Talk:Friedrich Nietzsche/Archive 18

Nietzsche on Courage
Friedrick Nietzsche on Courage

In Beyond Good and Evil, Friedrick Nietzsche writes, “And to remain master of one's four virtues, courage, insight, sympathy, and solitude” (para 284). Nietzsche would describe a noble man as mastering the virtues (para 284). A noble person has reverence for himself, creates values, and can no longer being stuck in a master-slave relations (para 260 287). Nietzsche breaks this master-slave relationship down into two moralities: master morality and slave morality. Master are the creators of morality, they become the measure of all things, and they determine what is good (para 260). Slaves revalue their masters values, they submit to the commands of the master, and are servants. However, in order to display courage a person must be noble and cannot be stuck in an old world, master-slave relationship.

Nietzsche gives a definition of courage in Beyond Good and Evil, “The great epochs of our life are the occasions when we gain the courage to rebaptize our evil qualities as our best qualities” (116).

In the Gay Science, Nietzsche writes that “human beings who are bent on seeking in all things for what in them must be overcome” is an example of courage (para 283). Nietzsche is calling for courageous human beings who can overcome what is within themselves.

In The Will To Power, Nietzsche describes “every achievement of knowledge as a consequence of courage” (1041). Seeking after knowledge is crucial in displaying courage for Nietzsche.

Nietzsche describes courage in a few different ways but courage is something that is internal and personal for Nietzsche. Courage does not involve others. It is often referred to as an inward “rebaptizing” or “overcoming,” also as a search for knowledge and understanding. 40.138.72.5 (talk) 04:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

And you wrote this here why exactly? Well, Nietzsche said a lot of stuff about a lot of stuff. "Courage" doesn't seem a particularly important or unique/notable theme in N to me - after the first paragraph, this strikes me as taken from (or at least, already in) and better said by Emerson. Yesenadam (talk) 12:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Remove references from the lead?
The lead is inconsistently referenced. For eg, notice how there's a ref for "metaphor" but nothing else in that sentence. Or how there's one for Emerson in the infobox but nobody else. Further there's really nothing that those refs are citing that's remotely controversial or actively contested. Therefore, per WP:LEAD, since there isn't "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged" I believe we can "avoid redundant citations in the lead". I propose that we remove the citations from the lead.—indopug (talk) 08:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no point in worrying or complaining about "inconsistency". The proper question to ask is whether each individual ref serves a useful purpose. The ref for "metaphor" obviously does, because there is nothing else in the article that backs up the statement that metaphor was an important part of Nietzsche's philosophy; as such, it is a good example of the kind of statement that clearly does need to be backed up by a ref. I already removed the Emerson ref from the infobox, as I agree it is unnecessary. I think it is a serious mistake to assume that the remaining refs are unnecessary or harmful in some way, and they definitely should not be removed. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

"being fond of metaphors"
The question of style is so essential for Nietzsche that using the expression "being fond of" in this context either displays "unwareness" of this fact, or intent to mislead,

either way, the expression has to be removed.

My attempt at correcting this problem:

"displaying a highly developed, rhetorical, rhythmical prose style, rich in metaphor and irony"

has been rejected.

Quessler (talk) 01:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Regarding "intent to mislead", please read WP:AGF. I'm afraid I simply wasn't convinced that your change was an improvement, and frankly I see nothing in your comment above to make me change my mind. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Someone made crazy changes... can it please be returned to a previous version?
The article has been edited maliciously by some bad-taste spammer. "Friedrich Whatzup Nietsche" where it should be Friedrich Wilhelm "Death of Starbucks", should be death of God, etc. Very tiresome, isn`t it. I came here to learn something, I`m not sure I can edit the article back. Can someone just replace with a previous version? 27.142.85.227 (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)20150402 otto (at)japaninfo.nl
 * Hi there, I've reverted the article back to its previous version. Someone had (obviously) vandalized it a little while ago, probably for an April Fool prank. Thank you for pointing the vandalism out! In the future, you can undo bad edits like this by going to the "View history" tab at top and clicking "undo" on the offending edit. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi thanks for restoring the text. And thanks for your instruction, now I know what to do in cases like this!27.142.85.227 (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC) 20150402 otto( at)japaninfo.nl

