terms). All this is from my memory, but I've got the book back home and am busy reading it and putting my notes in order. It is a certain and verifiable fact that Freud reservedly but tellingly gave Nietzsche immense praise for his psychological insight. --Marinus 23:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The article's 'Influence and Reception' section still contains a one-sided quotation from Nietzsche that slams Anti-semites, which, in the interest of NPOV, should be balanced by one of the many quotations from Nietzsche that slams Jews. Show both sides. Petrejo 04:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how that constitutes "both sides". They each constitute one side of indirectly related matters. Don't try to lump his statements about Jews with Anti-semitism - that is the duty of scholars, and doing otherwise is POV - which, as we all know, is a contested view. Anyway, to say it better than you did, as the article stands (again, as we all know), it fails WP:NPOV on many points. Some issues, like the one you mention, aren't sufficiently raised in it. So, yes, it is a problem. The 3rd draft 2nd ver, which some of us have worked on, that you added was removed, because we still need to discuss the articles' structures. For what has been proposed, this means the draft needs to be much more comprehensive than it is.Non-vandal 05:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The article as it stands remains slanted with the subtle message that since Nietzsche passionately disliked Anti-semites, that he must have always printed kind things about Jews. That's historically inaccurate. I've posted several direct quotes from Nietzsche in which he says hateful things about Jews, and they've all been erased, usually within minutes. But the quotes are real. They exist. They are palpable. Why are they hidden? Doesn't that suggest an attitude of shame over what Nietzsche actually wrote? If so, isn't that a POV? As for the 3rd draft, 2nd version that many here worked on, it was the product of efforts going back to May. It's now August. Can we finally post it somewhere in this new structure? Otherwise, some may rightly question whether the suppression of this 3rd draft is due to technical reasons or to its controversial content that has been consistently suppressed for many months. Petrejo 04:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Uh-huh. So you deny that Nietzsche ever wrote about his intense antinomy towards Anti-semitism and anti-semites, and that, because of what he wrote about Jews, as if that were itself "anti-semitic", he necessarily is for anti-semitism and is himself anti-semitic? Again, no original research. I said it before; the reason why, if you need one: it is a contested interpretation, and it may be found as no longer credible. So far you're ignoring some material that Nietzsche wrote in order to place precedence over some other written material, which isn't particularly comprehensive. Anyway, do not misjudge my removal of the 3rd draft as "suppression". There is as yet no consensus as to where it should go nor if it stands as a suitable piece of material for inclusion to wherever. Please get your facts straight and calm down. We're all trying to improve this article, but here you're imposing your perspective and it must stop so we can move along properly.Non-vandal 04:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting qoute which I've posted in the NPOV discussion too,

It is a matter of honor to me to be absolutely clean and unequivocal regarding anti-Semitism, namely opposed, as I am in my writings. Source: Friedrich Nietzsche's Collected Letters, Vol. V, #479 --NoNo 02:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The opening paragraph

The opening paragraph already seems to me to broadcast a POV in many ways; among them: (1) the identification of Nietzsche abstractly as a moralist suggests a bourgeois morality while the writer is aware that Antichristianity is the core substance of Nietzsche's moral ideology. It seems like an early whitewash to hide Nietzsche's Antichristian position in the introduction; (2) the phrase, 'astonishingly productive' would suggest that Nietzsche was a prolific writer of great tomes, when in fact the quantity of his lifetime output was less than that of other contemporary philosophers; e.g. Kant, Fichte, Hegel, Schelling, Schopenhauer, Marx, and so on. By 'astonishing' the writer possibly means that Nietzsche's poesy was superb, but that's a subjective impression which, used so early in the article, tends to guide the reader toward a POV; and (3) the writer jumps from 1889 to the second half of the 20th century to portray Nietzsche's significance. This omits the importance of the first half of the 20th century, particularly in Germany, which is vital to an ongoing debate about Nietzsche. To deny that period would seem to take a side in that debate at the start.

I suggest that an NPOV opening paragraph would (a) be unashamed of Nietzsche's Antichristian morality; (b) remove any hint of flattery; and (c) admit Nietzsche's German fame in the first half of the 20th century. I made all three changes last night, and they were erased (nobody has yet said why). I've attempted this morning to add the changes slowly, one at a time, starting with (c). All three changes would help to balance the opening paragraph, in my view. Petrejo 15:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't take this the wrong way Paul, but why the references to "bourgeois" morality? Are you trying to make Wikipedia conform with Marxist morality? Philosophically, it's a meaningless term, and it is more ideological, which this page should not be in the business of dabbling in. Given the plethora of moral approaches in philosophy (meta-ethics, deontological etc.) that you will be doubtless aware of, I suggest you be a little more specific and precise, otherwise this may cause confusion and lead people to misconstrue your position, as perhaps I might have. As for his productivity, well, yes, he didn't produce as much as say Marx, but the point I think is that he did not live as long as them, and probably would have outproduced Marx had he lived as long as Marx. But I agree, "astonishing" is somewhat hyperbolic; productive will suffice. --Knucmo2 17:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

As for 'astonishingly productive', it isn't just by comparison with Marx that Nietzsche's output quantity was low. Nietzsche wrote from 1873 to 1889 -- about 16 years, while Hegel, for example, wrote from 1807 to 1831, or 24 years. The UT Library has Hegel's Collected Works in 25 volumes, and Nietzsche's Collected works in 5 volumes. The difference in their years of productive output wasn't 5 to 1. I'm not saying quantity is more important than quality, I'm only saying that the phrase, 'astonishingly productive', is inaccurate unless one is making a POV statement about quality. The writer should remove the adjective. Petrejo 07:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It's good we agree that 'astonishing' is hyperbole in that context, Knucmo2. Also, I don't mind being more specific, so thanks for the invitation. As for Marxist morality, I've got little to do with that. I'm no Marxist. (If I were, I'd have emphasized Lukacs in my balancing quotations about Nietzsche, yet as you can see I avoided him almost completely.) No, my complaint is that Nietzsche himself might have objected to being portrayed as a bourgeois (that is, a middle-class) moralist. Nietzsche deplored the middle-class (the bourgeoisie) -- not for their superiority, but for their mediocrity. So, to say Nietzsche was a 'moralist' without further qualification might mislead beginners to imagine a common, middle-class moralist. Actually, Nietzsche was an outspoken Antichrist, and he was very proud of it.

Beginning with his 1878 break with Wagner, in his Human, All Too Human, Nietzsche came out swinging against Christianity. Then, with Daybreak in 1881, he maintained a sustained assault on Christianity. In the next year, his book, The Gay Science, continued the sharp criticisms of Christianity, and pronounced that "God is Dead." Zarathustra (1883-1885) might be viewed as Nietzsche's attempt to create a new mythology to replace Christianity, inasmuch as he claimed it was a 'new Gospel.' By 1886, in his Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche spoke of Christianity as a disease. In his, The Genealogy of Morals, 1887, he condemned Christianity as a slave-morality, and the Christian conscience as a cruel perversion, and so on. Even in his late denouncement of Wagner (1888) it was Wagner's overtures back toward Christianity that sickened Nietzsche. And in his Twilight of the Idols in 1889, his many ad hominem attacks on Socrates, Kant and others, showed his disappointment with the roles they played in the history of Christian values. Nietzsche published about one book a year between 1878-1889, and each one contained an assault on Christianity. It was not until 6 years later, however, that he published his crowning attack, The Antichrist, in which he clarified all his reasons for his passionate hatred of Christianity, from its earliest origins to his own mother's milk.

There's my evidence, Knucmo2. Perhaps the most common theme throughout Nietzsche's writings was his expression of irrational passion against Christianity. He was an Antichrist and he was proud of it. To try to whitewash this, to simply portray him as a 'moralist' without further qualification, seems too tame. He wanted to be known as the Antichrist, so why should an encyclopedist try to soften that, or try make hide the glaring fact? Petrejo 23:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

In my view, an encyclopedia article would be quite a piece of junk if its goal was to present a person the way he or she wanted to be presented (no need for examples here, I guess). - What we know is that N sometimes mockingly called himself "der Antichrist" (the German word having a larger scope of meaning than the English one), and that attacks on Christianity were, more or less from the beginning, an important part of his philosophy, and became one of his main interests in his later years. I do not see how to conclude from this that "he wanted to be known as the Antichrist".--Chef aka Pangloss 20:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, Chef aka Pangloss, I can't conclude from what you said that Nietzsche wanted to be known as the Antichrist, but other facts do appear. All of Nietzsche's books after 1877 (that's most of his writings) were slanted against Christianity, and their intensity increased as time went forward, up to the climax, his book, The Antichrist.

Now, The Antichrist wasn't a story about some third person -- Nietzsche wrote this book in the first person, evidently without shame, expressing his heartfelt opinion about the Evil that he perceived in Christianity. His statements in this book and in other books called for the destruction of Christianity.

So, Chef aka Pangloss, are you suggesting that Nietzsche was only joking? You say he "mockingly" called himself the Antichrist, so do you suggest it was a joke?

I don't necessarily mean that Nietzsche wanted to be known, as Knucmo2 put it, "the very anti-christ himself." Such an approach would suggest Nietzsche was stuck inside the Christian paradigm and couldn't get out. However, it's a fact that Nietzsche specifically selected that term, The Antichrist, knowing full well the nearly 2,000 year Christian history of the term. He knew what he was doing. He took aim at the heart of Christianity -- and he meant to do that. That was his purpose. That's what I mean when I say that he 'wanted' to be known as the Antichrist.

