Talk:Friedrich Nietzsche/Archive 17

RFC: propriety of UNDUE tag in section on Nietzsche's nationality
The question is whether the section of the article Friedrich Nietzsche should be tagged with template:undue for omitting "important information on the subject." The section is the result of a discussion here.  RJC  TalkContribs 17:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as my opinion goes, this tag is a waste of everyone's time. Remove it. The Polish issue has been discussed extensively. Secondary sources have been adduced which show current scholarly consensus to be heavily weighted towards the claim of Polish ancestry being myth (or mistake) and, more importantly, no comparable sources have been presented which support a contrary claim. The edit currently up on the page looks fine to me. The only addition I would suggest would be to modify the second to last sentence as follows: "If Nietzsche did not really believe his claims of ancestry—and this has not been established—it is unclear why he might wish to be thought of as Polish."


 * Otherwise, the primary sources in which Nietzsche claims to have been Polish are very fairly represented in the existing edit with no less than four quotations establishing Nietzsche's own professed opinion. The secondary sources refuting his claim are well-represented as well. The existing edit looks fair (with the exception of the sentence I propose changing). As for Likeminas's dubious citation of policy I have to say that it has thus far been my experience that editors usually cite policy (instead of reliable sources) when they are more sure than right. Seeing someone hang a tag on the article without advancing any sources (only questionable interpretation of policy) to support their claims is annoying. It's also sophomoric and counter-productive. For all the citation of policy, it appears (to me anyway) that Likeminas does not understand exactly why citing secondary sources (rather than personally interpreting primary sources) is important for encyclopedia editors. I propose that this current waste of time be mitigated somewhat in that it can serve as an example for him or her. When secondary sources are not cited, and policy is advanced to support one editor's interpretation of primary sources the result is obfuscation. Happily, this is actually really simple: cite secondary sources. If Likeminas wants to hang tags on things, he or she is supposed to make a case for such an action by advancing sources that support the action. If he or she is unsatisfied (by what is really an aspect of the 'no original research' policy) he or she is of course welcome to:


 * a) Write a study for a standard-setting or peer-reviewed publication (such as those presented by RJC in support of the 'myth/mistake' position) and to seek publication. If he or she is successful, then he or she can come back and make a case by citing something besides bald policy, or:


 * b) Take up the issue with the policy makers who draft wiki guidelines, wherever he or she deems it appropriate (good luck!)


 * Otherwise, please, let's move on.--Picatrix (talk) 21:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I have to agree with Picatrix and RJC above; autobiographical statements are still primary source information. The current state of the section does not give undue weight to a fringe view as it accurately represents the factual knowledge at the present time. siafu (talk) 16:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment The section seems to me to be a fair refelection of the sources. However, in the context of the article, I think too much space is given to what appears to me to be quite a minor controversy. Think the important information in it could be conveyed in three or four sentences. Also, the opening clarification regarding the historical development of the German federation is unnecessary. He is classified as a German philosopher simply because he was German. --FormerIP (talk) 11:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note The bit about his being German is the result of a compromise, some editors having objected over the years to calling him a "German" in the introduction.  RJC  TalkContribs 13:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it sticks out like a sore thumb. The lead currently calls him German, though, so perhaps it is safe to make the change in this section. --FormerIP (talk) 14:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Or peel it out into a stub article on Nietzsche's citizenship and nationality. As pointed out, there have been (and likely will continue to be) recurrent editorial outbreaks of concern regarding his citizenship and his nationality. --Picatrix (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That could be dealt with if and when it happens though, rather than maintaining cumbersome content just in case. --FormerIP (talk) 14:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I know at least some of the people who were uncomfortable calling Nietzsche a German are still active on this page (I'm not one of them) and that some have moved on. I'd prefer to hear from them that they agree that the section is cumbersome, perhaps integrating that first sentence on citizenship into the biography and doing the same with a summary (rather than quotations) regarding Nietzsche's Polish heritage.  RJC  TalkContribs 15:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Nietzsche's claims of Polish ancestry are notable and verifiable, and the space given to them in the section not undue. IMO, the section is currently balanced and well-sourced, and not in need of a re-write. --GabeMc (talk) 01:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. There seems to be some confusion about the proper role of primary and secondary sources.  Nietzsche's ancestry is a fact to be reported according to a consensus of secondary sources, with judicious balance instead of undue emphasis on any one view.  However, Nietzsche's statement about himself is notable in its own right (as can be verified by the discussion of it, as an interesting and significant statement he made about himself, in any number of secondary sources).  So including mention of what Nietzsche said about himself, which has attracted such interest in secondary sources, is a no-brainer, for its own sake (not for its evidential value in treating his biography).  The article's current treatment is acceptable to me, and I agree with GabeMc.  Wareh (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Archiving the talk page
Would anyone mind if I set up MiszaBot to automatically archive threads older than 30 days, leaving at least the four most recent threads (even if they haven't been active in the past 30 days)? I think the page is getting close to needing an archive again, but it is a royal pain to do it by manually.  RJC  TalkContribs 15:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅  RJC  TalkContribs 16:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Will to Power
Re: Will to Power, the article says:
 * He transformed the idea of matter as centers of force into matter as centers of will to power.

Is this what is meant:
 * He transformed the idea that matter is/are centers of force into one of matter as centers of will to power          ?

In other words, one view existed prior to Nietzsche (A - matter as centers of force) and he proposed another one (B - matter as centers of will to power). If so, how is this a transformation of an idea? Another possibility would be that Nietzsche first proposed A, but later put forward B; that change in his own work might be a transformation of a sort. Otherwise, there isn't a "transformation" unless Nietzsche transformed something: matter itself, or the scientific view of matter, or the accepted view of matter among philosophers. Nietzsche "proposed" or did something similar, but did not transform.

The meaning or definition of "Will to Power" is never given. The article tells us WtP is a) an important part of N's philosophical outlook; b) provides a way to understand human behavior; c) may apply to many other areas - not just understanding human behavior (if so, shouldn't it be "wider application"); d1) is more powerful than pressure for survival/adaptation, d2) except in certain limited situations; e) was later applied to all living things by N; and f) later still to inorganic matter. But what is the "Will to Power"? I realize there's a cross-reference to the main article on WtP, but as a reader I would want some idea of what WtP is right away. From the main WtP article I get that WtP is what N believes to be "the main driving force in man." If so, saying this would be big help to the reader. Perhaps can even give a simple (simplistic?) definition of WtP (a striving for power) and let the reader know it is just a partial definition.

