Talk:Friedrich Nietzsche/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions about Friedrich Nietzsche. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

The implication of the suggestion that "months of silence" regarding my points constitute a consensus position opposed to my own contradicts the established procedure -- both inside and outside Wikipedia -- whereby "silence denotes assent".

The implication that I have pushed a single position does not correspond to my varied attempts to suggest acceptable alternative lead-sentences and paragraphs. The suggestion that an RfC demonstrates some consensus opposed to my edits appears at odds with the content and progress of that RfC.

The statement that I have 'edited this page to remove statements to the effect of "Nietzsche was a German"' misrepresents my frequently-stated view: that we can (and should) include in the article an account of Nietzsche's "German" background (but that labeling Nietzsche "a German philosopher" appears to lack the significance that highlighting it in the lead accords it).

The repeated labeling of my edits and discussions as a "campaign" detracts from the desirability of addressing the issues seriously and fully.

The claim that a consensus exists to highlight Nietzsche's Germanness in the lead of our article contradicts the lack of discussion on the Talk-page (the place for establishing consensus).

The idea that a silent cabal can establish consensus without dealing with opposing points or by implicitly dismissing such points as not "worthy of consideration" contradicts the collaborative nature of Wikipedia.

The claim that "we are not a debating club" might suggest a reluctance to address points of discussion and provided evidence, which would also abandon the spirit of Wikipedia for some sort of stultifying appeal to authority.

The reluctance to enter into debate about the issues might suggest a lack of evidence or of readiness to consider the facts..

The proposal to ignore the comments of a fellow-Wikipedian "until support ... is demonstrated" pre-judges a potential debate and flies in the face of the aim of achieving consensus by open discussion on the merits of an argument.

-- Pedant17 (talk) 03:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding solely the "months of silence" remark: I believe the point was that people voiced their disagreement, you continued to rehearse your argument, and everyone ignored you believing the situation had already been addressed. In such a case, silence seems to denote not assent but rather confidence in one's original response. I certainly would not want to be taken as having changed my position without expressly stating as much. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 14:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

People put forward their views, and I perceived that my own view seemed in a minority. So I elaborated and re-stated my view, meeting with very little reasoned opposition, only an unexplained tendency on the part of a couple of fellow-editors to revert my various attempts to find an acceptable form of words. People may very well have felt secure in their original responses, but a silence on the talk-page on such grounds remains indistingushable from the silence that suggests agreement or even disinterest. As the Wikipedia consensus policy puts it: "In essence, silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community." So the chances of others assuming a change of "position without [one] expressly stating as much" seem quite high. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Browsing in Blackburn, Simon. The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-211694-0. furnishes some instructive examples of labeling. Blackburn does not always shy away from the politically correct: Berkeley and Burke appear as "Irish", Wittgenstein as "Austrian" and Adam Smith as "Scottish".

Others where formal citizenship appears irrelevant include Socrates and John Wyclif. Many British-nationals appear as "English" (Russell, Ayer), but compare Bradley and Isiah Berlin. The Sorbian/Wendish/Lusatian origins of Leibniz do not get a mention.

Citizenship-nationality does not always come to the fore: Buber appears as "Jewish", Augustine of Hippo as "Christian", Avicenna as "Islamic", Freud as "Viennese" and Samuel Johnson as "American".

Philosophers who straddle various national labels don't necessarily miss out.: Rousseau gets the note "Born in Geneva", and Marcuse "born in Berlin". But Lenin appears as neither "Russian" nor "Soviet". Habermas and Arendt avoid the "German" label; Santayana appears neither as Spanish nor American. Benjamin Franklin remains nationalistically unclassified.

But most significantly, Friedrich Nietzsche and Karl Marx, the 19th-century stateless philosophers from Prussian territory, lack any nationalistic label.

Evidently, Blackburn does not have a strict policy or a definitive in-house guideline as to dealing with citizenship/nationality/ethnicity. But his practical approach provides us with significant clues as to how we can best characterize cases such as those of the stateless ex-Prussians Nietzsche and Marx.