on pure conjecture of Nietzsche's personal life
I had removed two lines of dubious conjecture on Nietzsche personal life... I believe they were about him frequenting male brothels and contracting his syphilis from male prostitutes. I left the conjecture of homosexuality in, but removed these rather questionable and unsubstantiated claims which originated in only one book, by an author not notable enough to have a wiki page. Within minutes another editor reverted my edit. Rather than engage in an edit war, I tried discussing the issue on that editor's talk page and tried to assume good faith. I encourage other editors to address this issue of pure conjecture, in an attempt to find consensus. This was the discussion there to date:


 * == nietzsche conjecture ==


 * I see you did a simple undo of my edit down of some controversial views, not commonly held my most Nietzsche scholars about his sexuality. I am doubtful you read my reason for the edit, as a consensus is not required to remove large chunks of unsubstantiated conjecture about a historical figure. I did not remove the spirit of the comments, but when speculation overshadows fact, it must be put in context. Random comments about him seeing male prostitutes from which he got syphilis are conjecture and have no basis in history. There is no basis for such claims and no Nietzsche scholar holds this as anything but gossip; save the one author. I don't feel like getting into an edit controversy over this, but unless YOU can find some basis for these claims, it is YOU that must find a consensus. Discussions of the author of the conjecture belong on a wikipage about that author, however he is not considered notable enough to have one. That alone speaks volumes about the quality of that content. Can you explain your interest in keeping an inordinate amount of this sort of conjecture about a Nietzsche's life which has no factual basis for being made?Cinebuns5000 (talk) 22:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:AGF and WP:CONSENSUS. I did indeed read your reason for the edit. I simply was not convinced by it. You are mistaken to claim that consensus is not needed to remove such material. Consensus would be required to remove almost any material that is not a violation of either WP:BLP or copyright. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I have read them and suggest that you please re-read WP:BLP, because that is EXACTLY the point I was making. There no way to VERIFY that Nietzsche contracted syphilis from male hookers. That author was not there, there are no documents pertaining to it. It pure conjecture. Conjecture and NOT acceptable per WP:BLP. Thus, it should be removed. So again, I must ask: "Can you explain your interest in keeping an inordinate amount of this sort of conjecture about a Nietzsche's life which has no factual basis for being made?" I will drop this issue, but I don't believe that unsubstantiated claims by questionable sources have a place on wikipedia. Do you?Cinebuns5000 (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * BLP is biographies of living people and it applies only to the living. Nietzsche has been dead for more than a century. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I know what BLP is.
 * YOU are the one who quoted it above first, not me. see your comment before mine.
 * Are you saying pure conjecture is allowed on Wikipedia just because someone is dead?
 * I guess I could say anything about anyone then as long as they are dead.
 * I am trying to believe you are acting in good faith, but you are not addressing the issue here or answering my question.Cinebuns5000 (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Cinebuns5000 (talk) 01:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not going to remove it, but for future reference, it's not a good idea to repost a discussion that occurred on one page (in this case, my talk page) on another page. The material to which you object is clearly reliably sourced, per WP:VERIFY, and I see no reason it should be removed. The sources used are a published book and an academic article and they seem completely acceptable. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I took the liberty of trimming down the selection of info in that section. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 03:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have partially reverted your edit. I accept that the edit was well-intentioned, and I think parts of it were an improvement. Unfortunately, you removed so much material about syphilis that the section discussing it ceases to make sense in your version. What you added reads, "Köhler argues that Nietzsche's syphilis is equally likely to have been contracted in a male brothel, while also suggesting Nietzsche may have had a romantic relationship as well as a friendship with Paul Rée." That is simply confusing, because it does not answer the question, equally as likely as what? It also leaves the reader guessing why the syphilis and the friendship with Paul Rée are being discussed together in the same sentence, as these facts seem to have nothing to do with each other. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I see what you are saying. I think it would be better if "Cologne or Leipzig" and "Genoa" were removed, so a direct quote may not be the way to go. I don't see how the location of the brothels would in any way be useful to the readers. That was one of the reasons I altered what/how I did, but it did make it a bit confusing. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 06:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Should a topic about Nietzsche's views on free will exist?
There is currently such an article (Friedrich Nietzsche and free will) but some say it should be deleted (AfD discussion). 77.252.107.58 (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Friedrich Nietzsche. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130123020205/http://nietzschecircle.com:80/essayArchive5.html to http://www.nietzschecircle.com/essayArchive5.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Is this really correct?
"To be "good" was to be happy and to have the things related to happiness: wealth, strength, health, power, etc. To be "bad" was to be like the slaves..."