Re: N wanting to dispense with the atomistic view, should there be a cross reference to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomism or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behaviorism#Molar_versus_molecular_behaviorism Ileanadu (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Nietzsche pronounciation
German transcription of Nietzsche is [ni:tʃə], no sound [s] between t and ʃ. If you do not believe, read http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digraph_(Linguistik), section "Trigraph, Tetragraph… " RJC, who told you s was correct?! --195.91.232.161 (talk) 00:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Zickzack. See Talk:Friedrich Nietzsche/Archive 16.  RJC  TalkContribs 22:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Zickzack, where do you come from? Just curious, in what village people pronounce tzsch like [tsʃ]... Have you ever tried to pronouns it like that? ;)) Nothing personal, but seriously, [tʃ] is the most widespread. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schuetze (talk • contribs) 18:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I happen to come from a major city where, according to statistics, the language is closest to Standard High German. You may have heard of that "village". And yes, I can hear the difference between [tʃ] and [tsʃ] as well as pronounce it with ease. Arguing numbers will lead us nowhere, because the majority of German speakers speaks a South German dialect with a restricted number of sibilants. E.g. they do not even have a [z]. -- Zz (talk) 11:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Essay on Nietzsche
Nietzsche's nationality has come up so often that I made an essay for my own use on the matter. It lists some of the evidence put forward. It also points to all the previous discussions. It is a user essay; RJC/Nietzsche was a German.  RJC  TalkContribs 20:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Freud and Jung
Please don't delete Freud or Jung off of the 'influenced' section. They are two of the biggest names in all of psychology and are both listed as philosophers. Even though their primary field wasn't philosophy doesn't mean they shouldn't be listed. It's the equivalent of not having Einstein on Spinoza's 'influenced' section because Einstein was notably a physicist, or not putting Darwin as influencing Dennett, or taking Goethe off of Nietzsche's influences, etc. Leave them be. --96.253.50.139 (talk) 19:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * User:RJC made the decision, and I don't think that he cares what anyone thinks about it. He certainly doesn't listen to me when I complain about it. Personally, I think it's an asinine policy. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 19:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * RJC didn't do the revert, I did. And its not his policy either but was reached by consensus many moons ago. Maybe next time you'll do some checking before you start blathering abusive nonsense. Btw, you'll notice I didn't revert yet. I'm waiting to see if perhaps the prevailing winds might have changed since then. Cheers. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you point me to the thread where this was decided? &mdash; goethean &#2384; 00:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I reverted this edit, not this one. And for the record, my position was that only those people who warrant an independent mention in the article should be in the infobox Talk:Friedrich Nietzsche/Archive 12.  The fact that this means only philosophers was hashed out in edit summaries, if I recall, resulting in this discussion, which presumed the consensus, and this one, which debated it.  You'll note that I wasn't in favor of eliminating Jung or Freud there, either.  In fact, re-reading my comments, I have no idea where Gothean got the idea that this is my idee fixe and mine alone, or that I refused to engage him on the subject.  RJC  TalkContribs 01:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's the original discussion that reached a consensus. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 01:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, three people agreed to it. Sounds like it should definitely be enshrined forever and strictly enforced. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 13:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think we'd get much response at the village pump ;-). Any consensus that forms will be small, considering the number of highly active editors we have on the page at any one time. Shall we have the discussion again? I think we need some guideline as to what gets included. At the very least, people who want to list Hitler, Anton LaVey, and At the Gates should see a notice suggesting that those issues have been debated and we came to a conclusion, and to please not edit war over the influenced list again.  RJC  TalkContribs 14:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am fine with setting limits, and I'm fine with a relatively static list. Requiring a reference to a reliable source is fine; requiring that the figure be mentioned (and sourced) in the article (or a sub-article?) is also fine with me. These are all reasonable requirements which I will help to enforce. I don't really have strong feelings about including LaVey (who I'm not really familiar with) or even Hitler, so your preference on that is perfectly fine with me. But the article should list the most important figures regardless of the genre in which academia has categorized their writings. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a paragraph on Nietzsche's influence at Influence_and_reception_of_Friedrich_Nietzsche, but is is unsourced and in some cases, inaccurate (Wittgenstein?). &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you read the thread but missed the pivotal point entirely. I repeat: There exists both a section and an entire article devoted to this subject. Nobody placed any limits there. What we're talking about here is merely a list in an infobox which by definition needs to be brief. Philosophers were chosen because it is a philosophers infobox. That sounded reasonable to me then and still does now.

BTW you need to dial back your attitude a few notches. Whence this hostility? Sounds like it's you against the dreaded Nietzsche editors conspiracy. Alas as in all things Nietzsche, and as it were under a curse, the editor shape-shifts into Sisyphus. Just when he finally gets the stone to the top... well you know the rest. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 15:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * How many edits have been reverted under the aegis of this pseudo-policy, and on the basis of the pseudo-consensus that was linked above? At the top of this thread, we have someone pleading that Freud and Jung not be removed from the page. I have argued against this policy every time that I have seen it brought up. I'm not sure how that plays into your understanding of consensus.


 * Philosophers were chosen because it is a philosophers infobox.
 * An arbitrary and ahistorical choice, which never had consensus. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Come on, you're kidding, right? Did you really miss the point a second time after I clearly laid it out for you in grade school English? No one's trying to "remove Freud & Jung from the page" as you say. There is an applicable section on influences and the poor "pleading" anon can put them there—providing, of course, he uses cited explanations.

And you are wrong about consensus—it was reached and unanimously I might add, which is not a requisite. I'd point you to the page but it appears that in your case, words penetrate only so far. Maybe a diagram is in order.

Widen your perspective. Think outside the infobox. Rise up to the encylopedic. Dare I ask? Are we on the same page now? Listen, I'm not fixed in stone about this but at least I'd like to think that I'm having an actual discussion in which words are spoken, heard and absorbed into the brain.

Yikes! did I say that? Look I'm sorry but there is something in your attitude that just raises hell with me. What little patience I started with is completely gone. Maybe someone else needs to take over here. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 21:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I get it. It's like when boys build a treehouse and make a sign that says "NO GIRLS ALLOWED". However, Dostoevsky, Burckhardt, Wagner, and Goethe are all listed in the infobox. I don't think that they're currently considered philosophers by most academics. Since that's the silly pseudo-policy that you are insisting on, you'd better go excise the offending names. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 21:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

For my part I think this exchange is a little ridiculous (not that anyone asked me). I've seen Goethean editing here for ages. I've seen Alcmaeonid and RJC as well. I think all these editors want this to be a high quality article. So why don't we just stop the sniping and get on to the 'policy'. As I recall (I participated in the discussion back when, but I don't have time to dig through it again now) the idea was that we needed to put some limits on the influenced list because we were getting additions like LaVey and Hitler, not to mention Kahlil Gibran and death metal bands. The goal of the exercise was to find a way to limit the names included in the influenced section in a reasonable way, with the goal of keeping that content from spiraling off into lists of highly questionable value. There can be no doubt that many other people were influenced by Nietzsche, and given that he was first received as a 'literary' figure, and was only accorded 'philosopher' status rather late, the vast range of those for whom a cited claim of influence could reasonably made is further exaggerated. The assumptions that guided the choice to frame a 'policy' for inclusion were basically: 1. A list of those influenced by Nietzsche could easily run to many pages, this sort of list would not be appropriate for an infobox; 2. Because Nietzsche is today primarily considered to be a philosopher, limiting the infobox list to those who are considered philosophers would make the list more manageable. At the time we (meaning those who participated in the discussion instead of just bitching about it later) decided to loosely limit the list to philosophers while maintaining a few names that deserved mention outside of the philosopher category. RJC *did not* "make the decision" and should not be singled out as a target for complaints. Fer crying out loud all the folks going back and forth now have long exposure to one another working on this article. If we need to revisit the so-called policy, let's do so, in a civil manner (and I make no claims to having been always civil - for the record). The point is let's get through this quickly without name calling and we'll all be able to get back to work on more productive things. My own position is that opening up the list to just anyone is going to land us back in death metal land. That said, Jung and Freud probably warrant inclusion. --Picatrix (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposal
In order to move the discussion along, I propose adding the following text as a comment where the former comment stood: PLEASE READ! The consensus regarding the names to be added to the infobox as influences and those influenced by Nietzsche is that they must named in the body of the article itself, or the spin-off article "Influence and reception of Friedrich Nietzsche," and supported by verifiable reliable sources. Persons who are mentioned in order to contest the assertion that they were influenced by Nietzsche should not be included (e.g., Hitler). If there is a dispute about the propriety of naming a person in the articles, they should not be added to the infobox until after that dispute has been resolved. This at least has the merit of getting fancruft and cult leaders out of the infobox. It does not exclude Jung and Freud as a matter of principle, although their mention in Influence and reception of Friedrich Nietzsche does cast his influence upon them into doubt. I think that section would have to be fleshed out with more than "Jung offered a seminar on Nietzsche" and "Freud admired Nietzsche, but might not have studied him until late in life" before they rose to the level described above. Surely a biographer has said Nietzsche decisively influenced one or the other of them (I feel certain that I've read something to that effect regarding Jung, at least). This proposal also focuses editing on the articles, discouraging editors from correcting an omission just in the infobox.  RJC  TalkContribs 17:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. You might want to mention that we want secondary sources, not primary sources. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 17:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

