Talk:Friedrich Nietzsche/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 → Archive 18

Stirner, again...

I find it baffling that anyone, having read both Stirner and Nietzsche, could fail to note that, while there are significant differences in their thinking, the similarities are striking. But this is old news. Nor is it a revelation that others have noted and written about this very thing: Eduard von Hartmann, The Overbecks, and Lichtenberger. Further, Resa von Schirnhofer recounts the time Nietzsche's sister interrogated her regarding whether or not Nietzsche had ever mentioned Stirner. Why was his sister so interested in creating a paper trail insulating Nietzsche from any suggestions that he was influenced by Stirner? Or rather, why has nothing about Stirner made it into this article despite the fact that the issue has been raised more than once in the discussion pages?

Citations are available and have been posted in the Stirner article. The basis for several of these citations are accounts by people who knew Nietzsche, two of whom very likely knew him as well as anyone did. I hope readers will note that I am not relying upon the Laska article. For this reason I propose that the following sentence be added to the end of the 'Nietzsche's reading' section:

"It is also possible that Nietzsche read Max Stirner, whose main work The Ego and its Own, introduces a philosophical stance of radical individualism in the face of dogmatic presuppositions, fixed standpoints and intellectual abstraction. If this is true it suggests the possibility that the notable (and noted) similarities in the ideas of the two men may be the result of the influence of Stirner's ideas upon Nietzsche's thought."

cited as follows:

"This viewpoint is controversial because of the lack of any positive statement regarding Stirner in Nietzsche's writings. However, some studies of Nietzsche's thought have noted a number of similarities in the ideas of the two men, and reports by two contemporaries who knew Nietzsche well indicate their claim that he told them he felt a great affinity for Stirner . For further details see Possible Influence on Nietzsche in the article Max Stirner.

I'm happy to discuss shades of meaning and phrasing for the fine wranglers of sense out there who would like to prune or polish. I'm also happy to hear suggestions if anyone thinks my citation strategy is doltish. But this issue does need to be revisited. I hope everyone will note that I am, in good faith, raising the issue on the talk page before making any edits out of respect for the group that has been working here on this material. --Picatrix (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

For this edit to stand you need to bring forth some reliable third party publication sources (per WP:OR) to counter the vast academic literature which either makes no mention of Stirner in connection with Nietzsche or discounts it altogether. I don't want to enter into a debate about the contention. Only it's certifiability. My single concern is the degradation to the quality of this article associated with the inclusion of speculation. Regards, Alcmaeonid (talk) 00:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


Thank you for your thoroughness in attempting to maintain the quality of this article (and others). I will post again here the information I have already provided on the Stirner talk page.

1. The idea that Nietzsche was influenced by Stirner is notable. It is clear that this idea has struck many "laypersons" and academics in the past and they have published this idea, sometimes to defend or assert it, sometimes to attack it as groundless. Regardless, this establishes, ipso facto, that the debate on the possible relationship between Stirner's thought and Nietzsche's is notable, and is a historical fact. It has been noted and a significant trail of citations for this idea can be established.

2. Asserting both this theory and the debate surrounding it is not original research. Many citations can be established. I have noted some of them below.

3. The existence of this theory is verifiable. Again, through existing citations.

This means that if the existence of this theory is mentioned with a carefully maintained neutral point of view then I am aware of no reason why it cannot be included on the page.

In addition to the citations already provided (von Hartmann, Lichtenberger, F. Overbeck, I. Overbeck, and Laska) there exists:

Albert Levy, Stirner and Nietzsche, Paris, 1904 - This entire book is a discussion of the relationship between Stirner and suggests the possibility of the influence of the one upon the other.

Robert Schellwein, Max Stirner und Friedrich Nietzsche, 1892 - as above, an entire book devoted to the relationship between the two thinkers that suggests the possibility of the influence of the one upon the other.

Two complete books devoted to this theory are certainly enough. If more citations are necessary:

Karl Löwith: "Stirner has often been compared with Nietzsche, to the point of asserting that Stirner was the 'intellectual arsenal' from which Nietzsche derived his weapons" K. Löwith, From Hegel To Nietzsche New York, 1964, p187

Lawrence Stepelevich: Stepelevich provides the Löwith citation above and adds "indeed, they have much in common". L. S. Stepelevich, "The Revival of Max Stirner", in Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 35, No. 2, Apr. - Jun., 1974, pp. 323-328

Paul Ilie: "A number of Spaniards accurately located in Max Stirner's Der Einzige und sein Eigentum an inspirational wellspring for Nietzsche." P. Ilie, "Nietzsche in Spain: 1890-1910", in PMLA, Vol. 79, No. 1, Mar., 1964, pp. 80-96 - He cites in this regard E. Gonzalez Blanco, indicating that Blanco traces Nietzsche's dependence upon Stirner and links them as "la ultima y singular expresion de las doctrinas antirreligiosas, antimorales y antisociales, propias de epocas de decadencia, de desagregacion" Neustro Tiempo; IV 1904, 286

R.A. Nicholls: He believes that Stirner's work has "no parallel" in the work of Nietzsche, however, he rightly notes that when Nietzsche first rose to fame towards the end of the 19th century a "great debate" arose as to whether or not Nietzsche had read Stirner. He cites, in this regard, some of those who believed Nietzsche owed a debt of influence to Stirner. For example Ola Hansson's essay on Stirner in Seher und Deuter, Berlin, 1894. R.A. Nicholls, "Beginnings of the Nietzsche Vogue in Germany", in Modern Philology, Vol. 56, No. 1, Aug., 1958, pp. 24-37

Thomas H. Brobjer: "Apart from the information which can be gained from the annotations, the library (and the books Nietzsche read) shows us the extent, and the bias, of Nietzsche's knowledge of many fields, such as evolution and cosmology. Still more obvious, the library shows us the extent and the bias of Nietzsche's knowledge about many persons to whom he so often refers with ad hominem statements in his published works. This includes not only such important figures a Mill, Kant, and Pascal but also such minor ones (for Nietzsche) as Max Stirner and William James who are both discussed in books Nietzsche read." T. H. Brobjer, "Nietzsche's Reading and Private Library", 1885-1889, in Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 58, No. 4, Oct., 1997, pp. 663-693

Christopher E. Forth: mentions the fact that Nietzsche and Stirner were closely associated by French "literary anarchists", so much so that Jean Grave, one of their number, faced with the growing number of anarchists who associated themselves with a Nietzschean anarchism was forced to issue a statement saying that "without a doubt, well before the bourgeois litteratures had discovered Nietzsche and Stirner, several anarchists had found that the 'Individual' had only to consider his own 'self,' his own comfort, and his own development." He went on to question the commitment of those writers who, because they could recite by heart a few passages of Nietzsche or Stirner fashionably called themselves anarchists."

He adds "Few writers in the 1890s, except in rare instances, wrote extensively on the role of Nietzsche in anarchism. Yet the association of Nietzsche with the movement is made clear by observers. C. E. Forth, "Nietzsche, Decadence, and Regeneration in France, 1891-95", in Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 54, No. 1, Jan., 1993, pp. 97-117

I mention Forth's work because it sheds light on a little known chapter in the history of Nietzsche's influence, and one that deserves careful consideration. 19th century association of Stirner with Nietzsche within anarchist circles in (at least) France and the United States is a subject that deserves attention.