I can agree that Nietzsche's literary posture wasn't the same as, say, Aleister Crowley, who wanted to be known as "The Beast 666", in order to sensationalize his image. Yet one cannot simply sweep away years of Nietzsche's Antichristian writings as if they were merely jokes. Petrejo 00:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

"All of Nietzsche's books after 1877 (that's most of his writings) were slanted against Christianity, and their intensity increased as time went forward, up to the climax, his book, The Antichrist." - In fact, you will find passages against Christianity already in his schoolwritings, and also, though quite short and subtle, in Geburt and the Unzeitgemässen. So given that Menschliches does not deal very much with Christianity openly, it seems to be an arbirtrary decision to start with 1877 here. And then, the intensity of anti-christian passages generally increased, climaxing perhaps in Genalogie der Moral and Antichrist, but note that in between these two books, Der Fall Wagner and Götzen-Dämmerung did not focus on this issue at all. Also, at least until the process of writing AC, Nietzsche would have planned to continue with three more works, eventually titled Der Misosoph and Der Immoralist (fourth Dionysos), embedding it into his "Umwerthung aller Werthe", so the title "Antichrist" was not to be the summary of all his thoughts. About the mocking: to my knowledge, Nietzsche's first mentioning of this title (referring to himself) is in the letter 4.4.1883 to Meysenbug, where he proposes it as a joke. Of course, his works are not a joke, but I think it is safe to say that he was aware of the title's ambiguity. For a deeper discussion about AC (where the foreword is signed "Friedrich Nietzsche" and the (maybe) concluding "law against christianity" is signed "Der Antichrist") and its title as well as the problem who is the speaker in this book, see Jörg Salaquarda in Nietzsche-Studien 2 and Andreas Urs Sommer's big commentary on AC (Basel 2000, ISBN 3-7965-1098-1). - I agree that "he took aim at the heart of Christianity -- and he meant to do that. That was his purpose." as far as his later writings are concerned, but it was not his single purpose, not even in AC itself. I could also agree that in scholarly debate, Nietzsche's deep opposition towards Christianity is sometimes underestimated (although I am not that firm in the Anglo-American debate; at least in continental European debate, it has been an issue of increasing interest since c. the 1980s). In fact I think if you have an introduction paragraph, N's anti-Christian thoughts should be mentioned there, but I do not agree with all of your arguments and the way you put them (especially saying that Nietzsche saw "Evil" in Christianity misses N's whole point in opposing "good and evil" vs. "good and bad" and would leave him "stuck inside the Christian paradigm").--Chef aka Pangloss 10:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's another criticism of the opening paragraph -- about the phrase that describes the critiques that Nietzsche produced: "...centered around a basic question regarding the positive and negative attitudes of various systems of morality toward life." It could be clearer. What basic question? Which attitudes? Which systems? The phrase doesn't require a lot of words to be more specific. Also, regarding the 'systems of morality toward life,' are there any other kind? I think the phrase is too general; perhaps by attempting to be abstract, the phrase ends by sounding vague. Petrejo 20:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh definitely. Yes, Nietzsche was no moralist, and for reasons he advanced throughout his work. Not that that made him a bad person, or indeed the very anti-christ himself. The article should definitely make clear, objectively, his opposition to Christian morality. But the writers should not cast their judgment upon this still controversial stance of Nietzsche. Just the facts, man, just the facts. --Knucmo2 21:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I edited the opening paragraph, rearranging some wording in a way that I hope will make the meaning clearer. Some of the statements still contain POV, and I'm not too comfortable with the distinctly un-Nietzschean duality of "positive" and "negative", although I think the meaning is approximately accurate. As for the "broad and unusual philosophical themes" phrase, I think it may be better to recast the sentence entirely. What defines "unusual"? Certainly Nietzsche's thought can be quite striking; in particular, the notion of the eternal recurrence strikes me as quite odd. Now, this idea is not in fact odd at all - to anyone familiar with Eastern thought. Anyways, just a bit of imperfect clean-up. Matheson 09:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Another edit on the opening paragraph. The phrase "inadequacy of dualistic thinking" is of course Nietzsche's own POV. I am new to this and remain somewhat uncertain of how NPOV is supposed to work. I'll look into it.

Also, N was always highly regarded among certain groups of early 20th-Century English and Parisian intellectuals; I've added this to the introduction. I couldn't find one particular citation, but I feel that his impact on the British and Parisian thinkers listed later should suffice. Again, I'm new here, so maybe verifiability is an issue in this instance. Matheson 09:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I liked how you reorganized things, but you really should attempt to restrain what you see as N's POV from N's POV - I mean, whatever you think is simply your own from the beginning, and that doesn't amount to good encyclopedic writing. Sure, N didn't take to "dualistic thinking" (perhaps) but some of the main points about his writings were directed towards all forms of thought, not anyone one kind. Anyway, I fixed up some of the material, gave it a fuller fleshing out, and hopefully we'll see it become better as time progresses.Non-vandal 10:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

My mistake; "inadequacy of dualistic thinking" was Kaufmann's POV. I like your version much better. Matheson 11:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The opening paragraph is clearly better now. Kudos to all. Petrejo 10:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Nietzsche and Christ

The article says "Ultimately, however, Nietzsche claims that, unlike the overman, who embraces life, Jesus denied reality in favor of his 'kingdom of God'." Is it to be taken then that Nietzsche's opposition to Jesus of Nazareth as an approximate kind of Übermensch is not derived from Jesus' apparent elevation and glorification of a truly slavish slave-morality? Does this mean that Nietzsche's concept of slave-morality is subordinate to his concept of Übermensch--or to put it differently, is the Overman accountable to the master-morality in any way at all? (It certainly appears to me that the two are interdependent upon each other, but it still does not preclude one of those apparently nasty contradictions in Nietzsche's thought.) 71.76.135.102 15:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The article as it stands appears somewhat ashamed of Nietzsche's Antichristian legacy, and seeks to whitewash it. Nietzsche had some positive and negative things to say about Jews, and in the same way, Nietzsche had some positive and negative things to say about Jesus Christ. The article hides those negative sayings, and seems to try to convince the reader that Nietzsche loved Jesus Christ but only hated (N's word) Christians. My example is Nietzsche reading Jesus' saying, 'this generation will not pass away until I come in glory,' and Nietzsche remarked, "well-lied, lion!" So, to try to convince readers that Nietzsche was a loyal follower of Jesus Christ who only wanted to improve Christianity by his criticism wouldn't wash with Nietzsche himself. It would seem that Nietzsche's most acute Antichristian attacks came later in his writing career -- he gradually increased his attacks, as though testing the waters. Petrejo 11:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Provide demonstrable examples before claiming the article "appears somewhat ashamed of" and "seeks to whitewash" whatever. Frankly, though the article needs improvement, I disagree with this assessment. Again, no generalizations drenched in POV rhetoric, but real problems with the article. Don't pontificate, elaborate.Non-vandal 00:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Nietzsche's work is stridently Antichristian -- from his break with Wagner until his last book, Nietzsche delivered blow after blow to the head of Christian culture. This was a repetitive theme for him. Why not point this out in the very first paragraph? Why not point it out in every section? It's clearly a key issue for the writer who wrote, The Antichrist, and who also repeatedly, year after year, accused Christianity of corrupting the human species. In 1881 Nietzsche called Christianity a 'disease'. In 1882, after announcing that 'God is dead,' Nietzsche charged Christianity with being a control trick. In 1886 he returns to the idea that Christianity is a disease. In 1887 Nietzsche charges that Christianity is cruel and perverse. By 1895, Nietzsche openly 'condemned' Christianity. Why not admit this openly? That's my elaboration. Petrejo 04:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

"Why not point this out in the very first paragraph?" Because the paragraph already mentions it. Look, I realize the "centrality" of Nietzsche's thought against Christianity as an institution, but it must be reckoned that these were secondary to a much more important matter. Sure, the article lacks coverage of the attacks themselves, but that doesn't mean it's "whitewashing" or whatever. About condemnation: that isn't a position we're to take, and the nature of it is not a trivial question or even if it was one as such. Again, please raise real issues demonstrated by scholars, not your opinions. Heck, his attitudes to Christians and Christianity can be seen as very different. So, really, it's just jive.Non-vandal 04:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It sure isn't 'jive' Non-vandal, it's a valid objection. The centrality of Nietzsche's thought against Christianity can't be denied, and in fact it isn't already mentioned in the first paragraph -- on the contrary -- it's hidden in the first paragraph. But most of us know the social pressures one is under to speak of these things -- it takes a certain kind of personality to directly confront these issues. Petrejo 17:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to mention Nietzsche's favourite food in the opening paragraph because some 21st century scholar deems it to be a crucial issue in the face of most other scholarship. Similarly, (mention of) his "anti-Christian" stance is moot, that is, debatable, and in such countless ways. Firstly, though it is a motif, Christianity is not seen as the very core of N's concepts. In other words, he didn't put pen to paper to bash Christianity, or Jews for that matter. The most trusted Nietzsche scholars (Kaufmann, and I believe Hollingdale and Menken as well) take this stance. Secondly, if you say he is anti-Christian, should you not also mention that he is anti-Kant, anti-Wagner, anti-Semetic, anti-anti-Semetic, etc.? The thing is, these stances all follow a nice arc of thought which really isn't to be fought on the point-to-point, quote-versus-quote battleground. In any case, without reliable secondary sources, no matter how obvious it may seem to you (for it is not obvious to me, and it doesn't seem obvious to many others here), it would be OR and POV. -Bordello 17:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Nietzsche's bombastic title, The Antichrist, offers some direct insight. Already in 1878 Nietzsche called Christianity, a "sickness." He repeated this in harsher tones in Daybreak (1881). In The Gay Science (1882), Nietzsche condemned Christianity as a control trick. In Beyond Good and Evil (1886), he repeated his theme that Christianity is a disease. In Genealogy of Morals (1887), Nietzsche condemned the Christian conscience as the internalization of sadistic cruelty. In that book, too, he affirmed that Judeo-Christianity was not just an example of Slave Morality, but the clearly historical essence of Slave Morality. Nietzsche blamed Christians for bringing Jewish culture into Europe -- and that was an unforgivable sin in Nietzsche's lifelong paradigm. All this (and more) led up to The Antichrist as perhaps Nietzsche's last gasp before slipping into madness. Is this not more than a motif, Bordello? Is this not a life-long hatred -- a reliable thread that one can trace through most of Nietzsche's writings? (Nor is this my original research; I've supplied dozens upon dozens of quotations from scholars to support this.) If one finds ambiguity about Christ here and there, well, perhaps even Nietzsche himself was sometimes impressed by the vast reach of the Christian culture. The whole thing falls into insipidity, however, when one recognizes that the Christianity that Nietzsche attacked was a straw dog. Nietzsche's theory that Judaism created Christianity in order to wreak revenge upon the Roman Empire -- it's just a tad too paranoid. Petrejo 05:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