4.249.63.11

needs editing
"The 1868 riding accident" is not referenced anywhere above in the article so "the" is out of place. It is not cited to any reference either. In fact swathes of this article are not cited to any reference. Need to fix that. (talk) 22:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The second-to-last sentence of "Youth" reads, "However, a riding accident in March 1868 left him unfit for service," with a footnote to a letter to Nietzsche's friend.  RJC  TalkContribs 23:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no information about his death or later years. It is needed because the rest of his life seems to be detailed pretty well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.160.146.247 (talk) 05:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Leibniz
Just to let everybody know, I added Leibniz to the list of influences on this page. Nietzsche was already listed on the Leibniz page, so I did some research to check its validity. See aphorism 357 in The Gay Science, and the Glossary of Names in The Anti-Christ. So, keep Leibniz on the list! :) --Caute AF (talk) 05:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Chair at the University of Basel
In the 3rd introductory paragraph it states that, "At the age of 24 he was appointed to the Chair of Classical Philology at the University of Basel (the youngest individual to have held this position)..." That he became a professor at the young age of 24 is clear, but that he held the Chair suggests that he was appointed to head of the department. If this is indeed the case, a source stating that fact should be cited. Otherwise, it should not be suggested that he was appointed to the Chair. Maerskin (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nietzsche held the Chair position in Classics at U. of Basel from 1869 to 1879. See Nietzsche on tragedy, Silk & Stern, p. 16 (near bottom of page).Lestrade (talk) 02:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Lestrade

Why hasn't Sysyphus been drawn into the conversation, regarding Eternal Recurrance? It seems the Sysuphysian paradigm fits in the statement of reoccurance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.79.87 (talk) 04:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Eternal Recurrence
All discussion of the physical actuality of Nietzsche's concept of eternal return is based on a misunderstanding. Anyone with common sense would realize that the chance that every event will infinitely recur in exactly the same way in a precise sequence is practically zero. N did not mean for the concept of eternal recurrence to be understood literally. He meant it merely as the metaphorical opposite of the concept of teleological purpose and design. N was asking, in effect, "what if there is no final purpose to the events of the world?" In this way, the comfort and vitality that result from the idea of progress are removed and we are left with a paralyzing, depressing realization that everything is ultimately for nothing. Humans, Nietzsche believed, can surmount this infinite circularity by creating their own purposes. [Twilight of the Idols, "Maxims and Arrows, 44, "My formula for happiness: &hellip; a straight line, a goal."] Nietzsche's goal was always to promote and affirm life, in contrast with Schopenhauer's pessimism. He used the concept of eternal recurrence in order to figuratively, not literally, present an extreme situation that must be overcome in order to make life livable.Lestrade (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Lestrade


 * I agreee with Lestrade in general, but with slightly different details. My understanding of the Eternal Recurrence is that one should live as if each moment would have to be experienced over and over again for eternity.  Those times when you (not you personally, of course) spend a half hour just flipping through channels on tv and killing time -- you wouldn't want to relive that over and over again.  The little acts of petty jealous or small-time meanness that all people do -- it's different if these actions are just fleeting moments in our lives, but what if we had to do it over and over forever?  In holding the ER in mind, one reminds oneself "always to promote and affirm life," as Lestrade eloquently phrased it.DrNietzsche (talk) 05:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)DrNietzsche

"German Atheists" tag
Isn't there a bit too much controversy surrounding Nietzsche's views on divinity to tag him outrightly as an "atheist"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.234.117 (talk) 02:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No, he quite emphatically uses the word in reference to himself.  RJC  TalkContribs 02:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Some kind of reference would be nice, considering the article does not provide any, and never clearly states that Nietzsche considers himself atheist (only that most commentators believe so). Zulon (talk) 16:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This has discussed a number of times in the past, with references. For example, Talk:Friedrich_Nietzsche/Archive_16.  RJC  TalkContribs 19:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Friedrich Nietzche influenced by Zarathustra
I think it's obvious that Nietzche was influenced by Zarathustra, Since his main character in his most important work (as himself said) is named Zarathustra.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lapskingwiki (talk • contribs)


 * So, Nietzsche was influenced by Zarathustra because he traced the origin of the Christian worldview, which was his primary opponent, back to Zarathustra? That sounds like he was influenced by Christianity and said something about Zarathustra. Infoboxes aren't exempt from WP:V, so I'm going to ask to see a reliable source on this. Otherwise, it strikes me as original research.  RJC  TalkContribs 23:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you please give me a reliable source for all these people who influenced Nietzsche: Burckhardt, Dostoyevsky, Emerson, Epicurus, Goethe, Guyau, Hegel, Heine, Heraclitus, Kant, Lange, Leibniz, Montaigne, Pascal, Plato, Rée, La Rochefoucauld, Rousseau, Schopenhauer, Socrates, Spinoza, Spir, Stendhal, Voltaire, Wagner? Thanks. (if his own text is not a reliable source, so I guess his sister's bullocks are the truth!).lapsking (talk) 03:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There is an important distinction when it comes to primary and secondary sources for WP:NOR. Your primary sources do not say, "From an early age I read the works of Zoaraster and they had a profound effect on me." If anything, the last one says explicitly that Zarathustra does not mean the historical Zarathustra to him. And I could find sources for the others, but you and I both know that is a fool's errand.  RJC  TalkContribs 04:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course Nietzsche did not copy/paste Zarathustra, he made a new one, that's why I'm saying he was influenced by Zarathustra.lapsking (talk) 05:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that the source quoted above speaks for itself. Nietzsche was influenced by the fact that Zoroaster was the first to make a clear distinction between the concepts of good and evil as eternal values existing outside the human plane, not by the philosophy of the ancient Persians directly. Mmick66 (talk) 13:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with Mmick66 and I think it's obvious that Nietzsche "was influenced by the fact that Zoroaster was the first to make a clear distinction between the concepts of good and evil as eternal values existing outside the human plane". But it seems RJC, who seems has not yet understood Nietzsche's philosophy rules here.lapsking (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Influence of Dostoyevsky
Twilight of the Idols, Chapter 9 "Expeditions of an Untimely Man", Section 45. "Dostoevski, the only psychologist, incidentally, from whom I had something to learn; he ranks among the most beautiful strokes of fortune in my life, even more than my discovery of Stendhal." http://www.lexido.com/EBOOK_TEXTS/TWILIGHT_OF_THE_IDOLS_.aspx?S=10&wsd_hl=801#wsd_hl — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZARATHUSTRA (talk • contribs) 21:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Sexism
The man seemed pretty overtly sexist, shouldn't that be mentioned? 71.7.237.16 (talk) 16:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The way to start that discussion would be by finding a reliable source that talks about it. --FormerIP (talk) 16:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Shall we have a section in every article about a person on their alleged sexism, restrained only by WP:BLP? I would want a bit more than a reliable source that mentions it.  RJC  TalkContribs 17:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A reliable source would be enough to start a discussion, at least, if the IP wishes to start one. That's all I'm saying. --FormerIP (talk) 17:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Nietzsche’s misogyny is somewhat legendary (notorious?). And moreover, most scholars explicitly address it in their books. I know Schnacht in his big Nietzsche study glosses over it, and the ed. of the English translation of Deleuze’s Nietzsche et la philosophie mentions it as well… Might be a place to start? — Veryfoolish (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's keep the article factual and not go astray into the normative. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Bible verses
Hi. I heard that when Nietzsche was in a mental hospital, he would yell out Bible verses after long periods of silence. Is this true? Portillo (talk) 10:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Nietzsche and the Nazis
This article needs something about how Nietzsche inspired the Nazis. I tried to add content before, but it was removed. Conservative Philosopher (talk) 00:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It might 'need' it if a reliable source could be found that stated this - though the contrary view, that the Nazi's 'inspiration' from Nietzsche was a gross misrepresentation of his ideas would also then merit inclusion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Nazism was inspired directly by Nietzsche, and we need to state this as fact. Conservative Philosopher (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If you can find a source that states this, then we can consider it - as the opinion of whoever makes the claim. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The Reception section already includes "Nietzsche's growing prominence suffered a severe setback when his works became closely associated with Adolf Hitler and the German Reich." What more do you want? Nazism does not define the man's career. It is already in the article. Would you rather he be considered a Nazi himself? ExistentialBliss (talk) 03:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That the Nazis referred to Nietzsche is certain. That they did so selectively is also certain, as is the fact that they grossly misinterpreted him. It is also certain that they did not refer primarily to Nietzsche or understand themselves primarily as Nietzscheans. That Nietzsche "inspired" the Nazis is as absurd as saying that the Nibelungenlied "inspired" the Nazis or that New World slavery was "inspired" by Aristotle. We do not need to state the impact that Nietzsche had upon the Nazis as though it were fact. At best, it is a minority point of view.  RJC  TalkContribs 22:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Russell Quotation from History of Western Philosophy
Some members will perhaps accuse me of nitpicking, but I had several objections to the manner in which two quotations were taken from Russell's History of Western Philosophy (Second edition of 1961). The member's contribution originally read as follows:

"Bertrand Russell, in his History of Western Philosophy was scathing about Nietzsche, calling his work the "mere power-phantasies of an invalid", referring to him as a "megalomaniac", and writing that he was a philosophical progenitor of the Nazis and fascists."

Here is the full context from Russells' History of Western Philosophy:

"What are we to think of Nietzsche's doctrines? How far are they true? Are they in any degree useful? Is there in them anything objective, or are they mere power-phantasies of an invalid?" [¶] "It is undeniable that Nietzsche has had a grat influence, not among technical philosophers, but among people of literary and artistic culture. It must also be conceded that his prophecies as to the future have, so far, proved more nearly right than those of liberals or Socialists. If he is a mere symptom of a disease, the disease must be very widespread in the modern world." [¶] "Nevertheless, there is a great deal in him that must be dismissed as merely megalomaniac."

My comments: (1) First, consider the context of the 'power-phantasies' quote. After pointing out that many of Nietzsche's ideas are such that any sensible person would be tempted to characterize as social-Darwinistic, feudal or fascist, and indeed potentially mad, Russell asks the reader if indeed Nietzsche's philosophy is indeed so. He did not dismiss Nietzsche, at least in this paragraph, as a madman with power fantasies. (2) Second, Russell did not use "megalomaniac" as a noun, calling Nietzsche a "megalomaniac," but as an adjective, saying that "much" of Nietzsche's thinking can be dismissed as megalomaniac. (3) Third, two points about the source of Russell's comments. (a) Russell was writing his History of Western philosophy just before and during WWII. The first edition came out in 1946. And although the second came out in 1961, it is clear that Russells' views on Nietzsche as expressed in the History reflect his thinking during the war years, when such ideas were being highly popularized as supporting fascism. (I don't have the original 1946 edition but it does seem the 1961 text is unaltered from the 1946 edition.) (b) This was, of course, long before it became widely known that the publication Will to Power (the book, not the phrase) was essentially not the work of Nietzsche but a heavily edited distortion written by his sister Elisabeth Forster-Nietzsche. Thus, any fair quotation from Russell here needs to mention this context. It is reasonable to believe Russell may have at least in part modified his view of Nietzsche had he known about this distortion. Accordingly, I hope someone will revise the current text as it stands, preferably by providing the full context of Russell's statements.--Gunnermanz (talk) 08:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * These are all very good points. In the spirit of friendly feedback I'd like to point out that in the time it took you to write this piece of relevant clear criticism, you could have edited the article to reflect your valid concerns. Please go ahead and do so. All the best. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 14:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Anachronisms
It is OK to say that Nietzsche influenced Expressionism, Post-Modernism, Posy-Structuralism etc. but to include Expressionism as a main interest and Post Modernism as one of his schools, for example, is anachronistic, is it not? There are other examples of this listed as his "School" --Christap (talk) 01:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It is anachronistic, whoever did that probably hasn't even read all of Nietzsche(which is I think, a requirement for an encyclopedia entry). — Preceding unsigned comment added by IsoMorpheus (talk • contribs) 07:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Further Reading resource
American Nietzsche: A History of an Icon and His Ideas (ISBN-13: 978-0226705811) University Of Chicago Press (November 30, 2011) by by Jennifer Ratner-Rosenhagen.
 * American Idol: On Nietzsche in America by Ross Posnock November 1, 2011. This article appeared in the November 21, 2011 edition of The Nation
 * Stranger in a Strange Land December 24, 2011 by Thomas Meaney in the Wall Street Journal (page C8 in print)

99.190.86.5 (talk) 05:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is a book review What Friedrich Nietzsche Did to America by Alexander Star published New York Times Review of Books January 13, 2012
 * 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Altered reference to GK Chesterton and Nietzsche's reference to christian meekness
I changed this because it seemed a touch biased. Original: "This however is a misinterpretation of the essence of Christian morality, which according to G.K Chesterton signifies a reckless sense of charity of the naturally powerful to his neighbor in need. "

To: "This is viewed as a misinterpretation of the essence of Christian morality by G.K. Chesterton, who believes it signifies a reckless sense of charity of the naturally powerful to his neighbor in need. [63]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.140.127.133 (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Zarathusa or Zarathustra?
The article includes the following:


 * Koselitz was one of the very few friends Nietzsche allowed to criticize him. In responding most enthusiastically to "Zarathusa," Koselitz did feel it necessary to point out that what were described as "superfluous" people were in fact quite necessary. He went on to list the number of people Epicurus, for example, had to rely on—even with his simple diet of goat cheese.

Is it supposed to be Zarathusa at that point, or Zarathustra? Ileanadu (talk) 23:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * In the ancient Persian Zend language, "Zarathustra" means "old camel." It is often equated with "Zoroaster" which means "star worshipper."Lestrade (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Lestrade

The Influenced By and Influenced sections need references, or they should be deleted
It's quite likely that many, many people have been influenced by Nietzsche and that he in turn was influenced by many people that came before him. Without references, though, some valid and credible second-party source which says that he was influenced by someone or that he influenced someone, these sections should be deleted. Banaticus (talk) 10:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I used to hold the line of this, but it became a pain. Maybe a general discussion at the template page would hod more water, since then there would be an actual policy beyond WP:V to point to.  RJC  TalkContribs 16:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Good idea -- this likely pertains to more philosophers than just Nietzsche. I've now started a discussion at Template talk:Infobox philosopher. Banaticus (talk) 02:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and pruned the list based on verifiablilty. Now comes a somewhat more difficult phase: a cut based on notability. Simply being influenced by N. should not alone merit an inclusion. Feedback? ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 01:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've returned people for whom i was able to find references. Some are good, others not so, but i would like some opinions on this ground. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.191.11.13 (talk) 23:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Nietzsche's interpretation of Jesus
It is blatant nonsense to insist that Nietzsche "did not attack the teachings of Jesus." I urge the writer of such comments to find a single statement in Nietzsche or a single scholarly source that supports this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfhiller (talk • contribs) 14:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The claim is sourced - the onus is on you to find a more reliable source that says the opposite. You should try and read Anti-Christ - he rants for pages about Paul of Tarsus and how he corrupted Jesus' original teachings. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed the claim is sourced from a sophomoric Nietzsche dictionary that is intended provide people (like you apparently) with only a cursory knowledge of Nietzsche. I'll agree with you if you want to say that Nietzsche's interpretation of Jesus is more nuanced than the claim that he "attacked" his teachings. But to say that he "did not attack the teachings of Jesus" and then go on to proclaim a certain gospel according to Nietzsche is simply bizarre and ultimately self-contradictory. I'll respond to this more later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.119.191.162 (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll agree with you as far as the wording is badly chosen and presupposes a belief that Nietzsche did attack the teachings of Christ (i.e. it assumes that the reader has certain prejudices about Nietzsche that obviously not all readers will have). It would be more interesting to have an actual scholarly analysis of Nietzsche's relation to Christianity. I haven't read the sophomoric Nietzsche dictionary myself, but by definition you need a better source to contest a claim that is already sourced.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Polish Nobility
I don't have a source handy for this, so this is "original" and hence unusuable, but the main reason why Nietzsche wanted to be regarded as Polish apart from German anti-Polish sentiment was that Poland had this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberum_veto