-- Pedant17 (talk) 03:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The current version of the lead highlights the problem of using ambiguous set formulae. It reads "... Nietzsche ...was a nineteenth-century German philologist and philosopher." The implication that Nietzsche worked in the field of German philology misleads: he specialized in classical philology. The implication (per the Wikipedia Manual of Style for biographies) that Nietzsche carried out his significant work as a German citizen misleads even more: he gave up his citizenship (of Prussia -- not of Germany) in 1869: before he achieved notability in the 1870s and 1880s. We've not yet seen compelling evidence situating Nietzsche's philosophy firmly within any ongoing German-cultural strand of philosophical thought: the man appears sui generis. Accordingly I propose dropping the adjective "German" from the lead-sentence, thus removing much of the misleading ambiguity and allowing us to move on to concentrate on more substantive matters -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

We could have moved on to substantive matters a long time ago if you weren't so insistent upon this matter. Regardless, what do have to say about Nietzsche's references, even in his late work, to we Germans? Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 02:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

About as much as his declaring himself Polish. Taking Nietzsche out of context and literally has gotten quite a number of interpreters in trouble before, as I am sure you will appreciate. Skomorokh 02:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point, but I'm not entirely convinced. Insofar as he thought of himself as Polish, Nietzsche thought he was saying something true. Pedant17's points have been about Nietzsche's self-conception, and it seems to me that he thought of himself as being German in at least some sense, even if he rejected certain modern interpretations of Germanness in favor of his conception of the "Good European." I agree that this is a very complex issue, and I am certainly in favor of the section we have discussing it. Pedant17's efforts to remove "German" and replace it with "Prussian-born" strike me as no improvement, however. I could perhaps support removing a national label altogether, but I don't see why given the widespread consensus among other sources to call Nietzsche a German philosopher. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 03:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I consider Pedant17's version to be an appropriate response to the complexity of the issue, and I also recognise the consensus among editors and scholars to the contrary. It's unfathomable to me why people are so resistant to the notion that the nationality of an individual is not clear or of essential significance, but this has already been said before. Skomorokh 03:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

1. The concerns Pedant17 and Skomorokh have raised are interesting. Both have admitted, however, that their view is a minority point of view. For me, this issue boils down to sources. While I will grant that Pedant17 has found two sources that do not label Nietzsche as “German”, neither editor has produced any sources that make the argument the German label is too problematic to use. Wikipedia does not publish original research.

Not all editors write to the high standards of Wikipedia. Editors use their own judgment. So can we -- with the help of Wikipedia guidelines and in the light of the evident ambiguities of over-simplification. -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

2. There are numerous examples of Nietzsche being called German in biographical notes that also note his Prussian birth or stateless status. (See the Britannica and Stanford Encyclopedia articles, for example.) Nietzsche's inclusion in books like German Philosophy since Kant, The Kantianism of Hegel and Nietzsche: Renovation in 19th-Century German Philosophy, and German Philosophers: Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche demonstrate that in profession philosophy Nietzsche is classified as a member of the German Philosophical Tradition---hence, “a German Philosopher.” While there are sources that do not use the German label, they are in the minority. Until this trend changes, the “German philosopher” label should stay.

We have a case for calling Nietzsche a "German philosopher" and placing him loosely within some sort of (vaguely-defined) German philosophical tradition. Can we express that in the lead without causing confusion as to citizenship? -- I suspect not. Should we elaborate on the issues elsewhere? -- Certainly. -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

3.Let me note, however, that if someone can find a scholarly source that makes the case that we should not call Nietzsche German, my view my might change. (I have searched numerous journal archives, and I've not yet found an article making this argument.) Fixer1234 (talk) 07:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No such scholarly source would credibly make such a counterfactual claim; and the expectation (that it would prove the negative) demands the unreasonable. We can call Nietzsche (in certain senses) "German". But to do so in the lead would mislead and over-simplify the the issues, because in other senses we cannot or should not call Nietzsche "German". -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Insofar as Nietzsche's self-conception has relevance: of course he thought of himself as German in some sense -- and accurately so. But in other respects, as explained repeatedly, we cannot dismiss him as German tout court -- especially not in the lead paragraph. -- I by no means insist on inserting "Prussian-born" in the lead, and have offered proposed versions without using such phrasing. The problem of vagueness and misleadingness attaches to any simplistic labeling as "German philosopher" or as "a German philosopher". -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The phrase "We Germans" in Nietzsche's writing may refer, depending on context, to "the cultural/linguistic German-speaking community" or to "the German race/ethnicity". It cannot refer to "we fellow-holders of German citizenship". And the issue of German citizenship relates to the current debate as to the content of our article-lead, as per the recommendations of WP:MOSBIO. -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello everybody, I have requested a translation of the German article about the Nietzsche-Archiv. See Wikipedia:Translation/Nietzsche-Archiv. Help would be greatly appreciated.--Chef aka Pangloss 18:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