Wealthy? Is this really correct? One of the non-fake claims in his will to power theory was overthrowing material wants, which was generally reflected and a central point throughout his life anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.71.64.115 (talk) 05:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you understand what is being said? The idea is that Nietzsche's theory is that the original meaning of "good" was "noble"- wealthy, powerful, rich, well-born, prosperous, strong, happy, healthy-- it is a class-based theory of the meaning of goodness, originally, which he locates in an early class-system's judgments of themselves.

Later, around the time Christianity emerges, a new meaning of "good" arises, in which goodness comes to mean the poor, the humble, those who ask for and have little, weakness, turning the other cheek, and so on.

Nietzsche also does not have a simplistic account of one of these two states being preferable or desirable (nor does he think current culture is either exclusively one or the other), so the fact that Nietzsche himself was rather poor and clearly did not live the life of a slaughtering lion or an Ancient Roman nobleman hardly refutes his theory. Q.E.D.

The theory is meant as a descriptive theory of how things actually happened in the history of morality, though surely it is not mean to be entirely without normative implications.

And as a post-script, your writing sounds amateurish when you try to make your points with bluster rather than argument as in "non-fake claims". Show some decent respect for a major philosopher who has almost certainly spent more time thinking about the evolution of morality than you have. Parrhesiast (talk) 22:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

And one more post-script is that it isn't really clear that Nietzsche has a developed "will to power theory" as you state. There are some pregnant passages in the unpublished works, but certainly no well-developed theory. This is a misconception of those who mainly rely on the unpublished collections released by his sister, the very archetype of a "tendenetinious editor." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parrhesiast (talk • contribs) 22:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Parrhesiast is a likely sock of User:SuperFriendlyEditor, who was recently blocked indefinitely. I've noted the basis for my concerns on Parrhesiast's talk page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

See how they must defame Nietzsche
by hiding his best arguments and just saying to the 75% Christian populace that "his book are full of atheistic s**t," maybe without the latter word. Atheism is usually taken (by this 75%) as a kind of vice, unless justified in a way that gives food for thought. Edits by (2A00:F41:4:FC24:2C06:E96D:9B4A:6F80 (talk) 00:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)) and groundless revert war by "FreeKnowledgeCreator," who also voted for deletion of Dilemma of determinism, completely without grounds on Deletion policy. Must we see mainly the primitive, barbarious way of ideological struggle?