"Es that mir wohl, an das Recht des polnischen Edelmanns zu denken, mit seinem einfachen Veto den Beschluß einer Versammlung umzuwerfen..."NF-1882,21[2] Agent Cooper (talk) 23:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Please correct the speaker icon.
The speaker icon does not work for me. Either correct or help me get it to work. I would like to hear his name pronounced. 1archie99 (talk) 03:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There is now an audio link for the pronounciation at the top of the External links. it still would be nice to have an audio link in the article itself. 1archie99 (talk) 19:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation
I have heared two ways of pronouncing Nietzsche's last name from German people: One is the one stated in the article [ˈniːtʃə], the other is the following:  [ˈniːt͡sʃə], pronouncing Z and Sch separately. Maybe the second option should be added to the introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.136.255.180 (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It used to be like that and consensus. Now it is moved to the archives. -- Zz (talk) 16:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Anti-anti-semitism
The grotesque misconception, especially attractive among Jewish critics like Kaufmann eager to incorporate such a seminal thinker into their ranks, that Nietzsche was on principle hostile to the anti-semitism of his time gets uncritical endorsement in the article. In fact, the central tenet of Nietzschean philosophy, will to power, targets the whole concept of Jewish victimhood/Christian sacrifice attitudes. Ascribing his loathing of Jewish ideas to his sister's editing of a few later books cannot hide the fact that his antipathy to Jewish influences is apparent in his writings from the first. His main attack on contemporary anti-semites like Wagner probably has more to do with personal resentments than principled opposition. And as in everything with the great transvaluer, one statement is only as valid as the next one that contradicts it.Orthotox (talk) 19:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your opinion. Unless you present reliable sources in support it has little value for writing the article.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

talk:86.10.130.171|talk]]) 02:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Anti-German
Shouldn't it be pointed out that Nietzche was very anti-German and actually hated the character of German people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.132.30 (talk) 16:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * No, because that's a gross oversimplification. Nietzsche criticized the then-current human character and emergence of humanism/nihlism at large. When he made negative statements about Germans it was akin to a current American (lets just say Republican for analogical simplicity) politician saying that they think America is on the wrong path. In either example, the speaker is not being "anti-German" or "anti-American" per se; they are actually expressing concern for what they perceive to be the poor/flawed state of something precious to them. Nietzsche was simultaneously an overt nationalist and a man eagerly willing to criticize his own nation(s). This is a combination which is increasingly difficult for modern readers to understand given our televised democracy where self-criticism is generally associated with one ideology and not the other (Republican v. Democrat). It was not so black and white during Nietzsche's period and in his academic environment. This was still the age of mercantilism and a 'scientific' (critical) approach to nationalism was the norm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.246.166.160 (talk) 10:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you prove it that Nietzsche's attitude towards Germans and Germany was like the attitude of an American who thinks America is on the wrong path? So, according to you, when Nietzsche says he doesn't have any German blood in him, that he is Polish, it's like an American Republican saying America is on the wrong path? In what way would it be alike? Explain and prove. - Marky — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.124.154.41 (talk) 09:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I strongly disagree with you. Nietzsche was fundamentally anti-German. He remarked that his paternal family belonged to the Polish aristocracy. Instead he hated his German maternal family (spiritually, he thought his sister belonged to it). Substantially, he considered and called the German people, "canaille". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.52.112.140 (talk) 22:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

References: note 70
Update the reference link: http://www.thenietzschechannel.com/correspondence/corresp.htm 66.87.2.208 (talk) 15:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

WHY DID YOU REMOVE MY POSTS? IS IT ON POLONOPHOBIC GROUNDS?
Is it on Polonophobic, i.e. anti-Polish grounds that you removed my posts? :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.124.154.41 (talk) 08:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The editor who removed it pointed to WP:NOTOPINION in his edit summary.  RJC  TalkContribs 16:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

"Polonophobic" = "fear of Poland."Lestrade (talk) 20:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)Lestrade
 * Nope, "Polonophobic" = "racist towards the Polish people and things Polish." - Marky:: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.124.154.41 (talk) 17:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

"Polon" [Latin] means "Poland." "Phobia" [Greek] means "fear of." "Polish" is not a race, it is a nationality.Lestrade (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Lestrade

EDITOR, SO WHY EXACTLY DID YOU REMOVE MY POSTS?
You replied to my inquiry of why you removed my posts as follows: "The editor who removed it pointed to WP:NOTOPINION in his edit summary. RJC TalkContribs 16:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)." I scrutinized the link but haven't found the explanation in question. So why exactly did you remove my posts? Was it because of, for example, your Polonophobia or prejudice against Polish people and things Polish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.124.154.41 (talk)
 * From WP:TPO: "It is still common, and uncontroversial, to simply delete gibberish, rants about the article subject (as opposed to its treatment in the article)". I'll leave this post here for a week and then delete the whole kahuna. Please don't come to Wikipedia to vent your personal opinions or to advance your personal agenda. On the other hand you are welcome to edit as per the guidelines. You can also take a peek here. Regards. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 01:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Intro: extraneous "and radical"
In the intro: "...questioning of all doctrines that drain life's expansive energies, however socially prevalent and radical those views might be." The "and radical" appears to contradict the preceding "socially prevalent". I checked the reference (44, Stanford Encyc of Philosophy) and this sentence appears to have been copied from there, except for this "and radical" portion. I propose "and radical" should be deleted, but defer to someone more familiar with this article. Gwideman (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Works
What do those lines in front of the titles mean? 83.83.106.41 (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Just came to this page looking for quotes but I wondered the same thing. Looks like it needs reformatting. Mdebellis (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Mention of Nietzsche's influence on Freud
This is relevant information that should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.251.105.47 (talk) 17:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Human, All Too Human
An indication of the level of current thinking is the fascination of Wikipedians with Nietzsche’s private, unknowable physical relationships. Should the article focus on understanding his ideas and philosophical thoughts? His books are readily available; positive evidence of his nocturnal activities does not exist.Lestrade (talk) 12:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Lestrade

Lack of NPOV in introduction
The introduction is badly in need of revision to achieve a NPOV. The following paragraph is extraordinary because it implies that the sole reason that "Nietzsche's name became associated with German militarism and Nazism" is the "Förster-Nietzsche's editions". This may well be true, but it's hardly uncontroversial fact. This theory, and its sources, could form part of the article. It needs to say which "scholars" have "attempted to counteract this (mis)conception, and remove the judgement that this is a "mis" conception - this is plainly not a neutral point of view.