"In Genealogy of Morals (1887), Nietzsche condemned the Christian conscience as the internalization of sadistic cruelty." - I don't think it is as clear as that. He described it as such, but condemn? I believe not. The tone throughout 'Genealogy' is highly ambiguous, and I don't believe that he condemned Christianity the way you describe it. While the works of 1888 are highly polemic, I think that your painting of Nietzsche as a rabid Christianophobe misses the mark (despite how inflammatory Nietzsche makes his statements). I think Jörg Salaquarde's essay "Nietzsche and the Judeo-Christian tradition" in The Cambridge Companion to Nietzsche gives a thorough run-through of the point. and represents the majority opinion that Nietzsche did even surce Christianity, but was always careful to note its contribution (it's positive contribution at times, like described in Genealogy) to the developement of Western civilisation and culture. This is also, as far as I can tell, the majority (almost consensus) view of current Nietzsche scholarship.--Marinus 07:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you have understood the question. I don't dispute or doubt that Nietzsche was very critical of Christianity; what I am asking is if Nietzsche's conception of the Übermensch entailed any accountability to his conception of slave/master-morality. In other words, if N says that the Overman creates his own values, could these values be anything the Overman likes, or do they have to be in accord with his depictions of "healthy" and "weak" values? Why wasn't Jesus considered by N to be an Overman, given that he did succeed in creating his own system of morality? Was it because he chose to create the wrong kind of morality/values? 152.23.84.168 03:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

No. I think Nietzsche doesn't call Jesus an übermensch because the übermensch is (in my reading) not something that exists but a metaphysical trick whereby to dismiss metaphysics and place the body and life at the center of philosophy. Nietzsche was very sympathetic to the figure of Jesus (who is one of the figures in Part IV of Zarathustra), and identified many übermenschliches qualities in him including, as you've said, that Jesus was able to create a new morality. --Marinus 03:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

So-called "Last-Days Footage"

Just in case anyone has seen it, I think the youtube videos [2] [3], which according to users' comments are from a 2001 movie, have been digitally made from still photographs taken by Hans Olde in May 1899. See de:Diskussion:Friedrich Nietzsche#Filmaufnahmen von Nietzsche?. I uploaded the images to Commons, perhaps you might like to use them somewhere. There is no meaning in the numbers, obviously 8/11 and 6/7 would belong together (and, if there really was a film, would show real movement in between).--Chef aka Pangloss 13:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC) - PS: I am not sure if my translation "The ill Nietzsche" (for Olde's title Der kranke Nietzsche) is fitting; "krank" can also be translated as "sick". If "sick" is better here, please correct this.--Chef aka Pangloss 16:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

"Ill" and "sick" are synonyms, so it's only a matter of preference. But I think how it is translated is appropriate, outside of the possible connotations of "sick" ("sick" is slightly more ambiguous, while "ill" has a much more formal tone). I noticed Ignis translated "krank" as "ill", too; so, it's probably the best choice of word here.Non-vandal 00:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Guten Tag, Pangloss. (This is a pronounced and momentary suspension of my involuntarily protracted adjournment from Wikipedia.) The film to which those filmic sequences belong, in which the images below may be found, is Dias de Nietzsche em Turin (Nietzsche's Days in Turin), directed by Júlio Bressane. [4][5] Not to broach the enquiry of the particular value of the film itself, the film was, to be sure, during these whitened and becalmed sequences undeniably augmented through a digital artisan's means in order to simulate movement in the manner of a vivid filmic representation—in short, no such film exists in material, except in the form of fragmentical photos that were taken by, as you say, Hans Olde, upon which Dias's skein is based. Though this be the case, these images will prove useful for the article's improvement by sheer biographical value alone, and so it is no less excellent that you uploaded them to the Commons (much aside from what appears to be one editor's—amongst many others'—clenching discontent with the article's, and its subarticles', sorry state and long-enduring appearance of disrepair that is in no way remediated by such vandalistic behavior.) Auf Wiederlesen — ^ignis _scripta 19:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• 
  01
• 
  02
• 
  03
• 
  04
• 
  05
• 
  06
• 
  07
• 
  08
• 
  09
• 
  10
• 
  11
• 
  12

Well, Ignis, these photographs you shared are superb. I'm particularly touched by the tenderness shown between Nietzsche and his sister, Elisabeth, especially in photo #6. Also, although we see here an ailing, older man, we can still see some sparkle in his eyes in photo #4, which reminds me of a conversation related by Oscar Levy to the effect that some of Nietzsche's latter visitors saw no signs of mental illness, rather, they only saw a recluse who preferred to speak only to his sister and his mother. He refused to talk about his writings -- he simply fell silent when the topic was raised, but otherwise he was lucid when he talked, although he directed most of his speech to Elisabeth. Even though he was enraged that Elisabeth had moved to censor his Ecce Homo (and any further autobiography) from publication, he still loved her until the very end, as shown by their correspondence and also in these photographs. Petrejo 07:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you even bother reading the discussion above? Ignis didn't share the photos, Chef aka Pangloss did. Anyway, there's enough controversy as concerns Elizabeth and Fritz's relationship that does not need to be glossed over here by supposed "tender" feelings. And Levy's statements (where?) can hardly be taken at face value as we all should be aware.Non-vandal 00:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, Petrejo, you seem to be quite unaware of any first-hand sources about Nietzsche's years of illness - published, for example, in Erich Podach's early works; Sander L. Gilman's Begegnungen mit Nietzsche (2nd ed. 1985); Pia Daniela Volz' Nietzsche im Labyrinth seiner Krankheit (esp. with the report of the Jena Irrenanstalt (Jenaer Krankenjournal)); the various correspondences between N's mother, sister, Köselitz, Overbeck, Adalbert Oehler, Rohde and others; the Koegel excerpts; Harry Graf Kessler's diary; memories of Paul Deussen, Fritz Schumacher, Rudolf Steiner, Ernst Horneffer, Hans Olde and others published in the dtv-Chronik etc. - and even rely on an obvious fake (My Sister and I), you should be more cautious when speculating about this topic.--Chef aka Pangloss 15:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

According to Dr. Walter K. Stewart, the debate regarding the genuine authorship of My Sister and I, remains open. Petrejo 11:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

And according to me and every other human being with a brain, on the base of the documents named above, I demand that Walter K. Stewart be withdrawn his "Dr." Come on, you cannot be serious. The book is hilariously awful. "two bitches" - this cannot even be formulated in German. When did he become interested in the then-shining city of Detroit, the day he ate his faeces (April 18, 1889, Jenaer Krankenjournal), the day he wanted a pistol because "the Grand Duchess herself does these obscenities and tries to assassinate me" (April 19, 1889, JK) or the day he thought one of his guards was Bismarck (June 14, 1889, JK)?--Chef aka Pangloss 13:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't tell me: has Petrejo fallen silent on this very significant issue?Non-vandal 18:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Been busy is all. Chef aka Pangloss presents his opinion, and his emotion, his POV, but cannot dismiss Professor W.K. Stewart as easily as he likes. Critics of Nietzsche also have brains. Petrejo 04:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It's good to see you are still here. As for Pangloss, I understand he voiced his personal opinion, but he's also making points about what others have said. And these points aren't "emotion". They're significant and need more discussion. There's no reason to be directly confrontational, just focus on content and things will develop where we all want them to be, I assume.Non-vandal 05:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

As for some of the bizarre quasi-poetry that Nietzsche wrote during his illness, it isn't schizophrenic according to some definitions, for example, his sentences still have the subject-verb-object form, and his grammar is still intact. He might have been paranoid, but that by itself may be more common than ordinarily thought. More to the point, Nietzsche was a lonely man who never married, and who didn't keep lovers long, and who had very strained relationships with his mother and sister, but ultimately returned to live with them later in life. His personal misery was both treated and worsened by some of the medication he regularly took, including opium. Because Nietzsche is somewhat of a sacred cow in many circles, his drug habits, especially as regards heavy narcotics, gets little attention. Yet the language that Chef aka Pangloss cites in his defense of Nietzsche's case would not be uncommon with heavy users of narcotics. Again, W.K. Stewart also has brains, and he is unwilling to say that the alleged autobiography of Nietzsche, MY SISTER AND I, is a forgery. We are all aware that Kaufmann insisted it had to be a forgery, and he slammed the door on the publisher very hard. But he also gave us a very mild reading of Nietzsche, according to sources I've already quoted in the discussion pages. So, W.K. Stewart, also a Nietzsche expert, wishes to be heard on this topic. Thanks for the discussion. Petrejo 04:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and Colli and Montinari considered it a forgery - don't see that as a problem, hm? Using Kaufmann here is pointless, even if his reading of Nietzsche is contested. Oh, and the first half of your post: is that your reading of Nietzsche or a scholar's? Please do not continue with original research. We're trying to write an encyclopedia, alright? And this that you wrote ("the language that Chef aka Pangloss cites in his defense of Nietzsche's case would not be uncommon with heavy users of narcotics") sounds like a vague attack against Pangloss, which would have best been not said at all, and the accuracy of such a statement is far below optimal, weakening your premises further. We'll see what Pangloss has to say, I suppose.Non-vandal 04:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