Yet another such 'user' (probably a lurked admin) -- whose nickname sounded like a wordplay on Wikipedia ("ImprovingWiki") -- removed a very important section from the article on Nietzsche. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Friedrich_Nietzsche&diff=628563967&oldid=628515290 2A00:F41:4:FC24:2C06:E96D:9B4A:6F80. A whole network of Catholic censors, it seems. (talk) 00:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Your comment above is little better than vandalism. I think you will find that insulting and abusing me is not a substitute for rational discussion. If your edits are reverted, then you need consensus to restore them. If need be, the article will be protected against your edits. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No slightest *personal* insult against "FreeKnowledgeCreator" here. At most I criticize your acts but never you yourself. 2A00:F41:4:FC24:2C06:E96D:9B4A:6F80 (talk) 01:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You have just insulted me in an edit summary. If you keep up this behavior, you will be blocked. Also, you are apparently a returning user engaged in deliberate disruption. Do you think people won't notice? Everything about your behavior, everything about your comments above, indicates that you are here to pick a fight. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You must have misunderstood the summary (unless you are indeed an employee of TVP disguised as a normal user and native speaker of English). Please do not bring me into personal disputes because this is about your harmful edits. 37.47.20.61 (talk) 03:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that you are now suddenly editing from another IP address, and aren't denying that you are Kingshowman or some other returning user, just confirms my impression that you are editing disruptively. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Karmic perspectives
In anthroposophical works and the lectures of Rudolf Steiner, one can learn about how the spirit of Schopenhauer worked through its influence through Nietzsche. Also how his last two works were not really written by Nietzsche, the person as he was before, but through an Ahrimanic spiritual influence. And how both Wagner and Steiner worked to 'help' or protect Nietzsche at the end of his life and after his death to battle with the attacks of these spiritual influences. There is quite extensive material available in various lectures for those doing the research. An introductory summary can be found in the book Milestones by Thomas Meyer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.214.90 (talk) 07:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * This would belong on Steiner's page if anywhere. I don't think many people outside the Anthroposophy/Steiner scene attach any credence whatever to, if they know anything about, Steiner's extremely odd (to put it mildly) spiritual beliefs. (That stuff you mention sounds quite insane, in a way not unlike, say, David Icke - extravagantly loopy and without evidence of any kind.) Wagner? The Wagner who died in 1883? Hmm. I don't think that stuff you mention is relevant or significant for the Nietzsche page. At all. Yesenadam (talk) 10:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Friedrich Nietzsche. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131105075926/http://www.eoneill.com/library/ericlevin/i.htm+Lazarus+Laughed+Nietzsche&cd=1&hl=sr&ct=clnk&gl=ba to http://www.eoneill.com/library/ericlevin/i.htm+Lazarus+Laughed+Nietzsche&cd=1&hl=sr&ct=clnk&gl=ba

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Pronunciation, for the umpteenth time
The article states that the name is pronounced [ˈniːt͡sʃə]. In my humble opinion, this is a spelling pronunciation. I would not say that it is wrong, as many speakers use it. However, the penagraph is to the best of my knowledge almost always pronounced /tʃ/, as in Delitzsch (also see Tzsch). Therefore I think we should change the pronunciation to ''[ni:tʃə], also: [ˈniːt͡sʃə]. Yupanqui (talk) 12:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Name is Wrong on Page Title
His name is "Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche".

Not "Friedrich Nietzsche".

I have NEVER heard him called by 2 names, rather than 3.

It is a custom. Similar to John Wilkes Booth or Lee Harvey Oswald as well as thousands of other wiki. Why this has 2 names, i cannot understand? 112.198.90.70 (talk) 07:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Fritz dropped the middle name at some point. Talk:Friedrich_Nietzsche/Archive_7 --BurritoBazooka (talk) 11:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Are you serious, 112.198? I've never heard him called the 3-name version. I don't think the 3-name version is a custom at all. Are you any kind of Nietzsche expert or expert in a related field? I doubt it. Neither upper case nor your dogmatic title are arguments, or fill me with confidence. Etc. Yesenadam (talk) 10:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Yesenadam, I do not know what is wrong with you. Your name sounds Jewish, so maybe you are racist. But I agree with both of the above. It seems there is some evidence to the 2 name form, such as his grave, and a few references from his life. However, I agree with the other person, "Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche" is how he is commonly called in America. Either just "Nietzsche" or "Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche". But NEVER "Friedrich Nietzsche". Seems as awkward as saying "John Booth" or "Lee Oswald", as the examples above note. I have a PhD in Philosophy, by the way. "Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche" has been the focal point of my life. Though that should not matter on wikipedia, as it is free knowledge for all, and from all.