It should also state which documents were doctored. "As his caretaker, his sister assumed the roles of curator and editor of Nietzsche's manuscripts. Förster-Nietzsche was married to a prominent German nationalist and antisemite, Bernhard Förster, and reworked Nietzsche's unpublished writings to fit her husband's ideology, often in ways contrary to Nietzsche's stated opinions, which were strongly and explicitly opposed to antisemitism and nationalism (see Nietzsche's criticism of antisemitism and nationalism). Through Förster-Nietzsche's editions, Nietzsche's name became associated with German militarism and Nazism, although later twentieth-century scholars have attempted to counteract this misconception of his ideas." — Preceding unsigned comment added by PTSN (talk • contribs) 12:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Why Include Extremist Ideologues?
Derrida, Sartre, Foucault are all far-left ideologues of anarchist, social-communist nihilism/"anti-essence/anti-telos"... How in any way do their distorted interpretations deserve mention here?

And why is the obeisance to the Walter Kauffmann vision so strict? I mean, this is laughable. Kauffman was interested in presenting a "soft" Nietzsche and was no "Mr. Innocent" -- why this undue obeisance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 (talk) 20:13, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Schopenhauer's influence on Nietzsche
The picture of Schopenhauer has the caption "...Schopenhauer's philosophy strongly influenced Nietzsche from 1865 until the end of Nietzsche's productive life." This is misleading and there is little evidence for this, with most scholars now agreeing that Nietzsche "abandoned" Schopenhauer's ideas very early on; as early as "Schopenhauer as Educator," for instance. In that essay, he praises Schopenhauer not for his philosophy, but rather for his influence as a philosopher; i.e. how to live the philosophical life correctly. By "Human, All Too Human" Nietzsche has abandoned him entirely for a more materialistic philsophy. Thereafter, there is no direct philosophical influence by Schopenhauer on the rest of Nietzsche's philosophy. A more appropriate caption would say: "...an early influence on Nietzsche's productive life." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.36.152.177 (talk) 15:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Correct, Schopenhauer was only the starting point for Nietzsche and afterwards he begann to criticize him, too. I'm convinced he somehow saw the direction where the train was going, Schopenhauer, Wagner, Hitler, all in the same line. By the way Nietzsche criticized Wagner for his illogic and unrational operas...and guess what where Hitlers' preferred operas? Therefore, if anybody is to blame for the uprise of the Nazis, it's Wagner, not Nietzsche, although some people still try it nowadays, as you can see down below. --178.197.236.59 (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Need to mention some more subjects
Why we haven't mentioned his admiration for Hinduism and it's scriptures? Bladesmulti (talk) 15:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about this. I mean, he may also have admired Zoroastrianism to a certain extend, so therefore he created an anti-Jesus-like figure in his books Thus Spoke Zarathustra. A story in which by the way he used to process some of his problems he had with some people. It's ironic and educational at the same time. But to say it clear: He was no follower of either any people or believe system. And he was mocking all the time about "followers"...just think a moment about what he would have thought about Twitter. ;) --178.197.227.68 (talk) 14:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Nazism
The references to Nietzsche's influence on Nazism have been slightly improved, but they still reflect a bias towards "rescuing" Nietzsche from the association. Any basic comparison of his work to the ideology and actions of the Nazis (not least their public approval of him) makes the association clear. Regardless of the fact that Nietzsche did not, could not, and indeed perhaps would not have endorsed the Nazis, the failure to point out the obvious relationship between the notion of the "Ubermensch" and the "Master Race", along with other concepts like the "Will to Power" and the disregard for morality in pursuit of evolutionary conquest, while extensively quoting prior Jewish approval of Nietzsche is simply misleading. Also, despite the fact that Hitler clearly and publicly expressed admiration for Nietszche, and (we are told in the article) repeated Nietzschean ideas in Mein Kampf, the nearly baseless opinion of modern, third party Nietszche apologists that Hitler "probably" never read Nietzsche is stated as fact. The wording of that particular line in the article should be changed to reflect the fact that it is the opinion of (potentially biased) modern writers, rather than based on any actual historical evidence that Hitler did not read Nietzsche, despite publicly lauding him and quoting him.

It is possible to acknowledge the historical reality that Nazism was deeply and legitimately influenced by Nietzsche (which it clearly was) while also acknowledging evidence that Nietzsche might not have approved of the Nazis (something we will never know for a fact, and the actions of his sister argue against). The idea that modern scholars who never met the man know that he would never have approved of the Nazis, while his own sister should be disregarded, requires a suspension of disbelief.

What we are basically being told in the article is this: Despite the fact that Hitler and the Nazis pointed to him as an inspiration, and his sister reciprocated the approval, we know for a fact that Nietzsche would never have supported them, his sister was a liar, and Hitler never read a word he wrote. That is disgracefully biased for an article that purports to be objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.192.197.86 (talk) 21:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

i agree with this - the article is biased in favour of "rescuing" Nietzsche from criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.196 (talk) 08:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I am "philo-Semitic" personally, but agenda-free all encyclopedic content should be -- Nietzsche has in common with the Nazi worldview 1) worstly, moral nihilism of Machiavellian moral expediency of wild sort antipathetic to Judaic-Christian agape-based civilization and 2) more ambiguously, the semi-feudal, anti-bourgeois, bellicose aristocratic ideology of "pure blood" -- inherited and vulgarized from the Germanic "old blood" clans -- the obsession with (implicitly so-called "white racialist") "pure/blue blood" the propagandist meat-physics of Nazism equaling the transposition onto the mass/volk as a concern instead of the noble individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 (talk) 20:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Stop talking bs. Nietzsche would have butchered by himself any Nazi creating a concentration camp, no matter with disabled persons or jews. Your IQ is obviously so low that you should immediately stop talking about people you aren't capable to understand. The nazis in Nietzsches view were stupid and nihilistic "Untermenschen". Now you know it. --178.197.236.59 (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Btw Nietzsche was certainly misinterpreted and misused by the Nazis. However, about people like you was already Goethe talking when he mentioned the critics of Werther should rather use their brains than trying to censor his books. To be clear: What Nietzsche did was writing books and not killing "Untermenschen"...anyway his books are far better than most of the disgraceful and ugly Hollywood movies coming to the movies. So please start criticising movies like "Saw" instead of Nietzsches books, you would do not only yourself but also the world a favour. --178.197.236.59 (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm convinced that the problem of Nietzsche was that he criticized everybody: Philosopher, Christianity, Buddhism, nihilism, the church, Jews, or in general any believe system that didn't fit in his "passionate way of life". So anybody who thinks in such believe systems nowadays is intended to criticize Nietzsche, no matter if Christians, Buddhists or Jews. However, that's probably the faith of all revolutioners, right? --178.197.227.68 (talk) 14:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * But I also recognize that Nietzsche is sometimes difficult to understand. E.g. when he was talking about "overcoming the morality", he didn't mean that it's appropriate to do genocide - like the Nazis would have understood it -, but he was rather talking about overcoming wrong or  false morality. Like in cases where people talk about another person and feel pityness, but in turn they don't do anything to help the person in a hardship. So Nietzsche didn't want to tell "Don't feel pityness towards other persons" (like the Nazis did when they were killing millions of humans) but he wanted to tell "Don't feel pityness if you are not going to do anything to help", and moreover "Don't judge other people only based on your limited knowledge and experiences". So therefore an advice: Don't judge Nietzsche by reading his books and just seeing all the "bad" or "inpolite" things he wrote...otherwise you're no better than the people having false morality who were criticized by Nietzsche. But then he is criticizing you anyway, and your critics on him are just a reaction from you trying to defend yourself. A human reaction - certainly - but yet it discloses an underdeveloped self-perception. --178.197.227.68 (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Unidentifiable citations
After going through the citations I have come across numerous unidentifiable sources in the vein of "Nietzsche, 1888", "Nietzsche, 1888d", "Nietzsche, 2005" and "Nietzsche, 2007". It seems someone didn't use the citation-templates properly and it is impossible to identify the sources from the information currently provided, which is especially problematic regarding some of the more disputed claims that they are supposed to support. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Infobox: School Weimar Classicism ???
According to the infobox, Nietzsche belonged to the school of Weimar Classicism. I am not an expert in philosophy or literature, but I am quite sure this must be a mistake. Regards. 94.227.39.28 (talk) 12:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Förster-Nietzsche
"Förster-Nietzsche was married to a prominent German nationalist and antisemite, Bernhard Förster, and reworked Nietzsche's unpublished writings to fit her own ideology, often in ways contrary to Nietzsche's stated opinions"