No, Non-vandal, I agree that it is a problem that Colli and Moninari consider it a forgery, just as Walter Kaufmann did. It's a problem because their opinion isn't unanimous. Dr. Stewart's views still need to be answered. Insofar as you're trying to write an Encyclopedia, it should be of interest what all the scholars are saying, and not just the cherry-picked ones. And as for the 'narcotics' observation, it is often acknowledged that Nietzsche took many drugs for his extreme headaches. Petrejo 17:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

First, I apologize for my over-the-top rambling in my last post (and, btw, any errors I make in English grammar or style; it is not my mother-tongue). Second, I insist that this discussion is as ridiculous as the book. It is obviously a forgery, and I am surprised that Kaufman even took the time to point that out. AFAIK, it has never even been discussed in European N-scholarship. I quoted two of the most ridiculous errors in the book, a stupid pun which is impossible in the German language and an obvious anachronism. See here for more. But all this is not necessary, because original sources about Nietzsche's days of illness, which were printed in European magazines and books for the first time in the 1930s (and apparently unavailable to the forger) and again since the 1970s (I named some of the documents in my earlier posts), make it absolutely clear that after the first days of January 1889, N had severe problems writing down greeting formulas for his mother's letters, and did not write anything which should be mentioned in one sentence with the word "book". Petrejo, I assume you have not taken notice of any of the sources I mentioned, maybe you did not even know of their existence. What is this "bizarre quasi-poetry" by Nietzsche you are writing about - where, when printed? In how far is Mr Stewart an "expert" on Nietzsche? On what ground can you call the whole spectrum of more or less serious Nietzsche scholarship, from his sister to Erich Podach, from Lukacz to Baeumler, from Kaufmann to Janz, from Colli and Montinari to nowadays writers, how can you call them "cherry-picked scholars" (sorry for naming some people you supposedly also do not know)? How can you think that an allusion to Kaufmann's too "mild" reading of Nietzsche - something which is known, has been and is discussed in N-scholarship for more than twenty years (for a recent discussion, see D. Pickus, The Walter Kaufmann myth, Nietzsche-Studien 2003) - would help your argument? So no personal attack, but a logical conclusion: Until you have proven otherwise, I have to assume that you have no mentionable knowledge about either Nietzsche or Nietzsche scholarship.--Chef aka Pangloss 14:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Granted, Chef aka Pangloss, I don't claim to be a Nietzsche expert, only an avid reader of his works and books about him, like many of the editors here, most (or all) of whom aren't published authors on this topic.

Still, I believe that your response to the alleged autobiography of Nietzsche, My Sister and I, is overstated. You claim it's "obviously" a forgery, just as Walter Kaufmann said, but that opinion isn’t unanimously agreed upon among scholars. Even with its errors and anachronisms (because the conditions of its publication were very oppressive), it is being continually reviewed for authenticity. You claimed there were no German N-scholars who took notice of it, so you are evidently unaware of the writings of the German scholar, Hermann Josef Schmidt (1994).

As for medical reports about Nietzsche during that period, they were contradicted by personal friends of Nietzsche who remarked that he wasn't insane at all, but only a recluse who wished to speak to nobody but his sister and mother. Otherwise, they said, he was as lucid as anybody (cf. My Sister and I, introduction).

Further, I don't believe you can simply dismiss Walter Stewart; he may not matter to the majority, but as a Doctor of Germanic Philology and Linguistics, his studies on Nietzsche (UCLA) ought to be taken into account. He doesn't say that My Sister and I is clearly authentic, but he is willing to challenge Walter Kaufmann's hasty opinion -- that it was "obviously" a forgery. He holds Levy's claim -- that he had to keep the manuscript underground for fear of being sued by Nietzsche's sister -- to be believable. Also, the publisher's claim that the New York Vice Squad burned his entire inventory of original manuscripts in their fevered effort to ban Joyce's ‘’Ulysses’’, is also believable because some official records for that raid do exist. Stewart calls for more analysis.

When I said your cited scholars are cherry-picked, Chef aka Pangloss, I meant that you openly refuse to recognize divergent interpretations by legitimate scholars. I'm aware of many of the sources you noted. I've read the works of Kaufmann and Lukacz. The others -- Podach, Baeumler, Janz, Colli and Montinari, I've only read about. (For example, Schlechta and Podach, exposed Elisabeth's tampering with the Will To Power which allegedly allowed Baeumler to bend the book toward the service of National Socialism.)

Finally, I'm surprised you cite Nietzsche's sister as a scholarly source, since there are editors here who have attempted to remove Nietzsche's Will To Power from my list of quotable sources; they said she forged that book, as Schlechta and Podach said. If her work is now 'scholarship,' then do I have your permission, at least, to quote from the Will To Power to characterize Nietzsche's ideology once again? Petrejo 01:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Petrejo, you should really try not to confuse the issues as far as N's sister goes (and how that would be "permission to quote from the Will to Power [sic]" by Chef aka Pangloss is far, far beyond me), okay? Keep things relevant - no one claimed she wasn't useful as a source about some topics, like citing forgeries and falsifications, but that she has been fairly inaccurate and distortive about N (no examples needed here, I suppose), and this you seem to be unable to understand, unsurprisingly.Non-vandal 07:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Wilhelm

I have heard from somes sources, including about.com[6], that Nietzsche dropped the middle name Wilhelm from his name, but it doesn't seem to be mentioned in this article (I can't find it). Is it true and should it be mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirveaux (talk • contribs) 23:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty interesting (why would he do that and when?), if true. I don't recall anything mentioned. But I'll try to look around in tactile sources to see what's up.Non-vandal 00:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep, Kaufmann noted in his Nietzsche... on p. 22 that he shed his middle name. (Why and when aren't discussed.) I don't really think it's important anyway but I'll add a note.Non-vandal 02:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I was very curious about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirveaux (talk • contribs) 05:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that Nietzsche dropped his middle name because he didn't like being named after the king.--Itafroma 10:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Very possible, but sources go before any "I think"s.Non-vandal 11:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, he usually signed with F W Nietzsche during his Schulpforta years, but all his writings (beginning with the philological ones in 1867/68) have the author's name as Friedrich Nietzsche (or latinized Fri(e)d(e)ricus Nietzsche). He seems to have used both in his early student years; the last "FWN" I found is from a letter to Deussen, April 4, 1867 (might be wrong, did not make a profound search here). His Zeugnis der Reife (1864), doctorate certificate (1869, in Latin, "FRIDERICVS GVILIELMVS NIETZSCHE") and also his de:Sterbeurkunde (sort of an official death certificate) and the death entry in Röcken's de:Kirchenbuch (1900) have the "Wilhelm"; on the other hand, his sister's death announcement, his habilitation certificate (1869, before the doctorate degree but perhaps made in a rush) and his headstone only have "Friedrich Nietzsche". I do not know if there is a statement of his own about this. Seems probable that his official name always was Friedrich Wilhelm, he just did not use his second name any more (neglect of second names and initials is quite common in Germany). - Friedrich Wilhelm IV. had already died in 1861, the new Prussian regent was his brother Wilhelm I. It should be noted that Naumburg and Schulpforta where Prussian, Bonn too (since 1815), but Leipzig was not (Saxony even was in war with Prussia in 1866). As long as no one knows of anything Nietzsche said, there is much room for speculation.--Chef aka Pangloss 16:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Influences - Strauss, again

"According to at least one authority, the Slovenian scholar Anton Strle, Friedrich Nietzsche lost his faith around the time he was reading Leben Jesu." - Taken from the David Strauss article.

"*David Strauss was the famous author of 'the life of jesus'.Thois, Strauss's most notorious book, had a profound effect on the young Nietzsche and contributed greatly to his loss of faith when he was twenty years old (Hayman 1982, 62-63)" - Taken from a note on p32 in 'The Nietzsche Canon a Publication History and Bibliography' by William H Schaberg

Do any other users still object to any inclusion of Strauss in the influences section? Or atleast some text in the article stating a possible influence from Strauss. I was also considering adding Philipp Mainländer to the Influences section, any thoughts?--Itafroma 11:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think either of them fit in there (also see User:Chef aka Pangloss's response to you in the relevant section). But Mainlander is already mentioned in the article. All that's left is some text on Strauss and that'll do, I think. Non-vandal 11:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

After one semester and to the anger of his mother, he stopped his theological studies, and lost his faith. It has been suggested that this may have been partly due to his reading of David Strauss's life of jesus at the time, which had a profound effect on the young Nietzsche.

This is the text i have added to the youth section of the biography. I have tried to make it apparant that the evidence for Strauss's influence is inconclusive. But if anybody disagrees with the addition please say so, and why. I also think that Socrates deserves more text, and should be included in influences.--Itafroma 14:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

No doubt about Socrates, but, hey, the article is in a really bad way now - as it has been for a long time. It's a real shame. As for Strauss, you really should source it, like Strauss's article does, because if you don't it doesn't get this article anywhere. The "faith" part definitely needs sourcing, too. There are "citation needed" tags to show you where they're needed. Here's the text you wrote on Strauss, which I've removed for now (add it once you have proper sourcing)Non-vandal 00:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC):

...and lost his faith. It has been suggested that this may have been partly due to his reading of David Strauss's life of jesus at the time, which had a profound effect on the young Nietzsche. He chose to concentrate....

After one semester and to the anger of his mother, he stopped his theological studies and lost his faith. It has been suggested that this may have been partly due to his reading of David Strauss's life of jesus at the time, which had a profound effect on the young Nietzsche. Added to biography section --Itafroma 20:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Bias in 'Breakdown' description

"In the following few days, he sent short writings to a number of friends, including Cosima Wagner and Jacob Burckhardt, which showed signs of a breakdown."