BTW-I do see his full name in the rest of the titles of the article. But the article's main title really SHOULD be "Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche", as that is how he is commonly known. This is the rule under Wiki Law for Common Names.73.220.34.167 (talk) 03:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, I just saw your comment today. Please be less abrasive on wikipedia in future, thanks, if you can. Starting "I do not know what is wrong with you" and going immediately on to say, maybe I'm racist, isn't appropriate or acceptable on here. "Your name sounds Jewish, so maybe you are racist." sounds like something from the later Bobby Fischer. (i.e. offensive, paranoid and insane) I'm not sure why you need words in capitals to boost your argument; that's not a good look either. I find it very difficult to believe that you manage to complete a philosophy degree without ever hearing or reading the phrase "Friedrich Nietzsche". Anyway, I'm not interested in writing here further, although I guess you will respond. I just wanted to object to your tone. You do come across as quite autistic, in the internet sense. Sorry to question your knowledge in this area. I guess you meant that Nietzsche has been your 'focal point', not the 3-pronged name. Hope so anyway. :-) Cheers. Yesenadam (talk) 06:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

This article seems to whitewash Nietzsche's influence on the Nazis
This article states Nietzsche's growing prominence suffered a severe setback when his works became closely associated with Adolf Hitler and the German Reich. Many political leaders of the twentieth century were at least superficially familiar with Nietzsche's ideas, although it is not always possible to determine whether they actually read his work. Hitler, for example, probably never read Nietzsche and, if he did, his reading was not extensive,[247][248][249][250] although he was a frequent visitor to the Nietzsche museum in Weimar and did use expressions of Nietzsche's, such as "lords of the earth" in Mein Kampf. The Nazis made selective use of Nietzsche's philosophy." I think it is underrating Nietzsche's influence on the Nazis. Hannah Newman in The Rainbow Swastika: A Report to Jews on New Age Anti-Judaism stated [begin quote] At some point, he [Hitler] discovered two German occultists who eloquently expressed his own understanding of Aryan religion and destiny: Richard Wagner [details later] and Friedrich Nietzsche. These influenced Nazi thought so heavily that the authors of _The Occult and the Third Reich_ name them as "the two prime initiators of the Third Reich", (p.119) and devote two entire chapters to documenting this claim. To these can be added a third, who lived before Hitler and tried to weld Wagnerian and Nietzschean thought into one work: the British occultist Houston Stewart Chamberlain, who wrote in his epic _Foundations of the Nineteenth Century_ (1900): "Every Mystic is, whether he will or not, a born Anti-Semite." (Sklar, p.11) [end quote] Newman, Hannah The Rainbow Swastika: A Report to the Jewish People on New Age Anti-Semitism Chapter F: Nazism and New Age Doing a search on the google snippet preview of the book Hannah Newman referenced I got results for Nietzsche prime initiators, it is located on pages 117 and 119,. Newman also wrote [begin quote] In Hitler's words, Christianity "only added the seeds of decadence such as forgiveness, self-abnegation, weakness, false humility and the very denial of the evolutionary laws of survival of the fittest [social Darwinism]," and would obviously be a handicap to the new species which he was personally commissioned by the "masters" to see properly birthed and nurtured. But Hitler perceptively placed the ultimate blame where it is due: "Conscience is a Jewish invention. It is a blemish, like circumcision.... There is no such thing as truth, either in the moral or in the scientific sense. The new man would be the antithesis of the Jew." (Sklar, p. 57-58) Nietzsche likewise considered the Christian Bible nearly worthless because of its Jewish origin: "In Christianity, seen as the art of sacred lying, we're back with Judaism.... The Christian is but a Jew of more liberal persuasion." (_Antichrist_, quoted in Angeberts, p.126) [Compare with the NA view of how Judaism "defiled" Christianity.] In this context, antisemitism was not a starting point for the inner Nazi society as it was for the masses; Jew-hatred was the inevitable result of absorbing these bedrock occult teachings.[end quote] On google books preview of Nietzsche's book I found the basic quote Hannah Newman was referring to "The whole of Judaism appears in Christianity as the art of concoting holy lies, and there, after many centuries of earnest Jewish training and hard practices of Jewish technic the business comes to the stage of mastery. The Christian, that ultima ratio of lying is the Jew all over again" Newman also mentions [begin quote] Hitler's associate, Bernhard Forster (who happened to be Nietzsche's brother-in-law) related to Hermann Rauschning how Hitler had proclaimed that he "would bring the world a new religion" [end quote] G. Durocher stated [begin quote] Eckart considered Fichte, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche to be the foundational philosophers of National Socialism. Fichte’s influence on Hitler is uncertain, although the former pioneered similar concepts of “Volkskrieg” and of Jews as “a state within the state.”