Thomas A. Riley: "Various authoritative sources assert that Mackay was the "discover" of Max Stirner, whose one important work was forgotten by all average readers soon after its appearance in 1845. Not until the nineties did Mackay and other Germans become aware again of this precursor of Nietzsche. Mackay is, however, not so much the discoverer as the popularizer of Stirner, who was well known earlier to Nietzsche in Germany and to a group of American radical individualists who were active in Boston and New York during the eighties." T. A. Riley, "Anti-Statism in German Literature, as Exemplified by the Work of John Henry Mackay", in PMLA, Vol. 62, No. 3, Sep., 1947, pp. 828-843

Oscar Ewald: This author believes that one should be careful in comparing the two authors. However, he notes: "It is this intensive nuance of individualism that appeared to point from Nietzsche to Max Stirner, the author of the remarkable work Der Einzige und sein Eigentum. Stirner's influence in modern Germany has assumed astonishing proportions, and moves in general parallel with that of Nietzsche. The two thinkers are regarded as exponents of essentially the same philosophy." O. Ewald, "German Philosophy in 1907", in The Philosophical Review, Vol. 17, No. 4, Jul., 1908, pp. 400-426

Is there anything else that you would like me to provide for you? I did not include all of these citations in the note because they would swamp that section of the article. --Picatrix (talk) 02:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I should also add the following citation:

Seth Taylor: "Denying validity to all political movements, The Ego and his Own fell into obscurity after 1848, and remained so during the years in which the Bismarckian state took form. Only towards the end of the nineteenth century did a Stirner renaissance take place, in part because of the growing fame of Nietzsche. Their philosophies were constantly compared and everywhere it was asked if Nietzsche had not perhaps read Stirner and withheld the information to protect his own claim to originality. Eduard von Hartmann, whose book The Philosophy of the Unconscious had been attacked by Nietzsche in the latter's second Untimely Meditation, claimed in 1891 that Nietzsche must have been aware of Stirner since Stirner was treated in the very book by Hartmann which Nietzsche attacked. In 1904, a french Scholar demonstrated that Nietzsche's favorite student at Basel, Adolf Baumgartner, had borrowed Stirner's Der Einzige from the university library, while in 1906 Nietzsche's closest friend Franz Overbeck was to recollect that Baumgartner had borrowed the book on Nietzsche's recommendation. Anselm Ruest also joined the fray with his own biography of Stirner, published in 1906. After reviewing the controversy, Ruest concluded that Nietzsche had read Stirner but withheld mention of him in his writings because he feared that while it was 'a positive philosophy which yearned for life,' it was apt to be 'misused by many readers as a justification of petty crimes and cowardly misdeeds.' Seth Taylor, Left Wing Nietzscheans, The Politics of German Expressionism 1910-1920, p144, 1990, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/New York

It seems that the body of research on this subject is not insignificant, trivial or easily dismissed. In fact, the question of an influence on Nietzsche by Stirner appears to be something of a commonplace in the literature. The question emerged no later than the 1890s and continues to be discussed today. If I am to assume good faith on the part of all the people who shrug off, snub and scrub any suggestion of a relationship when others attempt to mention this theme in the article then the only explanation I can find for their behavior is ignorance. A simple web search or a query in JSTOR turns up an abundance of references to this debate. What I find most disturbing about this knee-jerk emotional response on the part of some editors is that it comes in response to the inclusion of a tiny mention of the subject. As I hinted before this behavior is eerily similar to that exhibited by Nietzsche's sister. And we all know that she was a neutral scholar of high standing whose claims on behalf of her brother, whose textual reconstructions, and whose understanding of the finer points his philosophy are entirely above reproach. --Picatrix (talk) 04:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


Another citation:

Gilles Deleuze & Hugh Tomlinson: "We have every reason to suppose that Nietzsche had a profound knowledge of the Hegelian movement, from Hegel to Stirner himself. The philosophical learning of an author is not assessed by the number of quotations, nor by the always fanciful and conjectural check lists of libraries, but by the apologetic or polemical directions of his work itself. We will misunderstand the whole of Nietzsche's work if we do not see 'against whom' its principal concepts are directed. Hegelian themes are present in this work as the enemy against which it fights. Nietzsche never stops attacking the theological and Christian character of German philosophy (the 'Tubingen seminary') - the powerlessness of this philosophy to extricate itself from the nihilistic perspective (Hegel's negative nihilism, Feuerbach's reactive nihilism, Stirner's extreme nihilism) - the incapacity of this philosophy to end in anything but the ego, man or phantasms of the human (the Nietzschean overman against the dialectic) - the mystifying character of so-called dialectical transformations (transvaluation against reappropriation and abstract permutations). It is clear that Stirner plays the revelatory role in all this. It is he who pushes the dialectic to its final consequences, showing what its motor and end results are. But precisely because Stirner still sees things like a dialectician, because he does not extricate himself from the categories of property, alienation and its suppression, he throws himself into the nothingness which he hollows out beneath the steps of the dialectic. He makes use of the question 'which one?' but only in order to dissolve the dialectic in the nothingness of the ego. He is incapable of posing this question in anything but the human perspective, under any conditions but those of nihilism. He cannot let this question develop for itself or pose it in another element which would give it an affirmative response. He lacks a method, a typological method which would correspond to the question.

"Nietzsche's positive task is twofold: the Overman and Transvaluation. Not 'who is man?' but 'who overcomes man?' 'The most cautious peoples ask today: "How may man still be preserved?" Zarathustra, however, asks as the sole and first one to do so: "How shall man be overcome?" The overman lies close to my heart, he is my paramount and sole concern - and not man: not the nearest, not the poorest, not the most suffering, not the best' (Z IV 'Of the Higher Man', 3, p297) - the allusion to Stirner is obvious)."

Nietzsche and Philosophy, Gilles Deleuze, Hugh Tomlinson, (translated by Hugh Tomlinson), 2006, pp153-154 --Picatrix (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


And another two citations (I could do this all day):

Michael H. Levenson: "Though the Stirnerians inclined to dismiss Nietzsche's work as derivative and popularized, it should be plain that the Nietzschean vogue helped to animate these anti-humanitarian, anti-democratic, anti-metaphysical tendencies. In an essay published in the New Age, Remy de Gourmont made the Nietzsche-Strirner connection explicit:

We have learnt from Nietzsche to pull down the old metaphysical structures built upon a basis of abstraction. All the ancient corner-stones are crumbled to dust, and the whole house has become a ruin. What is liberty? A mere word. No more morality, then, save aesthetic or social morality: no absolute system of morals but as many separate systems as there are individual intellects. What is truth? Nothing but what appears true to us, what suits our logic. As Stirner said, there is my truth - and yours, my brother.'"