"This fact is supported by the number of highly attractive women who read this collection of his writings while drinking gourmet coffee in Barnes and Nobles book stores located around the United States."

This might be original research. I don't want to change it as yet because I don't know if there has already been debate, but I wanted to highlight it for regular editors of this page.--Tom Joudrey 00:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just decided to be bold and remove it, as well as the statement it claims to support concerning what is usually known by college professors who teach Nietzsche. I don't think anyone will object. RJC ^Talk 01:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha, this sounds funny. I wonder what the sentence before it was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.115.175 (talk) 19:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This one might be a little easier. Where is Nietzshe buried? Perhaps this information could be included in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.168.254.30 (talk) 10:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It is in the article and has been for quite a while, and not too hard to find, or is it?--Chef aka Pangloss 03:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The corruption of Nietzsche's philosophy in the Wikipedia articles by radical-left activists is insane. What better way to neutralize one's enemy than to appropriate, weaken, soften and distort him? The German Rudiger Safranski, at least, has the balls to speak the truth in a world gone mad with doctrinaire socialistic political correctness:

"According to Nietzsche, nature produces the weak and the strong, the advantaged and disadvantaged. There is no benevolent providence and no equitable distribution of chances to get ahead in life. Before this backdrop, morality can be defined as an attempt to even out the 'injustice' of nature and create counterbalances. The power of natural destinies needs to be broken. In Nietzsche's view, Christianity represented an absolutely brilliant attempt to accomplish this aim ... Nietzsche greatly admired the power of Christianity to set values, but he was not grateful to it, because its consideration for the weak and the morality of evening things out impeded the progress and development of a higher stage of mankind.

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 adamantly opposed all such movements. For him, the meaning of world history was not happiness and prosperity of the greatest possible number but individual manifestations of success in life. The culture of political and social democracy was a concern of the 'last people,' whom he disparaged. He threw overboard the state-sponsored ethics of the common welfare because he regarded such ethics as an impediment to the self-configuration of great individuals. If, however, the great personalities were to vanish, the only remaining significance of history would be lost in the process. By defending the residual significance of history, Nietzsche assailed democracy and declared what mattered was 'delaying the complete appeasement of the democratic herd-animal'(11,587; WP 125) ... Nietzsche opted against democratic life organized according to the principle of welfare. For him, a world of that sort would signal the triumph of the human herd animal...

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 justice, it is likely that Nietzsche would have accused us of feeble compromise, indecisiveness, and epitomizing the ominous 'blinking' of the 'last men.'" Safranski, Rudiger (trans. Shelley Frisch), Nietzsche: A Philosophical Biography, Norton, 2002, pp. 296-298. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.10.2 (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The quote sounds right. What's the "corruption" you're talking about? I suspect it might be nicer to attribute nicer motives to whoever is claiming something different. I'm sure there are some places in Nietzsche's writing which might push in a democratic or egalitarian direction. But among Nietzsche scholars, it's certainly much more common to emphasize Nietzsche's elitism and anti-democractic sentiments.