There is a bias in the above description in the article which trivializes Nietzsche's experience and ignores Nietzsche's own triumphant proclamations of god realization contained in these letters, in favor of the normalizing perspective that it is a breakdown as opposed to Nietzsche's own descriptions of his experience as a breakthrough. I find it quite offensive and disrespectful of Nietzsche to so blatantly ignore his own account of his experience and trivialize it with the word breakdown.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.138.137.6 (talk • contribs • WHOIS) 10:15, 1 August 2006(UTC)

The whole section is biased in the same way (I mean it's filled with OR and POV) ... but I fixed the part you noted.Non-vandal 10:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

POV article

Presenting Nietzsche AS HE IS amounts to discussing and questioning the ingrained taboos of modernity--who has the courage for that? Apparently to refer to Nietzsche himself is inadmissible, and one must remain in the circle of the interpretations of modern liberal democratic and postmodernist distorters and scholars with an ethnic Judaic agenda (see Kevin B. MacDonald) like Walter Kaufmann, whose strained, cynical efforts to present a humanistic, super-democratized Nietzsche are notorious and laughable.

In case reference to Nietzsche himself is somehow 'unscholarly' (a quite strange position), I will refer to outside scholarly sources.

http://www.filosofia.it/pagine/argomenti/Losurdo/Losurdo_Santi.htm

The Journal of Nietzsche Studies, n. 27, (Spring 2004) Nietzsche, the aristocratic rebel.

Ernst Nolte, Three Faces of Fascism:

"The discovery of the Dionysian background of tragedy, the defense of genius against the masses, the insistence on the necessity of slavery, serve no other purpose than to explicate the elements of genuine culture: its background, relevance, and basis. They are developed along with the indictment of the enemies of culture: science and its logical (Socratic) optimism, mass emancipation and its shallow utilitarian outlook, revolution and it pernicious effects ... For if history amounts to nothing more than the petty and sterile calculation of the last 'squinting' men, who neither obey nor rule and desire to be neither poor nor rich, then the most mighty effort is required to force them back into the state of slavery which is their rightful place ... In fact, Nietzsche's whole thought represents the very antithesis of the Marxist conception, and the idea of destruction is the negative aspect of its core ... Nietzsche is not in any obvious sense the spiritual father of fascism; but he was the first to give voice to that spiritual focal point toward which all fascism must gravitate: the assault on practical and theoretical transcendence, for the sake of a 'more beautiful' from of 'life.' Nietzsche was not concerned with magnificent animality for its own sake, nor was destruction per se Hitler's goal. Their ultimate aim was a 'supreme culture' of the future ... Many decades in advance, Nietzsche provided the political radical anti-Marxism of fascism with its original spiritual image, an image of which even Hitler never quite showed himself the equal ... Nietzsche's thought is not an ideology of the bourgeoisie: on the one hand it is a deeply disturbed protest of the artistic temperament against the general world trend, on the other it is the violent reaction of the feudal element in bourgeois society at being threatened." (p. 441-45) "[Note 57] Nietzsche claimed that miscegenation was responsible for the triumph of democratic ideals (Werke, VIII, 245)." (p. 545)

Rudiger Safranski, Nietzsche: A Philosophical Biography:

"If happiness and freedom of the greatest possible number are given higher priority, Nietzsche claimed, the result is a democratic culture in which mass taste triumphs. The orientation of a democratic state to comprehensive welfare, human dignity, freedom, egalitarian justice, and protection of the weak impedes any prospects for development of great personalities. The 'bright lights' vanish from history and along with them any last vestige of meaning.

"In his quest to defend aesthetic significance in history, Nietzsche assailed democracy as far back as the early 1870s, even before his shrill attacks on the 'complete appeasement of the democratic herd animal' some years later. Nietzsche considered the ancient Greek slaveholder society the paragon of culture for the very reason that it disallowed concessions to the 'democratic herd animal.' He extolled antiquity for being honest enough not to have covered up the terrible foundation from which its blossom grew ... Just as people need brains and brawn, Nietzsche argued, society needs the hardworking hands of laborers for a privileged class, allowing that class 'to engender and fulfill a new world of needs' (The Greek State) ... More recent eras have glorified the world of work, but glorification is self-deception, because even the 'terminological fallacy' of the 'dignity of work' does not alter anything in the fundamental injustice of life, which metes out mechanical work to some and creative activity to the more highly gifted. Slave societies were brutally frank about their inequities, whereas our modern times feign contrition but are unwilling forgo exploitation in the service of culture. Thus, if art justifies our existence aesthetically, it does so on the foundation of 'cruelty' (The Greek State). ...

"Nietzsche feared that if knowledge and learning were to become available to the majority of people, a horrifying, culturally devastating uprising would ensue, because the 'barbaric slave class' would plan revenge 'not only for itself but for all generations' (BT, 18). For him, this awful revenge was a 'calamity slumbering in the womb of theoretical culture'.

"Nietzsche contended that the order of ancient or modern slaveholder societies could be preserved only if everyone accepted the basic tragic constitution of human life as a consequence 'of the natural cruelty of things' (BT, 18). The slaves put up with cruelty, which is one aspect of Dionysian wisdom, and the cultural elite is aware of this cruelty and seeks refuge behind the shield of art, which is its other aspect. ...

"Nietzsche could envision this higher stage of mankind...only as a culmination of culture in its 'peaks of rapture', which is to say in successful individuals and achievements. The will to power unleashes the dynamics of culmination, but it is also the will to power that forms a moral alliance on the side of the weak. This alliance works at cross purposes with the goal of culmination and ultimately, in Nietzsche's view, leads to widespread equalization and degeneration. As a modern version of the 'Christian theory of morality', this alliance forms the backbone of democracy and socialism. Nietzsche therefore adamantly opposed all such movements ... If we are content to regard this highly personal philosophy and these maneuvers of self-configuration with fascination and perhaps even admiration, but are not willing to abandon the idea of democracy and democratic justice, it is likely that Nietzsche would have accused us of feeble compromise, indecisiveness, and epitomizing the ominous 'blinking' of the 'last men'...

"In both Twilight of the Idols and The Antichrist, Nietzsche evaluated a book he had discovered in Turin, namely the Laws of Manu. This book was alleged to be a moral code of the caste system based on the Vedas. Nietzsche was captivated by the chilling consistency with which this corpus of laws divided society into mutually exclusive social milieus according to an ominous requirement of purity. He regarded the fact that members of the various castes could not interact with one another as a clever biopolitics of breeding that would prevent degeneration...

"In his last writings, notably in Twilight of the Idols, Nietzsche employed even more adamant moral and philosophical arguments to advocate anti-Judaism, and introduced on occasional hint of racial biology: 'Christianity, with its roots in Judaism and comprehensible only as a growth from this soil, represents the countermovement to any morality of breeding, of race, or privilege: it is the anti-Aryan religion par excellence' (TI 'Improvers of Mankind' 4)."

Prominent scholar Hubert Cancik, MONGOLS, SEMITES AND THE PURE-BRED GREEKS: Nietzsche's handling of the racial doctrines of his time:

Greece as Model

...Nietzsche thoroughly accepted the biological discourse of his contemporaries: history was supposed to be explained through the "mixing of blood", the "coupling" of heterogeneous elements, "extraction" (in a biological sense) and, finally, "collisions" and "waves" of "immigrants". The genesis of the Greeks in Greece, where they "became Greeks", is the point of his notes on the "original inhabitants". This point owes a debt to a particular biological (see "Nietzsche's Greeks, Jews and Europe" below) and political (see "A higher caste", below) theory of Nietzsche's.

"A higher caste"

Nietzsche's notes jump from the prehistoric "original inhabitants" to the historical period of Greece: from the conquerors came the rulers; from the original inhabitants came the slaves; from the battle of races came the battle of the "castes". Politics built itself upon the previous "racial history". Together, all of these components formed the Greek model that was supposed to mediate between antiquity and the European future. Immediately following upon his racial history of Greece, Nietzsche continued with these words:

If one considers the enormous number of slaves on the mainland, then Greeks were only to be found sporadically. A higher caste of the Idle, the statesman, etc. Their hostilities held them in physical and intellectual tension. They had to ground their superiority upon quality - that was their spell over the masses (UB 118, p. 206 = 5[199]).

Now then, there are "Greeks". The conquerors "had taken into their blood", consumed and digested the Semitic, Mongolian and Thracian components . Something new had come into existence. Yet the "wild energy" through which the conquerors had taken possession of the land and its inhabitants remained preserved up into the earlier perlod of antiquity - or so Nietzsche thought. It was, indeed essential in order to keep the "enormous number of slaves" suppressed. This same energy drove the Greeks both to rivalry with each other and to the highest cultural achievements: "The intellectual culture of Greece [was] an aberration of the tremendous political drive toward distinction" (UB 118, p. 118=5[179]). The highest achievements of culture were necessary; they were not some lovely but superficial decoration. They engendered the cohesion of the higher caste of the "idle" - the political class and the creators of culture: in the musical and the athletlc contests, aggression was channelled and sublimated (cf. e.g. the piece from December 1872 on: "Homer's Wettkampf": KSA vol. 1, pp. 783-92). Moreover, the supreme achievements of culture cast a spell over the "masses", who obviously had to care for each one of those belonging to the "Idle", whose rule, in this manner, was justified aesthetically. Consequently, Nietzsche believed that he had proven through historical methods that the wild power and energy belonging to a conquering people has to be "bred great" (groB gezuchtet), a cultivation process by which such achievements as those the Greeks once produced would also be brought forth in Europe in the future (UB 118, p. 116 and 114 = 5[185] and [188]). Neither peace, luxury, socialism, the ideal political state, welfare, nor short-term educational reform are preconditions for the engendering of genius - whether of a people or of an individual; rather, genius should arise from conditions "as malicious and ruthless" as those in nature itself: "Mistreat people - drive them to their limits" (UB 118, p. 112 = 5j 191] and [194]).