Michael H. Levenson, A Genealogy of Modernism - A Study of English Literary Doctrine, 1908-1922, p67, Cambridge, 1984

and

H.L. Mencken: [regarding Nietzsche] "Of his debt to Max Stirner, the evidence is less clear, but it has been frequently alleged, and, as Dr. Mügge says, "quite a literature has grown up around the question." Stirner's chief work, Der Einzige und sein Eigentung, was first published in 1844, the year of Nietzsche's birth, and in its strong plea for the emancipation of the individual there are many ideas and even phrases that were later voiced by Nietzsche. Dr. Mügge quotes a few of them: "What is good and what is evil? I myself am my own rule, and I am neither good nor evil. Neither word means anything to me... Between the two vicissitudes of victory and defeat swings the fate of the struggle - master or slave!... Egoism, not love, must decide." Others will greet the reader of Stirner's book: "As long as you believe in the truth, you do not believe in yourself; you are a servant, a religious man. You alone are the truth... Whether what I think and do is Christian, what do I care? Whether it is human, liberal, humane, whether unhuman, illiberal, unhumane, what do I ask about that? If only it accomplishes what I want, if only I satisfy myself in it, then overlay it with predicates if you will: it is all one to me..." But, as Dr. J.L. walker well says, in his introduction to Mr. Byington's English translation, there is a considerable gulf between Stirner and Nietzsche, even here. The former's plea is for absolute liberty for all men, great and small. The latter is for liberty only in the highest castes: the chandala he would keep in chains. Therefore, if Nietzsche actually got anything from Stirner, it certainly did not enter unchanged into the ultimate structure of his system." H.L. Mencken, The Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche, pp 155-156, reprinted by See Sharp Press, 2003 --Picatrix (talk) 14:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

additional citations:

Robert C. Solomon & Kathleen Marie Higgins: "Commentators have often linked Stirner with Nietzsche in respect of both style and content, though there is not evidence that Nietzsche ever read him." R. C. Solomon & K. M. Higgins, The Age of German Idealism, p300, Routledge, 1993

Robert A. Samek: "We do not even know for sure that Nietzsche had read Stirner. Yet, the similarities are too striking to be explained away." R. A. Samek, The Meta Phenomenon, p70, New York, 1981

Tom Goyens: [referring to Stirner's book The Ego and His Own] "The book influenced Friedrich Nietzsche, and even Marx and Engels devoted some attention to it." T. Goyens, Beer and Revolution: The German Anarchist Movement In New York City, p197, Illinois, 2007


I'd like to ask a couple of things from you before we have this discussion.
  1. Please remove the above text and substitute a link for it. As you say, it is a duplicate of info you posted at the Stirner talk page and is relevant there and of minor importance here. And out of courtesy to the other editors who work here who feel another long exposition of this topic is not warranted.
  2. Please read the following guidance: WP:SYN before we continue. I feel that, as demonstrated above, what you are engaged in is a synthesis of a lot of various & mixed sources who never actually declare or prove any influence. Without that, all we have are mere speculation and allegation which have no place in an encyclopedia. On a talk page maybe, but not in an article proper.
  3. Respect the fact that I do not have the time or inclination to engage in Nietzsche/Stirner research or verification. I would ask that you keep your replies short, limited to recent, reliable third party citations (for this see: SYN#Reliable_sources) (people like Von Hartmann & the Overbecks are not third party.) Also see the guidance: "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." which is expanded here.
I also would like to know if I am the only one who holds these opinions. If I am a lone voice I will step back.
Thanks ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Alcmaeonid, thank you for your reply. If you are concerned about the duplication then I will be happy to remove the material from the Stirner page. However this belongs here, as I don't want to have to go through this process again. If you had bothered to read what I had written you would see that the material is not a synthesis. It is not intended to prove or establish any influence. It is intended to prove or establish the long standing existence of the theory and the debate surrounding it as well as its notability. I cannot think of anything more direct than Deleuze's statement "We have every reason to suppose that Nietzsche had a profound knowledge of the Hegelian movement, from Hegel to Stirner himself." If you don't like what he wrote or the citation (or the others) I'm afraid I cannot help you there. Please respect the fact that you asked for citations and I have spent two days of steady work putting them together for you, and you have not bothered to read them. For someone who claimed at first that you were not concerned with proving the theory, only with citations attesting it this is a rather abrupt about face. Having had citations provided by me establishing that the idea is not speculation you now assert it is the view of a tiny minority (when I provided some 20 references). And further, you now call for others to come so that you can play the "consensus" card as editors here have done before. Rather than spend any more of my time providing references for someone who specifically requests them and then says he or she does not have time to read them, I suggest that we move to some informal mediation or dispute resolution as necessary. --Picatrix (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a bit too soon to start talking about dispute resolution processes, especially given the content of Alcmaeonid's remarks. I will also say that I am somewhat skeptical of a link between Stirner and Nietzsche, and I can't recall running across this hypothesis in anything I've read. I'm also sympathetic to Alcmaeonid's comment about the length of the above post; I stopped reading once I realized that not all of the sources mentioned are directly on point and begin to look like the foundation of an argument rather than evidence for the existence of one among the scholarly community. Some of the sources do directly suggest a link, but if this hasn't been an issue in the scholarship since 1904, I am reluctant to include it. There may be other sources in the above essay that show this debate to be alive and well, and the addition of a sentence or two, as has been done, is certainly the right way to go about noting it in the article, but we really can't be expected to read all of that, sifting gems from speculation and synthesis. RJC Talk Contribs 22:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


RJC, Thank you for your reply. I also thank you for sharing your opinion, but please do not be sarcastic (the above is not an essay but a collation of citations - your suggestion that I am tedious is not appreciated). [comment removed because it is unproductive and hypocritical, as I was myself sarcastic above. My apologies --Picatrix (talk) 12:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)] I would like to stay on point from now on, however. I have provided a number of citations. Some have been placed in the article, some were placed here as additional support. The more lengthy notes above all show in one way or another that: the two men were closely associated since the 1890s AND/OR THAT the question of their relationship was a subject of regular and notable published discussion in reputable publications (and received at least two book length treatments which asserted influence) AND/OR THAT there are proponents of one side of the debate, or the other, in countries as diverse as the United States, Spain, Germany and France. The citations are dated as follows (organized sequentially for your viewing pleasure):

  • 1892: a book devoted to examining whether S. influenced N.
  • 1894: an article discussing the influence of S. upon N.
  • 1904: a book devoted to examining whether S. influenced N.
  • 1904: a Spanish article affirming that it is likely that S. influenced N.
  • 1908: an article asserting the two were seen as exponents of the same philosophy
  • 1947: an article asserting that Stirner was "well known" to Nietzsche
  • 1958: an article noting that there was "great debate" on this question
  • 1964: a book noting the frequency with which the S-infl-N question is raised
  • 1964: an article noting that Spaniards raised and published the same question, also asserting influence of S. on N.
  • 1974: an article noting the frequency with which the N. question is raised
  • 1981: a book noting the similarities between the two authors is too striking to be "explained away"
  • 1984: an article citing the point of view that N. derived from and popularized S.
  • 1990: an article summarizing evidence and conclusions that S. influenced N.
  • 1993: an article noting popular association between N. and S. in 19th cen. France
  • 1993: a book noting commentators often link the two based on style and content
  • 1997: an article asserting that N. had read about Stirner
  • 2003: an book noting that "quite a literature has grown up around this question"
  • 2006: a book in which it is asserted: that Stirner played the revelatory role for Nietzsche in the latter's attack on Hegelian nihilism by showing the ultimate nihilistic consequences arrived at in Stirner's dissolving of dialectic in the nothingness of the ego. This led Nietzsche to pose the twofold central question of his work (the Overman and Transvaluation): "Not 'who is man?' but 'who overcomes man?'. Here Deleuze suggests that Nietzsche's central project was the formulation of a new question (a new valuation) as a consequence of his recognition in Stirner of the ultimate nihilistic consequences of Stirner's position (which was itself a paradoxical, though inevitable culmination of Hegelianism).
  • 2007: a book in which it is asserted that Nietzsche was influenced by Stirner