There is certainly the possibility of a subtler, less right-wing interpretation of Nietzsche's philosophy, where he speaks against authority and of morality as an outlet of the will to power, etc. This is by no means "corruption" of his philosophy. See for instance HH 43, where he criticises cruel people, 463 and 473 where he criticises totalitarianism and the "prostation of all citizens before the absolute state" (a viewpoint that the right commonly accept him as PROMOTING rather than criticising). Of course one must also recognise that these seem to be contradictory to other views he expresses, and that a more complex intepretation of concepts such as the will to power is required to make more sense of this strain of thought in his writing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.116.67 (talk) 12:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone with a medial background addressed or speculated on his original illness? From the section titled "Professor of Basel" the following quote from that section "moments of shortsightedness practically to the degree of blindness, migraine headaches, and violent stomach attacks." Not much to make a diagnosis from, but I'd be interested in any thoughts on what this might be, besides syphilis that is. 76.170.27.6 14:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

"Medial background"? Probably. "Medical background"? Certainly. Would you mind having a look for yourself, 6 or 7 sections above?--Chef aka Pangloss 22:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Then there's always the possibility that he was a malingerer. His illnesses were always of the type that showed no external signs. He wanted to get out of his position as professor of philology. He tried to wreck his own philology career by writing the idiosyncratic The Birth of Tragedy. After failing to switch careers in order to become a philosophy or biology professor, he might have succeeded in leaving philology by gaining a medical disability pension. The thought of being a philosopher with unlimited leisure, like Schopenhauer, appealed to him greatly because he desperately wanted every minute of his life to be his own. Faking illness is a common way to extricate oneself from a situation that is difficult to leave. There is always a possibility of trickery when the symptoms of an illness are subjective, internal, and not verifiable by objective observation. Lestrade (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Wikipedia is not interested in your original theories. Please stick to referenced material. - 66.93.200.101 (talk) 03:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I tried to improve this article, but I am afraid my English is again far from supreme. Could somebody check for errors and style? Thank you.--Chef aka Pangloss 14:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This article should not recieve a Wikiproject Lutheranism banner (based on the project's own rules) because the subject is not a Lutheran nor has made a significant contribution to Lutheranism. If there are questions, please see the project's talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackturner3 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I skimmed the article. I think it It appears to have been written by an undergraduate who took a few courses in philosophy. It is mediocre at best. It needs to be rewritten, and it needs new sections on N.'s appropriation by the Nazi's, his anti-democratic stance, his purported misogyny, the role of Kaufmann with respect to translation and rehabilitation, and his substantial influence on 20th century writers, intellectuals, philosophers, and cultural critics, among others.

estling_ken@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.36.238.145 (talk) 19:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I assume this issue has likely come up before; however, given the increased activity in editing both Nietzsche's influences and influenced I think the following question should be raised: What are we considering an influence of Nietzsche? He obviously was extremely well read and comments on a massive amount of people. Is every mere philosopher or thinker whom Nietzsche studied and critized to be considered someone he was influenced by? I think it should also be noted for editors of this main article, the article on Nietzsche's influence and receptions is quite weak. It lacks depth, proper citations, a strong opening paragraph, consistent structure, and many of the factors listed for a "good" article rating under the project philosophy. PhilipDSullivan 01:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

As to the recent deletion of Voltaire from his influences: Nietzsche has obviously read Voltaire taking the fact the he critisizes his work (one instance I am certain of is in the beginning of chapter 2 free spirit in beyond good and evil). Because much of what Nietzsche accomplishes throughout this writting is spring boarded from his critique of previous works it seems possible to view these works that he has read and felt worthy of response to to be considered works, subsequently writers, that influenced him. Obviously if we acknowledge all of these instances of response to a specefic work or writer the list of Nietzsche's influences will be considerably long. So, what is our criteria for an influence of Nietzsche? Should it be anyone he mentions in his writting plus books and articles known to be read, like those mentioned in the numerous biographical accounts and held within the library of his books. PhilipDSullivan 01:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Since I did the most recent clean-up to the influences/influenced sections of the infobox, I'll give my thoughts. I think that they should be trimmed far more than they currently are (I actually think they should be done away with altogether, but I lost that vote). In the course of that discussion and several alternative proposals (see Template talk:Infobox Philosopher), it was suggested that persons named as influences or influenced should be mentioned in the article. If a person did not exert a verifiable influence substantial enough to be mentioned, he shouldn't be listed in the infobox. The same goes for the category of "influenced." Voltaire was taken out simply because he wasn't mentioned in the article. On a related note, I don't think that he should be listed in the article simply to get him into the infobox. Given the current manner of doing things, Plato has to be listed in every philosopher's infobox, which makes his being listed meaningless. And a philosopher of Nietzsche's stature would require listing as "influenced" every subsequent thinker, no matter how mediocre or obscure, again defeating the purpose of naming anyone in particular. The compromise adopted — of listing only persons significant enough to warrant independently substantiated mention in the article — seems best. RJC ^Talk 05:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, for the link to the template talk. It does not seem like a final compromise was established in the long talk about influences. After considering all the arguements presented, I am personally for listing only those mentioned in the article. PhilipDSullivan 16:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I have been constantly re-re-re-editing the Nietzsche article to include Anton LaVey in the "influenced" section. LaVey is highly influenced by Nietzsche and so I think that it is deserved that he be included. After all, Wikipedia is about informing people, so regardless of whether or not LaVey is in the actual article or not, he is still influenced, and should therefore be included. User:In Tyler We Trusted ^Talk 22:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I have been constantly removing the reference to Anton LaVey, as have several other editors. LaVey is not a philosopher, and the infobox is supposed to track influences among philosophers. Given Nietzsche's breadth of influence, we certainly don't include every third-rate pop culture reference. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 22:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