Nietzsche's considerations about race and caste as well as rule and culture for the Greeks were aimed at his present. "The Greeks", he thought, "believed in differences among the races". Nietzsche approvingly recalled Schopenhauer's opinion that slaves were a different species, and in addition, he cited the image of a winged animal in contrast to that of an unmoving shellfish (UB 118, p. 112 = 5[72] and [73]). In such a generalization as this one, the statement is incorrect, and in a more narrowly defined sense, it is racist... Accordingly, the following statements by Nietzsche are to be characterized as racist:

1. "The new problem: whether or not educating[!] a part of humanity to a higher race must come at the cost of the rest. Breeding . . ." (1881 KSA vol. 9, p. 577 12[10])

2. "We would as little choose 'early Christians' as Polish Jews to associate with us: not that one would need to have even a single [i.e., rational] objection to them.... Both of them simply do not smell good." (AC 46)

Nietzsche tested his racial teachings within the framework of classical studies. The aphoristic formulation that he gave to his "Notes" on the original population of Greece in September 1876 forms a connection to the racial teachings of his critical writings ("Die Pflugschar" 143 KSA vol. 8, p. 327; it is proved by the version of "Pflugschar" that the passages numbered 5[198] and [199] in KGW are not separated "tragments" but rather a unity). In his "Plowshare", Nietzsche excluded the Doric migration and avoided the word "caste" as well as such peculiarities as the tree and snake cult, or the Mongolian elements in the Odyssey or the Italians who had become Greeks. Purified of offensive, concrete, verifiable details, a more refined, polished, dashing aphorism emerged, one that suggested, in more pleasing language, the necessary connection of racial differences to the rule of "higher beings" -- thus "the idle, the political class, etc." are now called - and to cultural superiority.

NIETZSCHE'S GREEKS, JEWS AND EUROPE

Inheritance of acquired characteristics

...the "purity" of the race is also a positive, basic concept of biology for Nietzsche. Nietzsche constructed a little racial history of ancient Europe upon concepts he had borrowed from biology (GM 15 1887; note that Nietzsche had read Tocqueville - see his letter to Overbeck, 23 February 1887). "Blood mixing", skull shape and skin and hair color are the main terms of his anthropology. Nietzsche coupled the biological to social characteristics and to moral values: the blond-haired is better than the black-haired, and the short-skulled is worse than the long-skulled. Some fearless etymologies suggested by the erstwhile philologist make this chapter from the Genealogy of Morals into a prize exhibit of philo-Aryan prose (some examples: esthlos/"noble" to einai/"to be", malus/"bad" to melas/"black") because for Nietzsche, the long-skulled blond - the good, noble, pure conqueror - was the Aryan, of course: they were the master race in Europe. Nietzsche's little racial history of ancient Europe aimed at the present. In the social and political movements of the Democrats, the Anarchists and the Socialists of his time, he saw, namely, the instincts of the "pre-Aryan population" breaking through again. Nietzsche related these political programs explicitly to biology. He feared that "the conquering and master race - that of the Aryans - is also being defeated physiologically" (GM I 5). According to Nietzsche, the Jews had begun this slave revolt: they led the slaves - the mob, the herd - to this victory over the aristocracy. This victory meant "blood poisoning", "intoxication" - this pastor's son and classical philologist loved to adorn himself with medical jargon. Nietzsche identified the reason for the poisoning: "It [i.e., the victory] had mingled the races promiscuously" (GM I 9; for the mixture of races considered as an evil, cf. JGB 208, 200). The pre-Aryan population was thus in league with the Jews and against the Italians, the Greeks, the Celts, the Germans - and generally speaking, all Aryans everywhere ... In 1881, Nietzsche published a general draft of his racial ideas under the title "The becoming-pure of a race". What he had previously scattered about in notes concerning classical studies and in various other hints is here summarized in twenty-five lines of print covering five points: 1. The races are not originally pure but, at best, become pure in the course of history. 2. The crossing of races simultaneously means the crossing of cultures: crossing leads to "disharmony" in bodily form, in custom and in morality. 3. The process of purification occurs through "adapting, imbibing, [and] excreting" foreign elements. 4. The result of purification is a stronger and more beautiful organism. 5. The Greeks are "the model of a race and culture that had become pure"... The significance of this text for Nietzsche has been shown by W. Muller Lauter. The "model" for the breeding of a European ruling caste was the Greeks: "it is to be hoped that a pure European race and culture will also one day succeed [in coming into being]" (JGB 25, last sentence & Daybreak IV 272, last sentence). In such a race and culture - as the model prepared by Nietzsche has instructed us - the foreign elements (those bred in) will be imbibed for digestion or excretion...

...Spencer had transferred theorems from biological evolution to the historical process. He complained that a policy of social reform hindered "natural selection". For this reason, Nietzsche advised, one must "eliminate the continuance and effectiveness" of bad, sick and uneducated people (KSA vol. 9, p. 10 (1880); cf. ibid., pp. 27t., 454t). From Sir Francis Galton, one of the original founders of eugenics, he took over the formula of "hereditary genius", which Galton had used in his study of the families of criminals (letter to Strindberg, 8 December 1888.; cf. Ietter to Overbeck, 4 July 1888. Ct. Marie Louise Haase, "Friedrich Nietzsche hest I rancls Galton", Nietzsche-Studien, 18 1889: 633ff)...

Nietzsche's utterances about acquired character, the purity of races, the inheritance of characteristics, the degeneracy of halfbreeds (JCB 208 KSA vol. 5, pp. 138. Cf. JGB 200: "The man belonging to an epoch of dissolution which mixes up the races") and the cultivation of drives over long periods of time could - for this branch - suggest an unorthodox (Neo-)Lamarckianism...

In historical scholarship as well - and even in classical philology - racist teachings had penetrated. Within Nietzsche's racial teachings, Jews and Aryans had a special position. In his first monograph (1872), Nietzsche had already arrayed the "Aryan character" against the Semitic one, Prometheus against Eve, the creative man against the lying woman, the tragic wantonness in battle for higher culture against lascivious sin (The Birth of Tragedy 9; in German, the word Frevel/"wantonness" is masculine in gender; the word Sunde/"sin" is feminine). This argumentative structure is still present in The Antichrist (1888): against the philhellenic Hyperboreans and what Nietzsche called "Aryan humanity" stood denatured Judaism and Judaism "raised to the second power", Christianity (cf. GD The 'correctors' of mankind" KSA vol. 12, p. 501). The Jews - as Nietzsche had indicated with the Eve myth - are not creative in contrast to the Aryan peoples, they are mere "intermediaries", merchants: "they invent nothing." Even their law is from the Codex of Manu - copied from an "absolutely Aryan creation" (Letter to Koselitz, 31 May 1888, cf. n. 31)...

Breeding a pure European race

"Imbibed and absorbed by Europe"

Nietzsche found surprising the fact that Christianity could have forced a Semitic religion upon the Indo-Germans (KSA vol. 9, pp. 21f). For this reason, he fought both Judaism and Christianity, and he created for himself a pagan, Indo-Germanic alternative with his new, Hellenic Dionysos and the Iranian Zarathustra...

The Christian was "only a Jew of a 'freer' confession of faith" - Christians and Jews were "related, racially related" (AC 44), and Christianity was a form of Judaism raised "yet one time" higher through negation (AC 27: "the small rebellious movement, which is baptised in the name of Jesus of Nazareth, is the Jewish instinct once more"). Nietzsche wrote:

Christianity is to be understood entirely in terms of the soil from which is grew - it is not a countermovement to the Jewish instinct; it is the successor itself, a further step in its [i.e., the Jewish instinct's] frightening logic. (AC 24)

Nietzsche's fight against the "denaturalization of natural values" (AC 25), his "transvaluation of all values" was directed against Jews and Christians. Because Nietzsche argued against both, Christian antiSemitism was especially offensive for him. The Jews, Nietzsche maintained, were nevertheless guilty: They had "made humanity into something so false that, still today, a Christian can feel antiSemitic without understanding himself as the last stage of Judaism". (AC 24) The Antichrist was Nietzsche's last word on Judaism which he himself intended to be published. It is precisely with respect to supposed or truly "positive" utterances on Jews and Judaism that this fact should never be forgotten.

A short essay (section 251) in Nietzsche's "Philosophy of the Future" - Beyond Good and Evil (1885/6) - belongs to the "positive" parts. Here, "the breeding of a new caste to rule over Europe", definitely a current "European problem", according to Nietzsche, is discussed. The breeding of this caste follows the "Greek model": the foreign elements are "imbibed" and either assimilated or "excreted" - thus does a "pure European race and culture come into being". With the Jews, however, Germany was going to have difficulty, for Germany had "amply enough Jews" (so wrote Nietzsche in 1885/6): "that the German stomach, the German blood, is having difficulty (and for a long time yet will continue to have difficulty) finishing even this quantity of 'Jews'." Other European countries had finished with the Jews "because of a more strenuous digestion"; in Germany, however, there were simply too many. Nietzsche demanded what all anti-Semites demanded at that time: "Allow no more Jews in! And, especially, close the gates to the east (including the one between Germany and Austria!"... For anti-Semitism itself, Nietzsche had complete understanding; he was simply - like "all careful and judicious people" - against the "dangerous extravagance" of this feeling, "especially against the tasteless and scandalous expression of this extravagant feeling". (By asking moderation in the expression of anti-Semitism, which he considers as principally justified, Nietzsche takes the same posltlon as the later Wagner and Wolzogen.) Nietzsche had a measured and tasteful manner of expressing this "feeling". And his solution to the problem was also mild: the Jews are to be bred in. They even desire it themselves, "to be in Europe, to be imbibed and absorbed". As for the "antiSemitic complainers", those who might hinder this gentle final solution with their radical words, Nietzsche wanted to have them expelled from the country. And then, he thought, one could - "with great care" and "with selectivity" - cross an intelligent Jewish woman with an "aristocratic officer from the Mark" (i.e., a Prussian aristocratic officer)... In this elevated, fine, tasteful, gentle anti-Semitism, a thematic communality between Wagner and Nietzsche reveals itself, one going deeper than any disagreement in other areas, whether personal, musical or religious.