This yields:

  • (2) citations (books devoted entirely to the question)
  • (1) citation indicating striking similarities cannot be "explained away"
  • (1) citation discussing popular non-literary association of the two by anarchists
  • (1) citation asserting they were seen as exponents of the same philosophy
  • (3) citations asserting that S. influenced N.
  • (2) citations asserting that N. knew S.'s work
  • (2) citations summarizing various views about how S. influenced N.
  • (6) citations asserting debate surrounding this question
  • (1) citation asserting that S. influenced N. and explaining how

These are intended to support the assertion that there has long been a question of influence and that debate surrounding this question is historically attested. Of course there are the other three or four citations used in the article text inside the Stirner article as well (primary sources are nowhere forbidden in Wikipedia, provided the arguments to which they relate are established. In any case not all of the earlier references are primary, e.g. von Hartmann and Laska). I am aware of no guideline or policy that states citations must be recent. If one exists can you please direct me to it? It would seem rather counter-productive not to be able to cite older references if one's purpose is to establish the historical continuity of a published theory across a period of time up to the present, no?

Once more, in summary:

Statement:

"It is also possible that he read and was significantly influenced by Max Stirner. However, this theory has a long and controversial history and, while such influence cannot be ruled out, it appears impossible to conclusively establish."

a. This question is frequently attested in academic books and journals

b. This question has been answered with both affirmation and denial and constitutes a debate

c. There is also historical evidence of superficial popular associations showing this is not solely an academic question

d. This question has been addressed intermittently from the 1890s to the present

I make no attempt to answer the question, I note its historical existence and the difficulty in conclusively establishing an answer.

Repeating a particular statement made by Deleuze (for those who find themselves unable to read the references above):

"We have every reason to suppose that Nietzsche had a profound knowledge of the Hegelian movement, from Hegel to Stirner himself. The philosophical learning of an author is not assessed by the number of quotations, nor by the always fanciful and conjectural check lists of libraries, but by the apologetic or polemical directions of his work itself. We will misunderstand the whole of Nietzsche's work if we do not see 'against whom' its principal concepts are directed."

In-Article References are a much reduced version of this list designed to provide the minimum support necessary to conclusively establish the point based on considerations of space. --Picatrix (talk) 00:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

My lord where do I begin? With all due respect Picatrix I have to say that your approach seems to be one of intimidation via snowing the respondant with reams of information hoping he will not have the time or energy to sift through it all to marshall up his answers.
So I will hang my hat on the following two arguments:

1. Fringe Theory. As per the guidelines, Fringe Theories are "ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study." I maintain that your assertion falls within these parameters,. Taking your long list of citations and pruning them for the more recent (yes, chronology is important in the sense that old material rapidly becomes outdated by more recent research, as per: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Scholarship) and relevant, I come up with 9 citations since 1980. I consider this approach generous considering the extent of proliferation in recent Nietzsche scholarship and literature. Counterbalance that with the tens of thousands of books and articles in that same time period which make no mention of it at all (as irrelevant.) The scales are weighted heavily in favor of this being classified as a Fringe Theory and distinctly a tiny minority view.

2. Undue Weight. Including your edit, I maintain, would violate this NPOV rule: "to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute." One of my own personal wishes is that Wikipedia will one day attain a level of quality that would merit teachers encouraging students to use it for study. Hell, they already use it but have to hide that fact due to the poor reputation so far garnered by the encyclopedia. Giving undue weight to special-interest items like this, I maintain, contributes significantly to the problem.

As an aside, the reason I asked for others' opinions on the matter was not to signal a pile-on, only to gauge where the community of editors were falling on the issue. I respect your passion for the subject and see that you are devoting a significant amount of energy to it. As per the "Undue Weight" guidance, you could take the material above and write a separate article completely devoted to the subject. Perhaps you should write a book. Perhaps someday it could be cited in this article. But as things stand today, the Nietzsche article should not contain any reference to Stirner.
Respectfully, Alcmaeonid (talk) 15:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Alcmaeonid, I thank you for your remarks. I apologize for what you feel is a "snowing". If you really feel so strongly that Wikipedia should reach a quality standard allowing teachers to recommend it to their students then perhaps consider the importance of keeping old questions and minority views alive, in the hopes that one day a scholar will come along to conclusively address them. Copernicus comes to mind as holding a controversial minority view that was subsequently of some significance. While I will grant you that the assertion of direct and significant influence upon Nietzsche by Stirner is a minority view (not a fringe theory), the recognition of the debate is not limited to a minority. If you think two sentences in a subsection of the article, far from the key issues it covers, asserted with a neutral point of view (and containing the clear caveat that this idea is controversial and hasn't been conclusively decided) constitutes undue weight then I suggest you consider zeroing your scales. I cannot see how you can continue to think that the introduction of this subject is of no value. Whether correct or incorrect, the debate surrounding this theory is a clear indicator of the importance of the issue. Rather than offer students a picture of academic questions frozen in the rictus of consensus and hide-bound with secondary opinions, I suggest they might appreciate introductory articles that offer them a taste of the puzzles that remain to be solved and the questions that still need to be conclusively answered.

Finally, in keeping with your suggestion, I may well hazard a separate article on the subject. But given the fact that people have tried on several occasions to raise this issue here, and have been hounded away, I don't know that I have the energy to fight for a link to that article to be included here. I simply added two sentences mentioning possibility and debate and I'm "snowing", I'm "speculating", I'm writing essays, I have a "fringe theory" given "undue weight". Thankfully however, you don't have to approve of, or agree with my addition for it to be included. I simply need to show that it is notable, verifiable, not original research, and presented as a neutral point of view. Thank you again. With respect. --Picatrix (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