Isn't this speculation? Is the statement proven or at least commonly accepted? --88.78.55.215 (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe it's universally accepted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.20.158.134 (talk) 06:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Emerson
Sorry if this is, er, hugging a dead horse. But there's no mention of Emerson on the entire page! Except the silly "Harold Bloom has often claimed that the essays of Ralph Waldo Emerson had a profound and favourable influence on Nietzsche." Silly because Nietzsche often 'claimed' it, and more, himself. e.g.

Emerson. - Never have I felt so much at home in a book, & in my home, as - I may not praise it, it is too close to me. - Nietzsche, notes

The author who has been richest in ideas in this century so far has been an American (unfortunately made obscure by German philosophy - frosted glass) - Nietzsche, notes

Emerson. - Much more enlightened, adventurous, multifarious, refined than Carlyle; above all, happier...Such a man as instinctively feeds on pure ambrosia & leaves alone the indigestible in things. ...Carlyle, who had a great affection for him, nevertheless said of him: "He does not give us enough to bite on": which may be truly said, but not to the detriment of Emerson. - Emerson possesses that good-natured & quick-witted cheerfulness that discourages all earnestness; he has absolutely no idea how old he is or how young he will be - he could say of himself, in the words of Lope de Vega: "I am my own successor". His spirit is always finding reasons for being contented & even grateful... - Twilight of the Idols, Expeditions of an Untimely Man, 13

He read Emerson from his youth until the end of his working life. Also there are many direct influences; a few major ones that spring to mind: Superman/Overman comes from translation of Emerson's 'Over-soul'. 'Professor(s) of the Joyous Science' occurs several times in Emerson - it's what he was and wanted to be. (Incidentally, why it is STILL being mistranslated as the increasingly archaic/wrong/misleading 'Gay' I have no idea.) 'Thus Spake Zarathustra' comes from 'Thus my Orphic poet sang', the Orphic poet being Zoroaster/Zarathustra. I quote from very near the end of Emerson's first book Nature, which shows plainly enough its huge influence on the style and content of TSZ. Emerson is here 'quoting' the Orphic poet/Z.

" 'The foundations of man are not in matter, but in spirit. But the element of spirit is eternity. To it, therefore, the longest series of events, the oldest chronologies are young and recent. In the cycle of the universal man, from whom the known individuals proceed, centuries are points, and all history is but the epoch of one degradation.

'We distrust and deny inwardly our sympathy with nature. We own and disown our relation to it, by turns. We are, like Nebuchadnezzar, dethroned, bereft of reason, and eating grass like an ox. But who can set limits to the remedial force of spirit?

'A man is a god in ruins. When men are innocent, life shall be longer, and shall pass into the immortal, as gently as we awake from dreams. Now, the world would be insane and rabid, if these disorganizations should last for hundreds of years. It is kept in check by death and infancy. Infancy is the perpetual Messiah, which comes into the arms of fallen men, and pleads with them to return to paradise.

'Man is the dwarf of himself. Once he was permeated and dissolved by spirit. He filled nature with his overflowing currents. Out from him sprang the sun and moon; from man, the sun; from woman, the moon. The laws of his mind, the periods of his actions externized themselves into day and night, into the year and the seasons. But, having made for himself this huge shell, his waters retired; he no longer fills the veins and veinlets; he is shrunk to a drop. He sees, that the structure still fits him, but fits him colossally. Say, rather, once it fitted him, now it corresponds to him from far and on high. He adores timidly his own work. Now is man the follower of the sun, and woman the follower of the moon. Yet sometimes he starts in his slumber, and wonders at himself and his house, and muses strangely at the resemblance betwixt him and it. He perceives that if his law is still paramount, if still he have elemental power, if his word is sterling yet in nature, it is not conscious power, it is not inferior but superior to his will. It is Instinct.' Thus my Orphic poet sang. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.20.158.134 (talk) 06:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

This essay is crazy!!
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/destruction-reason/ch03.htm

According to Lukacs, Nietzsche was the master ideologue of bourgeois decadence Crazy!! But INTERESTING! Dudanotak (talk) 07:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Beginning of 'Philosophy' section embarrassingly bad
Would someone please rewrite (or add something substantial) to the first few sentences of this section? I just rearranged the sentence with 'seemingly paradoxical' to make it grammatical. (It wasn't) Then noticed that the first few sentences are truly awful, pretty empty waffle at best. Hmm has no-one noticed before? I guess it's hard to write about such large and general topics. But they read like they were written by a not-very-bright-or-interested junior high student trying to waffle past the essay word count minimum. Surely you can do better, wikipedia!! Yesenadam (talk) 11:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The paragraph in question can simply be removed. &mdash; goethean 14:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks, have done that.. Well, it WAS trying to say something about the singular character of N's writing style, just very badly. And now the truncated paragraph features heavily the to me (and N, no doubt) surprising claim that his work is unconnected with any 'revolutionary project'.. Maybe a Marxist would think so. (Although the Marxist-ridden 1980s were themselves N-inspired, through Heidegger->Foucault, Frankfurt school etc not to mention the whole post-modernism thing. And his relativism(-ish) statements have changed the way we all speak and think etc)
 * Also.. that Walter K claim that N didn't favour the master-morality over the slave-morality seems very wacky; as they say, you would have to be very smart to believe something like that. Has anyone else believed or written that? Things that only one person think are hardly worth mentioning in a broad survey of N's views like this. Especially when so apparently flying in the face of all the evidence. Yesenadam (talk) 00:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Problem with users ImprovingWiki and Goethean
Please stop removing links to Nietzschean critique of free will because it is important in his philosophy. Almost every book of him speaks something about the lack of free will. And not necessarily of other loudly announced topics.

Other users are welcome to assist in restoring the section repeatedly until the offending users do not mark concrete sentences or words with "fact" template, which they should do in the beginning. Removal of apparently true content is not the way. Also, it is always possible to try to claim even openly falsely that a source does not say something but something a little else, due to differences in wording or in context etc. (or, alternatively, if bigger parts are quoted, a copyright problem arises).