My own opinion is that Anton LaVey is an insignificant example of a person who might have attempted to take advantage of Nietzsche's reputation as a highly controversial thinker in order to push forward his own public relations agenda. In order for him to be included here as a figure influenced by Nietzsche one would have to establish that:

1. LaVey's "thought" is notable in itself in terms of serious philosophical discussion; that

2. Nietzsche did influence LaVey, and

3. that his influence upon LaVey was notable, verifiable, and presented in a neutral fashion.

While I am willing to listen to any putative argument for influence, I should say that my own feeling is that the case for Nietzsche's influence on LaVey is nonexistent. LaVey (and subsequent actors in this "current", e.g. Michael Aquino of the "Temple of Set") has offered no indication that he actually understood Nietzsche's thought, so how could he have been influenced by it? I'm happy to consider any reputable study of LaVey's "philosophical" thought if such a thing exists. In the absence of any such reputable study one can only dismiss LaVey's theatrical attempts to manipulate the remnants of hysterical collective responses for his own ends as a species of base self-interest. Furthermore, LaVey himself has not yet, to my knowledge, been established as notable thinker in his own right. If LaVey's "thinking" is notable in its own right then we might ask how he was influenced by Nietzsche. Keep in mind that this does not mean "how you personally happen to think he was influenced by Nietzsche". Citations are necessary. Attempts to make mention of "black metal" or "death metal" bands supposedly "influenced" by Nietzsche have been consistently (and in my opinion justifiably) dismissed here. Neither LaVey nor the various angry head-bangers have done anything notable with Nietzsche's thought. Claiming him as an influence, or using a modification of a title of one of his books (or exploiting a phrase from his works) in naming a song is not sufficient grounds to include him as an influence here. While LaVey is an excellent example of how to scare housewives by shaving your head and growing a diabolical goatee, he is not, in my opinion, an individual worthy of mention in relation to Nietzsche. Lest you assume that I'm just arguing the party line, look at the trouble I went to in order to have Stirner mentioned. If you are willing to do the same work, and you are able to provide the same support for your argument, I'll listen to it.--Picatrix (talk) 01:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

LaVey may be ony a minor "philosopher" but a thinker and creater of a system of living non the less. If you wish to see more evidence of Nietzsche's influence on LaVey, then I would be happy to reference his though in the article more, along with other philosophers and thinkers. To RJC I say, the "third rate" comment is unnecessary. He is, I shall admit, a little known philosopher/thinker/author etc. however he remains an influence to many others around the globe. I don't speak from bias here, as I have problems with LaVey's though-system, however, I see, as do other commentators, a heavy mark of Nietzsche on Anton LaVey's work, and if on the LaVey article it can state Nietzsche as "influenced", then why on the Nietzsche article can it not state LaVey as "influences"? User:In Tyler We Trust (talk) 20:05, 01 August 2008 (UTC)

My point is that he is not a philosopher at all, nor is he one of those derivative thinkers who have had a significant impact on society. He simply doesn't fit the criteria for mention in an article on Nietzsche. The bare fact that he is "little-known" argues against his inclusion. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 21:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)