But I do agree. The issue should be included in the encyclopedia, our disagreement coming down to as where. I claim that a separate article is the place as per the Wikipedia rules and guidance mentioned above. It is inappropriate in this article.
Hence I propose this compromise:
  1. You delete your recent entry here,
  2. create a separate article devoted to the subject
and I will support your inclusion of a link to that article here under "See Also". That, in my opinion, is due weight and I think it likely this approach would gain acceptance with the others who edit here. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Relocated:
Thomas J. Brobjer, a Swedish Nietzsche scholar of international reputation, wrote an article in J. Nietzsche Studies 25 (2003), 109-114 titled A possible solution to the Stirner-Nietzsche-Question, beginning: "Nietzsche's possible reading, knowledge, and plagiarism of Max Stirner's The Ego and its Own has been a contentious question and frequently discussed for more than a century now." [emph. added] The article starts as a response to an earlier article by John Glassford in the same journal, fall 1999, 73-79, who stated a ”staggering similarity" between Stirner and Nietzsche. This and the listings by Picatrix above should be enough, even for those who never have heard from it, to believe that a Stirner-Nietzsche-Question exists among Nietzsche scholars. — Concurrently to Brobjer's account Bernd A. Laska published an elaborated article on that question (Germanic Notes and Reviews, vol. 33, n. 2, fall/Herbst 2002, pp. 109-133), and brought forward a biographical fact he had unearthed: that young Nietzsche when he met the father of his friend Hermann Mushacke in October 1965 in Berlin, he met an old companion of Stirner's from Vormärz times. While this, of course, also is no evidence that Nietzsche had an encounter with Stirner's ideas at this occasion, it is quite plausible, according to Laska's explanations. Anyway, however this incident is interpreted, everyone who wants to have an informed opinion on that matter should take cognizance of the treatises mentioned. Laska's article, Nietzsches initiale Krise should preferably be read in its German version (http://www.lsr-projekt.de/nietzsche.html), since the English version (http://www.lsr-projekt.de/poly/ennietzsche.html) seems to be a very rough translation.
--Nescio* (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
and amended:
I agree with Alcmaeonid's idea of authoring a separate article about the long history of the Stirner-Nietzsche-Question, but nevertheless it should be mentioned at the proper place in this article with two or three sentences and a link to the future article. A "See also" mentioning would be appropriate for a matter like My Sister and I, not for this issue, which notwithstanding its waterproof evidence was important enough a question to be discussed again and again by serious Nietzsche and Stirner scholars. --Nescio* (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both for the input. If I didn't feel like this was simply another version of "take this issue elsewhere" I would be much more enthusiastic. The most disconcerting thing about Alcmaeonid's most recent post is that in suggesting that this subject does belong in the encyclopedia, only not here in this article, the assumption is that this subject does appear in the article. In fact it does not. A collection of citations appears in the talk page, and two (short and neutral) sentences in the article. If there were a separate article, any text linking to it from this one would have to be at least as long as what is here in order to provide context. Perhaps I don't understand what Alcmaeonid is suggesting? If the theory of influence deserves an entire article (in Alcmaeonid's estimation) then certainly it warrants two neutral sentences in the article devoted to precisely the person influenced. If the (hypothetical) in-article discussion is about an influence upon a person (Nietzsche for example), what location is, in Alcmaeonid's opinion, more appropriate for the (hypothetical) discussion than the article about that person?

In any case I already have compromised. I placed a citation short statement here and Alcmaeonid decided to come over to the Stirner article to begin the process of removing the offending material there, suggesting it as a candidate for deletion (even though there has been no controversy in the Stirner article regarding this posting for two months or more). I can only assume this was intended as a swat on the wrist. Alcmaeonid then requested citations. I provided them. RJC and Alcmaeonid then told me they were not organized enough, that they did not have time to read them, that they were speculation, and that I needed to do more work to organize my ideas to their personal satisfaction. So I organized them. After having done all of this, I am being told including these two sentences might even damage Wikipedia's prospects among future generations.

After having obligingly jumped through citation hoops without complaint, what would happen if I asked Alcmaeonid to provide me with mulitple unambiguous (and well organized) citations showing that just ten thousand (not tens of thousands) books have been identified that were written about Nietzsche, did not mention any relationship or the theory of relationship with Stirner, and were published between 1980 and now. Having searched through several hundred titles to find 20 citations I know how big a number 10,000 is. You'll forgive me but this sounds to me like a fringe theory, or an attempt to make a personal argument.

I have other work to do and I will not jump through hoops endlessly. It is disheartening. This passage is cited. It is notable. It is not original research. Alcmaeonid has already indicated that it deserves nothing less than a full article in Wikipedia. I suggest the two sentences be left here until a more complete separate article is finished, at which time a third sentence providing the link will be added. --Picatrix (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ad "speculation": One reason brought forward against even the mention of the name of Stirner in the Nietzsche article was that no speculation might intrude. But then I read in the article:
Walter Kaufmann speculates that he might also have contracted syphilis along with his other infections at this time, and some biographers speculate that syphilis caused his eventual madness, though there is some dispute on this matter.[8] [...]
Commentators have frequently diagnosed a syphilitic infection as the cause of the illness. While most commentators regard Nietzsche's breakdown as unrelated to his philosophy, some, including Georges Bataille and René Girard, argue that his breakdown may have been caused by a psychological maladjustment brought on by his philosophy.[19][20] At least one study has suggested that brain cancer (rather than syphilis) led to his breakdown and killed him;[21] others have classified Nietzsche's "madness" as frontotemporal dementia.[22]
Thus, in my view, those who are against inclusion of the Stirner-Nietzsche-Question are applying double standards. Moreover, the speculations about Stirner's influence on the development of Nietzsche's thinking, done by some quite reputable scholars, are much more related to his philosophy than those pseudo-diagnoses of syphilis etc. Especially Laska's recent speculation, based on new biographical fact, about the possible reasons of young Nietzsche's sudden flight to and embracement of Schopenhauer seems to me an inspiring invitation to think over the whole way of Nietzsche's thinking, from his "initial crisis" in 1865 to his "final crisis" in 1889. Of course such speculation does not belong to the article, but with it as background — and all what has been presented above and in earlier discussions of this topic — the case for including Stirner should be decided positively.
--Nescio* (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


Furthermore, examples in Wikipedia of fringe theories and tiny minority views that shouldn't be given undue weight include the "Faces on Mars theory" and the "Flat Earth theory". Trying to characterize the mention of documented academic theory about the influence of one writer upon another and the debate surrounding this theory as giving a fringe theory undue weight strains my inclination to assume good faith. Suggesting that mentioning a theory about Stirner with two sentences in the Nietzsche article is like devoting two or three paragraphs to the "Flat Earth theory" in the Earth article is disingenuous in the extreme.

In addition to the example of speculation already mentioned by Nescio we have the comparison of the Turin horse-whipping episode with a horse-whipping episode in Dostoyevsky. No reliable third-party academic study is cited as the basis for the inclusion of this remark in the article. All that is supplied are a few citations about whipping in primary sources. Perhaps I missed it, but I wonder why I have not seen concerned editors bring this up as speculation that needs to be addressed?

Nescio bringing up the discussion of Nietzsche's illness and the speculation surrounding it is particularly pertinent, as, like the issue of possible Stirner influence, it is a question that won't go away, and yet is impossible to answer conclusively. I submit that while perhaps the idea that Stirner influenced Nietzsche is only the view of a significant minority, the idea that he could have been influenced by Stirner is more widely accepted. Finally, the view that the similarities between the two writers is striking and needs to be accounted for in some fashion is even more widespread. The fact that the writings of the two men show many parallels leads to this question being raised again and again. While some suggest the two were simply "men of their time", the point is that this is a theory advanced to deal with the obvious similarities in some of their notable ideas. --Picatrix (talk) 13:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