They ignore both BOLD (which obliges them to discuss here immediately after revert) and Revert only when necessary (which is here false in points 1-2, i.e. vandalism or lack of any improvement in any single part of the edit; and false in 3-4, they depend on my own attitude so I can attest these conditions are not fulfilled either). 89.67.140.182 (talk) 03:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but nothing that either I or Goethean has done justifies you in making multiple reverts. Yes, I should have discussed here earlier, but no, that emphatically does not give you the right to make multiple reverts. Clear enough? Continuing your current course will prove untenable. ImprovingWiki (talk) 05:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Please review WP:OR. Thanks! &mdash; goethean 14:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Can't you see the referenced secondary sources? Are you perhaps blind? I've added more footnotes recently. 46.77.124.82 (talk) 04:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Regardless of your view of the merits of the material, you simply cannot keep restoring it when multiple other editors have rejected the material. Wikipedia simply doesn't work that way. Trying to cite WP:ONLYREVERT in defense of your unacceptable behavior simply shows that you do not understand Wikipedia, and will get you nowhere. It is an essay, not a policy or a guideline. It doesn't take precedence over basic policies, such as those against edit warring, and it doesn't support you in any way. Other editors are not obliged to follow your pompous dictates about which edits are acceptable and which are not. ImprovingWiki (talk) 06:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Users, please help with this fatal case. As I said the topic is considered so relatively important as to mention it in a separate section only because it returns in almost every book of Nietzsche. BTW the level of opponents' "arguments" is pathetic. :( I delete for I delete 46.77.124.82 (talk) 07:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a collaborative project. You appear to be a single user, editing from multiple IP addresses and now a user account as well, trying to overwhelm opponents by making endless reverts. You'll find that such behavior won't get you anywhere here, and it doesn't matter if you think that what other editors have to say is "pathetic." By the way, your edit here misuses the "minor edit" label in an inappropriate fashion. Edits should be labelled minor only when they are genuinely minor and uncontroversial, which obviously is not the case here. That's simply more evidence that you don't know what you're doing. ImprovingWiki (talk) 08:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  00:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've semi-protected this article for one month and added PC1 indefinitely to help eliminate the obvious socking.


 * The users can clearly notice this strange hiding of content, which is contrary to formally stated rules; see also Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring. Apparently a man came like he was nobody but indeed he represented admins (typical in cases of politically originated corruption, like in the sysplex blog); how obvious it was that an admin would soon come to support the unjustifiable reverter. No admin will support me in this case even though I am obviously right, due to likely direct Wikimedia Foundation's involvement (users have not looked into this perhaps because nobody reads the Talk page). Try to improve your manners, your respect for public "rules" and "guidelines." Kind regards. Piotrniz (talk) 01:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  03:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that even the famous "will to power" or "Ubermensch" occur only perhaps in 2 books each, maybe 3, whereas the whole philosophy of Nietzsche is full of free will denial and various criticisms, and constant belief in falsehood of this doctrine. As to the justification of a separate section. But it's quite possible an admin will come and just say "sorry, this is not important."(?) Kind regards. PS thanks for blocking my whole /24 subnet (256 neighbouring IPs). Also please do not force me to elaborate more and more on this subject because I am normally rarely occupied with this, as I never did any such comments on philosophy within latest 6 years(!). (Heh, curious whether will they remove this paragraph from Talk? And btw: reason for blocking..."abusing multiple accounts", funny, see the admins talk page cited above, I am as always using one). See my normal non-proxified IP from ISP (Plus GSM) here :) 5.172.252.18 (talk) 02:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for confessing to being a sock...I've blocked three ranges out including this last one. I will be amending the main account's block for block evasion if you persist and double the block.

Piotrniz, the reason that no admin is likely to support you in your content dispute with other users here is hardly likely to be "direct Wikimedia Foundation's involvement". There are far more mundane explanations, including lack of interest in the subject. Failure to take a realistic view of Wikipedia as an editing environment is not at all helpful in resolving disputes. ImprovingWiki (talk) 08:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Wow, this Piotrniz guy is really noxious huh. So self-righteous and know-it-all.. if anyone disagrees with him they're pathetic and blind, it's a conspiracy, etc and lecturing people on their manners! So deluded. Uh maybe he's trolling. Anyway, well-handled, guys, far as I can see. Except, well, I'm pretty new here, maybe I should have more hope and faith, but I can't see anything short of a permanent block helping. Very strange and unpleasant attitude. Yesenadam (talk) 10:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Friends of ImprovingWiki and other Catholic fundamentalists that are against knowledge about the history of philosophy are asked to keep away from this article. His use of two dots instead of three is typical and well-known amongst a certain surveillance gang. 178.42.114.180 (talk) 00:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * IP, you might want to read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. PS, it's a good idea to refrain from assuming that someone believes in a particular religion in the absence of any statement by them to that effect. You're possibly assuming that I am Catholic because I state on my user page that I'm opposed to abortion. Your assumption is incorrect. ImprovingWiki (talk) 04:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Small correction to make to the paragraph 'Independent philosopher (1879–88)'
Hello. I'm writing this here as the article is currently protected preventing me from making the modification. In the paragraph with the title 'Independent philosopher (1879–88)' there is a small error. It reads "In 1883 he tried and failed to obtain a lecturing post at the University of Leipzig. It was made clear to him that, in view of the attitude towards Christianity and the concept of God expressed in Zarathustra, he had become effectively unemployable by any German university". However Thus Spoke Zarathustra wasn't published until the year 1886. In fact if you follow the link to the source he talks about the Zarathustra in the next paragraph: "[...] owing to the fact that the Faculty would never dare to recommend me to the Board of Education in view of my attitude towards Christianity and the concept of God. Bravo! This expression of opinion restored my courage to me." That is the paragraph referring to him failing to get a place at Leipzig university. In the next paragraph he writes: "Even the first criticism of the first part of Zarathustra that I have received (written by a Christian and anti-Semite to boot, and strangely enough produced in a prison) gives me courage, seeing that in it the popular attitude, which is the only one in me that can be grasped to wit, my attitude towards Christianity—was immediately, distinctly and well understood. "Aut Christ us aut Zarathustra![84] Or, to put it plainly, the old long-promised Anti-Christ has come to the fore—that is what my readers feel." Although the criticisms are very similar the Board of Education could not have known Thus Spoke Zarathustra specifically as the review he has received for the Zarathustra he himself quotes as being "the first criticism of the first part of Zarathustra". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel Gardner-Medwin (talk • contribs) 11:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2014
The "influenced" section is way too short. He clearly also influenced (off the top of my head):

- Alfred Adler (who used 'The Will To Power' in his own psychoanalysis). - Carl Jung. - Jean-Paul Sartre.

AndyBee123 (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  Anon 126   (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 00:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Why is there no "Criticism" section? So many articles on controversial figures and writers include a section of criticism of their works and practices that I think it would be appropriate to include one on Nietzsche. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.68.143.135 (talk) 08:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation
I have eliminated the bit advising that "Nietzschee" is a valid way of pronouncing Nietzsche twice before, Omnipaedista reverted it again. Im not sure if that's a bot or what, seems to have no interest in the subject, or an equal amount in every, at least. He/it said "— Wikipedia is not prescriptive; if a reliable source reports it (Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary), then it is included here)" Uh but the 2 pronunciations are hardly equal, are they, appearing side by side as equals on the page. One is used by anyone who knows anything about Nietzsche, the other by everybody else. Or maybe Omnipaedista pronounces it that way. I don't know. I get his/it's point. But because one person/book says something, doesn't make it so. And dictionaries are prescriptive, aren't they, generally, they don't say every way anybody in the world uses/pronounces a word, but the right way. etc etc. I just don't feel good having this page tell ppl who don't know better, that Nietzschee or Nietzsche are equally valid. oh anyway.. p.s. thanks to whoever added the Emerson section :-D pretty good for a start, thanks! :-D The influence (warning, original speculation) probably went much further - he woke him to himself and made him happy. As RWE did for me :-D Yesenadam (talk) 11:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Robert Hawkins?
Who is Robert Hawkins? See "Some would say, Nietzsche was very similar to the great and powerful philosopher Mr Robert Hawkins in his theory on Übermensch." at the bottom of the Ubermensch section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.15.42.119 (talk) 19:07, 19 January 2014‎

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2014
The external link to guttenberg project is not correct, it returns 0 results. Please change from



to



Kubetson (talk) 11:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: For me, the current external link in the article returns 1 result: "Nietzche, Friedrich Wilhelm". Not seeing a problem to fix. Nici  Vampire  Heart  11:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation II
In German it is pronounced 'ni:tʃə, not 'ni:tsʃə. See tzsch.--Fußballgeograph (talk) 12:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)