How likely is it this data by prominent scholars I provided in good faith is going to be incorporated into the Nietzsche articles, considering Wikipedia's unbalanced, extreme pro-liberalistic, pro-Marxist atmosphere?!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.136.80.109 (talk • contribs • WHOIS)

I'd like to direct other users to the original post here.Non-vandal 06:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

from Kevin B. MacDonald:

Some white supremacists support MacDonald because of his opinions about Jews, but MacDonald denies having any affiliation or contact with extremist groups.

Yeah...he sounds great. — goethean ॐ 18:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I see the heavy sarcasm, Goethean, but I really don't think his opinion will benefit this article. Ever.Non-vandal 18:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see any reason for this to remain labeled NPOV. The poster above has essentially posted copyrighted content from other sources to justify an argument that boils down to "Nietzsche was a racist". I hereby suggest removal of the NPOV tag. -Interested2 21:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue. --Marinus 02:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a matter of honor to me to be absolutely clean and unequivocal regarding anti-Semitism, namely opposed, as I am in my writings. Source: Friedrich Nietzsche's Collected Letters, Vol. V, #479 How come he's so contradicting?--NoNo 02:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)f

The reason Nietzsche is allegedly self-contradicting is because we don't reflect very long on the term, anti-anti-Semitism, which we often regard immediately as 'pro-Jewish'. They are not the same. The anti-Semites in Nietzsche's day (as in later Germany) were boistrous and silly, with arguments fit for teenagers. No wonder Nietzsche didn't want to be associated with them. However, that doesn't mean that Nietzsche was 'pro-Jewish.' In his later writings (and before his Will to Power) Nietzsche accused the Jews of spawning Christianity, his idea of the Cosmic Disease, more or less deliberately. Nietzsche sustained that attack on Judaism for many years. The main problem with anti-Semites of his day, then, was they didn't attack the Jews from the proper angle. I've shown this since May in these discussions, using direct quotes from Nietzsche as well as numerous quotations from recent scholars. The editors of this article still decline to post Nietzsche's own clear words on this topic, and they're still debating whether to post a committee edited version of my observations. That is more evidence that emotion runs high on this controversial topic. Petrejo 17:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone claimed that N is "pro-Jewish"? — goethean ॐ 21:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Remember, Petrejo, your observations are irrelevant to the article, because you are not a notable Nietzsche scholar. -Smahoney 01:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, Smahoney -- I was responding directly to NoNo's question. However, now that you mention it, I supplied dozens and dozens of quotations from notable Nietzsche scholars many weeks ago, and I wrote a paragraph summarizing that, which was edited and re-edited into a 3rd draft by many editors now present. That 3rd draft simply sits there now, and finds no place in the Wikipedia article. After all that, I tried to post it a few weeks ago, and it was promptly erased. Please tell me what our Wikipedia guidelines recommend for a situation like that. Thanks. Petrejo 05:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

My view is that yes, there is scholarship on the view you espouse, but the majority view is not only different but also dismisses that view entirely. And "clear words" are hardly suitable to use when talking about the applications of Nietzsche's words. I also think your understanding of Nietzsche's views on Christianity are lacking (he was hardly a fan, that much isn't contested, but he did not indulge in the type of essentialist argument you are ascribing to him, where something becomes "evil" because its associated with Christianity). I also don't think much of the claim that the Jews "deliberately" created Christianity. --Marinus 12:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, Marinus, I'm disappointed that as a Wikipedia mediator you concluded this mediation case so quickly. I was waiting for your response, only to find a CLOSURE statement. I still believe that my efforts since May are in danger of being suppressed. Therefore, perhaps only by an appeal to the Jewish Defense League and similar organizations might I gain the necessary attention to this question about the extreme right-wing nature of Nietzsche's writings and the anti-Semitism within his anti-Christianity -- despite his anti-anti-Semitic sentiments here and there. The 'mild' reading of Nietzsche as offered by Kaufmann and this Wikipedia article may well be a danger for the Jewish community. I suppose that must be my next appeal. Finally, insofar as you're interested in Derrida's take on Nietzsche, I gather that you missed the following quotation. Petrejo 05:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Now, if...the only politics calling itself Nietzschean turned out to be a Nazi one, then this is necessarily significant...One can't falsify just anything.

— Jacques Derrida, The Ear of the Other, ibid, p. 47

I find this quotation you cite in your defense meaningless, that is, when for your defense. Firstly, it is an if-then statement - i.e., the political views that have called themselves "Nietzschean" have not proved solely to be Nazism in form - cases have been made for non-right-and-non-left wing contexts in which N could possibly be placed - but rather several political views have called themselves "Nietzschean". Secondly, it is revealing of your bias somehow to pigeonhole N's views as those advocating some right-wing premises - and it seems to reveal your lack of understanding of Derrida's statement more than anything else (even on a rhetorical level, and there is no doubt Derrida was aware of these matter-of-fact issues). These two reasons are most likely why your OR-&-POV-slanted quotation of Derrida was removed.Non-vandal 07:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's get some things strait hair. Any racism that you detect in Nietzsche must be seen in historical context. Many white Europeans of that day(including those enlightenment fundamentalists) had racist view points of some kind. Where talking about white supremacy in its full 19th century force. Nietzsche is no worse then the average European of his day and perhaps better then many(he did advocate racial mixing apparently). Trying to put privilage on Nietzsche's influence on Nazism(and I don't deny its there) is a canard done by many enlightenment fans who continue to deny THEIR PRIMARY ROLE as people like Horkheimer, Adorhno and Baumant have shown. Nazism grew out of the view points of Herber Spencer and those other logical positivists who were endentured within enlightenment discourse. I shouldn't have to remind people of the many thinkers left and right who were pro-eugenics back in the early 20th century. Enlightenment rationality is what gives you your nazism. The problem with Nietzsche is that he was on some level a capture of those view points. You can clearly note some similarities with him and Herber Spencer for example. As for anti-semitism, look, you can say that some things he said in the late 1800s were politically incorrect as well as stereotypical by todays standards even in a complementory sense(he thought Jews did control the strings in europe for example and gave them credit), he was hardly anti-semetic. I would say the main substance of what he says against Jewish culture is true. They are the 1st to put a major slave moralistic culture on the map. He does not say that this is indemic to their race, he simply notes a historical role they have played and calls it out. Ultimately your charge against Freddy fails to take note of the pravailing white supremacist views of the day which were entreched in enlightenment thought and still are. He's no worse then many others. Wolverine

article length proposal

The Nietzsche article is very long. I think that we should follow the example of the Kierkegaard, Philosophy of Søren Kierkegaard, and Theology of Søren Kierkegaard articles and break out N's thought from the biographical article. the biographical article would consist of:

Biography

1.1 Youth (1844–1869)

1.2 Professor at Basel (1869–1879)

1.3 Free philosopher (1879–1888)

1.4 Mental breakdown and death (1889–1900)

2 Nietzsche's thought

3 Nietzsche's influence and reception

3.1 History of political reception

4 Selected works

5 Notes

6 External links

6.1 Full texts

6.2 Other sources

The Nietzsche's thought or Nietzsche's philosophy article could merge all of the assorted articles that we have now into one large article:

1 Key concepts

1.1 Nihilism and God is dead

1.2 Master morality and slave morality

1.3 Christianity as an institution and Jesus

1.4 Amor fati and the eternal recurrence

1.5 Übermensch and Last Man

2 Place in contemporary ethical theory

3 Social and political views

Does anyone support this? — goethean ॐ 18:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• I do as I stated here. It's about time this article gets somewhere where it deserves.Non-vandal 18:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• To be consistent, it should be Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. If this is done, several articles should be merged into the new one, including Übermensch and the will to power, or at the very least these articles (which appear to have had some work on them recently! Yay!) should be reviewed for content and then merged if necessary. Additionally, for consistency, Nietzsche's social and political views should be renamed to Social and political views of Friedrich Nietzsche. But I support it, too. -Smahoney 18:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the Social and political views title.Non-vandal 18:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Yes! That seems like a good table of contents to work off of. Do we vote on this or something? -Bordello 00:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• One thing, though, if we are going to go ahead with that table, is I suggest putting "Übermensch and Last Man " sequentially after "Master morality and slave morality" for sake of chronology. -Bordello 02:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Chronologically in terms of N's thought, or....what? — goethean ॐ 18:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not absolutely sure, but I think it would be both in terms of his thought and simply following a more legible order. It seems Nietzsche presents most of his speculations and ideas as a cannon, anyway, so I thought it would be clearer to most for it to follow. What order should it be in? It would be almost impossible to trace back every train of thought to its origin in time, so it seems reasonable to follow the concept of Master-Slave Morality with the Overman. What do you think? -Bordello 02:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, it does seem like there might be a logical order to the doctrines. — goethean ॐ 14:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes please (that's a Yes vote). FranksValli 00:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Strongly supported.--Itafroma 12:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow flattered, you'd adopt my Kierkegaard divisions Poor Yorick 08:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Archive

I don't know how to archive a talk page, but it seems about time don't you think? -Bordello 15:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Darn right. archive 6 Poor Yorick 08:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Its long, but actually I'd say wait - the discussions were all active in July, which is pretty recent. -Smahoney 18:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. -Bordello 02:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Works