By "speculation," I meant either speculation on your part or isolated, unsubstantiated remarks by others, not concerted efforts at proving the point one way or the other (which describes research on Nietzsche's illness). And the bit about horse-whipping in Dostoevsky should be removed, if it runs afoul of policy: the presence of material that violates WP:OR and WP:V is not an argument for setting those policies aside. As to the substance of this debate, I went through the long list of citations (thank you for re-formatting them into a more easily readable form). Löwith, Taylor, Deleuze, Solomon & Higgins, Samek, and Goyens seem on point, both as to the question of influence (as opposed to similarity, which is unremarkable in an article on Nietzsche) and that the question has some respectable adherents who are still active and not marginal. A sentence supported with these citations (not ones from 1904, or Mencken reprints) probably merits inclusion. RJC Talk Contribs 21:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. As for the horse whipping, I agree that the presence of material that violates policies is not justification for the inclusion of other such material. The point I was attempting to make concerned the application of a double-standard... it was also intended to emphasize the fact that some editors here (given what I saw in the previous archived discussions regarding inclusion of mention of Stirner) seem to be particularly concerned about the inclusion of Stirner, and yet justify their knee-jerk reactions with claims about policy violations. I am all for editors who apply their criticism and concern about policy without bias. In any case, thanks again for your reply, and for taking the trouble to read the material presented. --Picatrix (talk) 00:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the view that we should mainly consider sources from recent times that sum up the hundred years of debate and draw a conclusion. Therefore I proposed Brobjer and Laska above who did just that and stand for different conclusions.
Another proposal I'd like to make is a look at the Nietzsche article in the German WP. We had a long discussion there about the Stirner-Nietzsche-Question resulting in an IMO balanced account. As some of the editors here are reading German I'll copy the pertinent passage to this talk page. Maybe a consent can be reached to integrate a (maybe modified/enlarged) translation of it into the chapter "Youth". (Later on we could link from here to the proposed special article on that topic).
Neben seinem Studium vertiefte er sich in Werke der Junghegelianer, etwa Das Leben Jesu von David Friedrich Strauß, Das Wesen des Christentums von Ludwig Feuerbach oder Bruno Bauers Evangelienkritiken. Dies bestärkte ihn in dem Entschluss, das Theologiestudium – zur großen Enttäuschung seiner Mutter – nach einem Semester abzubrechen.
[ ... ]
Im Oktober 1865, kurz bevor Nietzsche das Studium in Leipzig aufnahm, verbrachte er zwei Wochen in Berlin bei der Familie seines Studienfreundes Hermann Mushacke. Dessen Vater, Eduard Mushacke, hatte in den 1840er Jahren zu einem Debattierzirkel um Bruno Bauer und Max Stirner gehört. Dass Nietzsche bei diesem Besuch mit Stirners berüchtigtem, 1845 erschienenen Buch Der Einzige und sein Eigentum konfrontiert wurde, liegt nahe, lässt sich aber nicht eindeutig belegen. [1] Jedenfalls wandte Nietzsche sich unmittelbar danach einem Philosophen zu, der Stirner und dem Junghegelianismus denkbar fern stand: Arthur Schopenhauer.
[1] cf. Bernd A. Laska: Nietzsches initiale Krise. In: Germanic Notes and Reviews, vol. 33, n. 2, fall/Herbst 2002, pp. 109-133 (online)
--Nescio* (talk) 09:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
My own opinion is that we leave a sentence or two in the article along the lines of what is there (finalizing the citation to reflect consensus on what is most appropriate in terms of references). I'm not sure that I would support the full inclusion of the material on Mushacke, etc., as this is just one piece of evidence supporting the idea that he may have been influenced by Stirner, and a short sentence suffices to make reference to the idea of influence. Any further discussion of details should probably have an article of its own devoted to it (as per Alcmaeonid's suggestion). Such an article could cover the whole history of the debate including strong arguments for and against, and similarities as well as differences. The Laska material is most appropriate there.--Picatrix (talk) 12:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Reversion of the edit

I have reverted the above mentioned edit but am stating emphatically my intention not to engage in an edit war. It this edit gets reverted then other editors who feel likewise will have to proceed from here. I have no knowledge of (or interest in) Wikipedia politics. My edit stands on firm grounds and that is why I made it. In all honesty, I consider every minute I spend on a talk page a minute wasted, a minute that could have been spent more profitably on editing article pages. But the inclusion of Stirner here tarnishes this article, a step decidedly in the wrong direction, away from bringing it up to acceptable Wikipedia standards.

Thus, my reasons:

This is a bad edit. The section where it is located is titled: “Nietzsche’s Reading” and yet in over a hundred years it has never been established that Nietzsche ever read Stirner. The Library of Friedrich Nietzsche, which was preserved after his death, still exists today, consisting of some 1100 volumes—many with his personal annotations. No Stirner works are to be found there, annotated or otherwise. Mentioning something in a summary, which does not exist in the main article, is bad editing and flies in the face of Wikipedia guidance on the subject.

This article is supposed to be a general introduction to the life and thought of Friedrich Nietzsche. Look the latter up in any standard encyclopedia (Brittanica, for example) and you will find no reference to Stirner and for obvious reasons. Why should the latter be singled out for inclusion? As shown by the author quoted above (Thomas H. Brobjer), N. was a voracious reader. Why include Stirner and not: Goethe, Homer, Shakespeare, Voltaire, Sophocles, Aeschylus, Lessing, Heraclitus, Horace, Byron, Raphael, Montaigne, & etc., etc.? All authors whose works appear in the preserved library, many heavily annotated in N’s own hand, all authors recognized in the mainstream academic community as having a significant impact on his thought? Putting an author like Stirner in here—a no-show in the library—adds undue weight and is in clear violation of Wikipedia rules regarding such. (In the Brobjer work, btw, Stirner is mentioned only in a footnote, and only stating that, along with others, he was “discussed in books Nietzsche read.” Hardly a ringing endorsement of any supposed influence.)

To anyone who takes even a casual glance at the contributions of the above two editors it becomes quickly obvious that they have contributed nothing to the Nietzsche articles. Their interest is in Stirner—and advancing the cause of his “influence” on N. That is the only reason they are here, editing this article.

I proposed a reasonable compromise that was turned down. Instead they have distorted this offer into my somehow advocating the importance of the issue. My proposal to create a new article devoted to the subject is strictly in accordance with WP:UNDUE which states: “Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them.” Remember though, that in the creation of such pages scrutiny will be paid to whether the editors can “substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts.” And also: “though a view may be spelled out in great detail, the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.” In my opinion, this remains to be seen. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not acceptable. I have cited the material. I have pointed out that this application of the knife to the article is inconsistent with supposedly disinterested and neutral application of policy. Two other editors have voiced opinions. One has indicated that the inclusion of this material is acceptable. The other has stated that given some of the citations it is at least possible it should be included. Suggesting that I am not interested in working on the Nietzsche article and claiming that the fact that I haven't worked on it yet as evidence of my lack of interest in the material presented here is preposterous, since you are the one preventing me from participating in editing the article. --Picatrix (talk) 22:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


I suggest then that we add a section to this article about thinkers who influenced Nietzsche. Name like La Rochefoucauld and Schopenhauer come to mind. This section could contain the short neutral note on Stirner. As for the relationship between Nietzsche's reading and the Library of Nietzsche article I should perhaps point out that the title here results in some confusion. I have read many books that are not in my library. Nietzsche most likely did as well. I am not responsible for this confusing use of section titles.

Furthermore, the section on Nietzsche's reading also mentions influence, rather than confining itself to works that were certain to have been read, and in some instances the citation is very scant. While you very rudely suggest that I am a partisan for Stirner and that my only interest is in pushing the Stirner cause here (which is untrue, my primary interest is in Nietzsche, not Stirner) I could just as easily assert that you are removing the mention of Stirner because you don't like it. In any case you have yet to provide me with a list of ten thousand works about Nietzsche that do not mention Stirner, though you make such claims off the cuff.

I have provided a very clear group of citations, which you have chosen to equate with flat earth theory. This is not acceptable. If you are not willing to develop and include a section on Nietzsche's influences then I see no reason why I should not simply replace the citation in the reading section. Nothing you have written strikes me as convincing support for this material being deleted by you. You go on to suggest that I don't contribute to the article, and yet you try to remove the contributions that I make. Finally, I have provided you with citations for claims I make, whereas you simply make wild claims and do not back them up. --Picatrix (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


I have attempted to determine whether or not the inclusion of the two sentences about the possibility of Stirner influence on Nietzsche are giving the theory undue weight, and if it constitutes placement of a Fringe Theory in an inappropriate context. There seems to me to be no comparison between the theory of Stirner influence and the theory of the earth being flat. Even RJC has mentioned that the idea of a fringe theory does not seem to be applicable here, suggesting that the issue comes down to undue weight. I have already mentioned that a single sentence describing the existence of a theory and a second sentence warning that this theory is controversial do not constitute giving the theory undue weight.

While my own opinion is that claiming undue weight and fringe theory is preposterous, in good faith I asked for the opinions of other editors. I posted queries in a number of places.

On the Neutral point of view noticeboard, it was the opinion of an editor not involved in the dispute in any way that I was not giving the theory undue weight, and that it should be included.

I have posted queries to the Wikiprojects philosophy noticeboard and the Fringe Theory noticeboard. I have yet to receive a reply.

I am replacing the edit because:

1. The edit is cited at length. Compare my citations to those that support statements of influence in the Nietzsche's reading section with only one citation that have not been removed.

2. The edit is neutral. Compare it with other statements that assert influence in the Nietzsche's reading section without any qualification that have not been removed.

3. The edit is notable. The theory has been the subject of ongoing debate for more than a century and while it has never been conclusively proved, neither has it been disproved. The theory of influence continues to be asserted to the present date in academic publications and is supported by notable figures.

4. In answer to Alcmaeonid's suggestion that the inclusion of mention of Stirner influence is arbitrary, I would like to explicitly note that Deleuze, in a work devoted to Nietzsche's philosophy (that is well-regarded by other philosophers, and was published relatively recently), states specifically that Nietzsche's central project was the formulation of a new question (a new valuation) as a consequence of his recognition in Stirner of the ultimate nihilistic consequences of Stirner's position (which was itself a paradoxical, though inevitable culmination of Hegelianism). According to this interpretation this theory should be mentioned in the Nietzsche's reading section along with mention of Schopenhauer, Kant and Mill (his other opponents).

I would also like to note that Alcmaeonid is constantly changing his or her reasons why the edit should not be included. At first he or she suggested that all that was necessary was citation. Then that I was engaging in synthesis and not using reliable third-party sources. Then he or she suggested that it was a fringe theory and a theory that was given undue weight, that might damage Wikipedia's future as a reliable reference source. Then he or she suggested that the theory was in the wrong place. This suggests to me, despite my sincere desire to assume good faith, that he or she has a personal axe to grind regarding the inclusion of the Stirner theory. As an editor I have to say it is frustrating to have to answer a constantly changing (and sometimes contradictory) barrage or contrived justifications for the arbitrary removal of an edit.

Alcmaeonid has also engaged in unwarranted attacks, suggesting:

"To anyone who takes even a casual glance at the contributions of the above two editors it becomes quickly obvious that they have contributed nothing to the Nietzsche articles. Their interest is in Stirner—and advancing the cause of his “influence” on N. That is the only reason they are here, editing this article."

"I proposed a reasonable compromise that was turned down. Instead they have distorted this offer into my somehow advocating the importance of the issue."

It is perhaps unnecessary to point out how absurd it is to block someone's contribution and then to claim they are not contributing. But it is certainly worth pointing out that according to the Wiki article on Fringe Theories the criteria which must be met for a fringe theory to have a dedicated article is more demanding and extensive than that necessary for inclusion in another article as a component. I recognized this after reading the fringe theory page to which Alcmaeonid directed me. Hence, given that a separate page requires more support than a short mention in another article his or her rude characterization of my statements as willful distortion is unwarranted.

This edit is justified and should not be removed arbitrarily based on the unmitigated bias of a single editor. --Picatrix (talk) 11:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Stirner has to be mentioned in the article. For example, also de:Rüdiger Safranski in his Nietzsche-book (2000) points out the importance of a possible influence of Stirner on Nietzsche's thinking. --D.H (talk) 13:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I should also note that Deleuze (who explicitly states that Nietzsche was deeply influenced by Stirner, who also explicitly explains how he was influenced by Stirner, and why this influence is important) is referred to in the Nietzsche's influence and reception article here in Wikipedia as "arguably the foremost of Nietzsche's interpreters". I did not write that passage, and a review of the talk page shows that Alcmaeonid did not dispute it. The question of the possible influence of Stirner on Nietzsche is also discussed at length in a essay by Robert C. Holub, Professor of German and Dean of the Undergraduate Division at the University of California, Berkeley, entitled Nietzsche: Socialist, Anarchist, Feminist. It is available online at the Berkeley website. He explores the relation between Nietzsche and anarchism. This well-documented historical relationship between Nietzsche's thought and anarchism would make little sense without the context provided by the period association of Stirner's thought with Nietzsche's. Hence the importance of mentioning Stirner not only as a possible influence, but also as the key to understanding an otherwise perplexing documented phase in the reception of Nietzsche's thought.--Picatrix (talk) 14:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

What response to Nescio*'s proposals?