To provide a more succint (by expanding the article *sigh*) and informative main article, especially as we need to seriously devolve it, I've followed the example of the Michel Foucault page in particular and set out a "Works" section of the article, including very brief summaries of major works by Nietzsche, linking to the main article on the subject and sprinkled with links to more detailed discussions. Because at the moment we have a long and informative biography and a hyper-contentious section on interpretations of Nietzsche, and nothing else. If this is done well we can trim the rest of the article into a form where it is more than a biography - currently it offers nothing to someone who wants an overview of Nietzsche's philosophy (which is why people come to the page). My contribution is little more than a rewrite of the Nietzsche entry in the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy ( Wicks, Robert, "Friedrich Nietzsche", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2004 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2004/entries/nietzsche/> - the only reference in this article! ) and only covers the first two books. I'll leave a more rounded and complete rendition to my fellow editors and myself when I have more time and resources at hand. --Marinus 01:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm also using The Cambridge Companion to Nietzsche as a reference for this section, since it has a very helpful essay giving an overview of Nietzsche's works. Between this and the Stanford Enc. of Phil. entry I think this section has all the references it needs (two standard overviews of the field). --Marinus 03:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It's looking really good, Marinus, even if the article is stretched to its limits. You might want to consider tying in secondary sources for these summaries, like the ones you mention here.Non-vandal 04:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

My references are noted in the "References" section (which I edited to suit this - "Notes" now serves to cite the sources for quotes and specific claims). I'd rather avoid the citation-per-line style that I ended up using in "Nietzche's Views on Women" since I think it's distracting, ugly and restrictive. I've avoided specific claims, citing them as necessary, rather summarising my two sources (that are themselves summaries and, more importantly, highly encyclopaedic). We'll see how that goes. Hopefully after this is done I can uncontentiously rewrite the useless "Key Concepts" section, and (hope above hope) edit the problematic "Reception" section into near oblivion. Why we must have a role-call in an encyclopaedic article is beyond me. I intensely dislike the tendency to having full-blown attacks and appropriations without an actual description of the man's philosophy. --Marinus 05:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I've finished the entires for his major works. I'm thinking of putting in (miniscule) comments on the other two books of 1888, and I'll definitely need to say a few words about the Nachlass. Comments are welcome. --Marinus 03:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, now I really am finished with this section. --GoodIntentions^talk 07:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent work, GI. It looks truly superb.Non-vandal 07:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Mmm. Like it. Tiny fix needed: nachlass is a redirect to 'literary executor', which isn't appropriate here. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Squiddy. I did check the link when I wrote the section, and I thought that what Nachlass redirects to was amusingly appropriate considering just how troublesome the interpretation of Nietzsche's literary estate has been. An encyclopedic joke, if you will. --GoodIntentions^talk 04:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Mental Breakdown

This may surprise readers who became adults in the 1970s, but drugs such as chloral hydrate have harmful effects. It is very possible that Nietzsche's overuse of this substance led to his mental breakdown. As is the case with many drugs, their effect is trivialized. The destruction that they cause is usually attributed to another source.Lestrade 01:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Not all too surprising. Medical knowledge wasn't particularly great back then, and the understanding of effects of certain chemicals upon the body was still foundationally growing. Are there any scholarly sources that support this view? If so, it could be added to the article.Non-vandal 04:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

His sister proposed this theory for some time, but she was biased because she wanted to exclude hereditary causes (today it is consensus that their father died of a brain illness, but this does not hint to anything about Friedrich's illness) and syphilis (no consensus about this today). He certainly used chloral hydrate and other sedatives in the early 1880s and took many different and probably not very useful sorts of medication and drugs in his conscient lifetime (and of course was under medication, mostly sedativa, after the breakdown). Best scholarly source in my view is Pia Daniela Volz' Nietzsche im Labyrinth seiner Krankheit. One could name the drug hypothesis as a less probable, but discussed source in the paragraph about his breakdwon.--Chef aka Pangloss 16:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Although I wouldn't consider his sister a "scholarly source", a status you obviously do not grant her in your own statement, I find this to be interesting, but I'm not sure if it would be good, or comprehensive enough, for the article. Other comments might do well here, for instance, because the extent of these various medications upon N would easily be a contested (and more importantly, perhaps biased) view, having scant evidence in genuine scholarship itself even.Non-vandal 08:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

a too often overlooked possibility is a pathological type of kundalini awakening, which is consistent with his descriptions of his ecstasies prior and during the breakdown, as well his symptoms are very similar to the numerous cases of pathological kundalini studied by Meher Baba.

Early Retirement

Another influence that "Schopenhauer as Educator" may have had on Nietzsche was in his decision to leave teaching. Schopenhauer had abandoned his academic career and spent the remainder of his life as an independent scholar. How delicious that must have seemed to Nietzsche, whose early The Birth of Tragedy had effectively ruined his philological career. Nietzsche developed several non-verifiable ailments, such as headaches and stomach disorders. These provided a public justification for his departure from professorial life after having stayed long enough to earn a small pension.Lestrade 12:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

He also had immense trouble with his vision. If my memory is correct he was also discharged from the military for illness. --GoodIntentions^talk 12:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Poor vision would not have interfered with his teaching. Many successful teachers have poor vision. In the military, he had been injured by a horse. That injury naturally healed.Lestrade 12:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Philologers need to be able to read. I think your thesis is a little far-fetched - Basel's pension was a very generous one, more than he could rightfully have hoped for. --GoodIntentions^talk 13:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Philologists can read very well with the aid of eyeglasses. The generosity of Basle's pension was a strong motive to develop unverifiable illnesses and, as a result, become a free writer in the footsteps of Arthur Schopenhauer.Lestrade 13:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

I belive he was short-sighted actually, reading was'nt the problem, rather the cause. He had been advised to stop reading so much by one doctor (advice he didn't take), as it was making his short-sightedness worst.Itafroma 13:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Self-knowledge

How could Freud say that Nietzsche had more knowledge of himself than anyone else? Could Freud compare Nietzsche's knowledge with Nietzsche's self and then make the judgement that they corresponded? How could Freud know what other people, past, present, and future, know about themselves? Freud's statement reflects very poorly on his intelligence.Lestrade 18:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Nietzsche, following Schopenhauer, de-emphasised consciousness and took that to a new degree - his 'psychology' basically concerned what Freud would term the "Unconscious". In giving special attention to dreams, to conceiving of the Ego as a surface to the Unconscious and in a few other important insights Nietzsche was described by Freud as his "precursor". So Freud admired Nietzsche for his clarity of understanding and seeing through the fictions of psychology coming before him. This is all discussed in length by Paul-Laurent Assoun in Freud and Nietzsche --GoodIntentions^talk 12:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

IPA spelling

Just wanted to know wether the IPA spelling is correct. I'm learning German and I think it should be pronounced otherwise, I may be wrong, though

Machiavelli

Did Nietzsche comment much on Machiavelli? It would appear, if only on the surface, that the two thinkers have at least some common strains running through there works. 152.23.84.168 02:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I've read a lot (but not all) of Nietzsche's major works, and I don't remember any references to Machiavelli at all. Possibly this is because in M's most famous works, the Prince and the Discourses, the angle is more political science and the art of rule than Nietzsche's interest in political philosophy and ethics. I suppose the similarity is a low regard for modern ideas of (Christian) virtue in favour of a more Roman style virtu (much more like the modern word virile, with which it is cognate.) However, since the article is long anyway, I don't think this obsevation should go in as it is fairly marginal. (It's my own OR, anyway.) It is true that people interested in Nietzsche may also be interested in Machiavelli, for example Leo Strauss. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 12:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

According to the KSA index, there are only a few direct references to M in N's published work, in fact:

• MA I No. 224
• JGB No. 28 and
• GD, Was ich den Alten verdanke (What I owe to the ancients) No. 2

There are several other refernces in his Nachlaß. "Bismarck's Machiavellism" is mentioned in FW 357. N had read the principe as early as 1862. For works on M and N see [7] and [8].--Chef aka Pangloss 20:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

:::: Proposed Bibliography of Works on Nietzsche

Obviously, these are far too many works to put on the main page. I have only tried to put together a representative list of books that should be considered for the bibliography of books about Nietzsche. Since these books come from my own library they are mostly paperbacks and later editions. All the dates and publishing information only reflect the editions I happened to buy. There are several schools of Nietzsche interpretation (e.g., Anglo-American, Continental, Postmodern and 'Straussian') that I respect and have tried to include books from all these schools. But perhaps some of the above works seem idiosyncratic and thus need to be explained. The Foucault book contains two very important essays on Nietzsche: "Nietzsche, Freud, Marx" and "Nietzsche, Genealogy and History" that have been very influential. The Gaultier book, written around 1900, is key to seeing the connection between 'Nietzschefied' Neo-Kantianism and postmodernism. The Steiner book might be of interest to those that want to find an 'occult' or spiritual meaning to Nietzsche's work. The Lampert book, Leo Strauss and Nietzsche, contains the important essay by Strauss, "Note on the Plan of Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil," and thus would serve both as an example of Strauss and also the 'decoding' of his method. At some point Volume III of my Heidegger books 'grew legs' and walked away; I would be grateful if someone would supply the correct information for Volume 3. I include MacIntyre on this list because Nietzsche's position is a possibility that MacIntyre, in his 'trilogy', wishes to foreclose. If his books need to be cut I think it would be best to drop Whose Justice first and only then After Virtue. I would hope that his Rival Versions makes anyones final list. There is an emerging anglo-american Kantian interpretation of Nietzsche (Green, Hill, Small, e.g.) and I do hope some of these books make the final cut. I think Stambaugh's dissertation on time a classic that is often overlooked. Hopefully it too will make the list. Rosen's book on Heidegger references Nietzsche throughout but most especially in the second half of that book. Well, I could probably write a little something on several more books that might not be obvious choices but that is enough for now. Apologies for spelling, typos, etc. Pomonomo2003 23:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I put your list in a new article: List of works about Friedrich Nietzsche. — goethean ॐ 14:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)