Alcmaeonid, you may be surprised, but I can easily reconstruct your reasoning. But I definitely did not propose to write in the section of N's readings that "it is possible that Nietzsche read Stirner..." My proposal is to mention Stirner in a proper place of the chronology of Nietzsche's life. The reason why Stirner should be mentioned at all — in spite of or just because Nietzsche never mentioned Stirner in any of his books, letters, notices — is the existence of that Stirner-Nietzsche-Question, beginning with Eduard von Hartmann's accusation of plagiarism in 1890 and being discussed, mainly among continental philosophers, I admit, until recently. So I'd like to ask you to read my concise proposals above which won't kill much of your time and respond to them. --Nescio* (talk) 20:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Nescio, you have made many entries above and I don't know exactly what you are proposing.
But let me say this. We are bound by certain Wikipedia constraints/guidelines so please let's confine our discussions within them. In addition some academic rigor and discipline needs to applied if the article is to maintain any worth at all. The Stirner/Nietzsche issue is a non-starter in the current mainstream academic community, at least in the western, English speaking world. It had currency on the continent around the turn of the last century, when Stirner was revived via interest in Nietzsche, and then became outdated and superceded by more academically relevant topics. Most of the above quoted citations are mere references to this early "debate." The only substantial addition to it in recent times, as near as I can tell, is the Deleuze entry. I don't have access to this book but I can tell you that even if it proves to be on point, it still represents a distinct minority.
Having read in the talk archives of your sincere passion and interest in this subject, I am mystified as to why you would not consider devoting this energy to writing a separate article about it—an article where you could exhaust all of the resources you have accumulated and give the whole issue a good airing. This would be the perfect place to subject the research to due scrutiny and see if indeed there is merit in it. According to the Wikipedia guidance mentioned above, this is the proper place for it. Not in a general introduction to the life and thought of N.
Take a look at the references section of this article. Are there any books listed there that contain any mention of this "debate?" No. Is the issue mentioned in the core biographies or philosophical examinations of Nietzsche's thought? No. For example take the Kaufmann book. This book is regarded as one of the first (in English) and best expositions of N.'s life & thought. Is the issue of any Stirner influence mentioned there? No. I ask you: if this cannonical book, which subjects N.'s thought to a thorough examination, does not contain it, should an encyclopedia providing a general introduction do so?
I admire your passion for this subject. Hell, anyone who generates this kind of energy about ideas immediately gets my sympathy. But please, let's proceed in the correct way about it, a way that will be revert-proof and worthy of a good encyclopedia. Regards, Alcmaeonid (talk) 17:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Again, I can easily reconstruct your arguments. It was as late as 1950 that Kaufmann pioneered in bringing Nietzsche to the anglo-saxon world, and yet later, in 1971, Paterson wrote the first and until now only monography about Stirner in English. So some of our mutual problems stem from this 'incontemporaneity'.
A matter-of-fact look on the history of the Stirner-Nietzsche-Question shows that it remained a puzzle for few and was neglected by the mainstream, as you say. Stirner's influence yes or no was often answered according to gusto and polemical needs. The outcome remained inconclusive. Nevertheless:
The S-N-Q has been a challenge to speculation again and again, just because N was so totally silent about a thinker with many ideas resembling to his own, even though the general philosophical thrust of both men goes contrariwise. Therefore, to be short, I agree with Brobjer, who says that "one cannot speak of plagiarism, and even 'influence' seems an inappropriate description."
Arrived at this point, I understand that you ask what exactly I'm proposing. First of all, I'm not very interested in writing this new article that describes in detail the history of who said what to the S-N-Q, even though this is very telling — but in the end remains inconclusive. I just propose to bring in a short mention with link to that biographical 'discovery' (Oct 1865 was a white spot in the otherwise exhaustively investigated biography of N) Laska reported in his article titled "Nietzsche's initial crisis" and the this time really novel speculation of what this — probable, but self-evidently not documented — encounter of young N with Stirner's ideas resulted in: N's head over heals flight (from his young Hegelian heroes. Strauss, Feuerbach, maybe Bauer) to (Anti-Hegelian) Schopenhauer which normally is explained only quite scantily and narrated uncritically after autobiographic notices.
True, Laska's is a minority view and for good measure too young as to be found in established N books. Thus you can easily keep it off the article by referring to certain WP rules. But these rules wisely are not that rigid that they forbid the inclusion of a published minority view. Therefore we had a long discussion in the German WP about the problem, the outcome of it I reported above: we included it in a NPOV way.
What I propose is: to do the same, however modified, in the English WP. This would not "tarnish" the article, quite the contrary.
--Nescio* (talk) 19:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


Clarification

Precisely what are we talking about here? My understanding (from Picatrix) is that it amounts to a single sentence mentioning the dispute. Nescio seems to advocate a more robust treatment, possibly extending to a paragraph. The latter would probably violate WP:UNDUE. The existence of sources that mention the dispute without entering into it does not add to the appropriate length at which the subject should be discuss, but it does suggest that WP:FRINGE does not apply. But again I ask, are we discussing something more robust than a single sentence in the body of the article (as opposed to the lede)? RJC Talk Contribs 21:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

  1. A single sentence as to the existence of a long standing and broad debate concerning the question whether or not Nietzsche knew Stirner's ideas (incl. a note listing some titles, plus redlink to a future WP article The Stirner-Nietzsche-Question) would belong to the section "Nietzsche's readings".
  2. This debate was carried on by many different thinkers, some of them not fringe at all. It stretches from 1890 to this day, with interruptions.
  3. Subjects of this debate were the tension of profound kinship and profound disparities between both thinkers and, because of N's total silence about Stirner, speculations about at what stage of N's development he may have made acquaintance with Stirner's ideas (from Lange 1866, or Hartmann 1869, both of them N studied carefully).
  4. The outcome of all discussions was inconclusive, and probably therefore considered less important by the mainstream.
  5. What Laska recently unearthed, described above, offers a new view on N's development at the decisive point when he embraced Schopenhauer.
  6. Therefore I think it is worth to include it in the biographical account, even if it hasn't yet found its way into mainstream literature (BTW: Safranski in his Nietzsche 2000, engl. 2002, chap. 6, draws from an earlier article Laska wrote for the German weekly DIE ZEIT, afaik available online as English translation).
--Nescio* (talk) 08:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Addendum:
In the present version of the N article, section on N's youth, you find the unconnecting sentence: "In 1865 Nietzsche thoroughly studied the works of Arthur Schopenhauer..." If you know that N yet shortly before the start of his Schopenhauer studies admired Young Hegelian thinkers like Strauss and Feuerbach, and that he (Sept. 1865, letter to Granier) expressly adored the "lively spirit" of their time ("geistesrege Zeit") twenty years ago,1845, then the sudden and impassionate change to the Anti-Hegelian Schopenhauer seems to need an explanation. You'll know what is normally given in N books: N's own accounts. A crisis yes, but vague and unspecified. The first half of October 1865 remained a white spot in his biography. Nobody cared much about Hermann Mushacke, least of all about his father Eduard, a school teacher, whom N visited for that two weeks. Now, when Eduard was identified by two separate researchers, Kliem and Laska, as a companion of Bauer, Stirner & Co, the wildest Young Hegelians of these Vormärz years, this fills the white area in N's biography with an intriguing colour — at least it deserves to be mentioned in the biographical account.
--Nescio* (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
That kind of detail is probably a bit much, given its support in the literature. The point is not to lay out any of the evidence that Nietzsche was influenced by Stirner, or even to make it plausible. A very small minority of people assert influence of some kind: a statement to that effect is probably as much as is warranted. Anything that adds an intriguing color is a bit much: intriguing color is usually the result of innuendo, and anything like that would grant an undue weight to a minority position. RJC Talk Contribs 16:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to ask you not to stick to a term which I may have chosen unfelicitously due to my inexpertness in writing English texts. No addition (and no colour), but a completion, a filling of a void, is at stake here. Here is no innuendo involved, and no very small minority of "people" (if you consider continental authors too). Your response(s) prompt me to put a plain question: Did you read the article by Laska on the question we are talking about (URLs for German and English versions given above)? --Nescio* (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
For my part I want to see mention of the theory of possibility of Stirner influence on Nietzsche as a single sentence, with another warning/neutrality sentence, precisely as I placed it. I do not think the issue warrants mention of the new biographical information. While Alcmaeonid mentions Kaufmann, I should point out that the strongest support for the currency of the idea that Stirner influenced Nietzsche comes from a work entitled "Nietzsche and Philosophy" by Deleuze. This work is more recent than Kaufmann's. I am really becoming frustrated by the double standards here. My references earlier than 1980 are dismissed, while Kaufmann is venerated as "canonical" even though it was first published in 1950 and problems with his translations have been cited as justification for new English translations. Deleuze's work is an entire book devoted to Nietzsche that has been called "the first book in France to systematically defend and explicate Nietzsche's work" and it is said that "This text was and is extremely well regarded by other philosophers, including Jacques Derrida (Derrida 2001), and Pierre Klossowski". This work states with absolute clarity that Stirner was not just an influence, but an extremely important one. --Picatrix (talk) 21:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

3rd opinion

Really the article should contain a section on the influences on Nietzsche. A note saying there has been a long-running but unresolved controversy over the influence of Stirner on Nietzsche, alongside other influences wouldn't give undue weight to the theory, and be clearly neutral. There is also no reason not to start a new article on the subject, exhaust all the given sources above, and link to it. --Davémon (talk) 21:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Friedrich_Nietzsche/Archive_14&oldid=951178637"