When asked by Leni Riefenstahl what he liked to read, Hitler answered simply: “Schopenhauer.” When asked on Nietzsche, he responded: “I can’t really do much with Nietzsche” (129). Nonetheless, he would meet with Nietzsche’s relatives. Hitler gave a deluxe edition of Nietzsche’s collected works to Mussolini on the latter’s sixtieth birthday. Mussolini was almost invariably a dear friend of Hitler’s and, like Richard Wagner, must be considered one of the great non-literary influences on him.[end quote] Hitler's Reading Habits by G. Durocher Counter Currents Patrick Buchanan has written about Nietzsche [begin quote] Anti-Christian and Anti-Jewish, Nietzsche was also a raving sexist. 'Woman is by nature a snake' he wrote in 'The Anti-Christi' 'Thou goest to women, do not forget thy whip'.His great ideas, that 'God is dead' that man's destiny is to be the superman found their logical culmination in Hitler's master race. [end quote] Buchanan, Patrick "Leading Atheists were Dreadful people, frauds" The Lewiston Journal April 25 1989 There is a great deal of evidence Nietzsche influenced the Nazis and this article takes an apologetic tone to Nietzsche and whitewashes it. RandomScholar30 (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Nietzsche has been perceived by many scholars as Anti-Jewish and as an influence on the Nazis, so in my view there ought to at least be a section about Nietzsche and Anti-Judaism that discusses the claim. There are many Anti-Jewish quotes in Nietzsche's writings, for example the one Hannah Newman brought up in her online book The Rainbow Swastika "In Christianity, seen as the art of sacred lying, we're back with Judaism.... The Christian is but a Jew of more liberal persuasion." (_Antichrist_, quoted in Angeberts, p.126)" RandomScholar30 (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "[He] Hitler, is believed to have read Nietzsche, although there is no way of knowing precisely which texts." Rash, F. Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf Peter Lang New York page 26

"We know, from his [Hitler's] secretary, that he could quote Schopenhauer by the page, and the other German philosopher of willpower, Nietzsche, whose works he afterwards presented to Mussolini, was often on his lips." Trevor Roper, H. The Mind of Adolf Hitler page xxxvii introductory essay for Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944 Secret Coversations Enigma Books 2008 "'Landsberg,' Hitler told Hans Frank, was his 'university paid for by the state.' He read, he said, everything he could get hold of: Nietzsche, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Ranke, Treitschke, Marx, Bismark's Thoughts and Memories, and the war memoirs of German and allied generals and statesmen....But Hitler's reading and reflection were anything but academic, doubtless he did read much. However, as was noted in an earlier chapter, he made clear in My Struggle that reading for him had purely an instrumental purpose. He read not for knowledge or enlightenment, but for confirmation of his own preconceptions." Kershaw, Ian Hitler: Hubris 1889-1936 WW Norton page 240 "The extent of Nietzsche's influence on Nazism has been disputed, with many scholars denying any substantial links. But it is likely some influence was present. August Kubizek's assertion that Hitler read Nietzsche in his youth is unreliable, but Hitler certainly owned a book, given him by Himmler, that outlined Nietzsche's thought, and he told Hans Frank that he had read Nietzsche in the Landsberg prison. Hitler visited Nietzsche's sister several times at the Weimar Nietzsche Archiv. He clearly regarded Nietzsche's thought as constitutive for National Socialism: he placed a copy of Thus Spoke Zoroaster along with My Struggle and Alfred Rosenberg's The Myth of the Twentieth Century in the Tannenberg monument to Hindenberg and in July 1943 he sent a copy of Nietzsche's collected works as a sixtieth birthday present to Mussolini...In 1943 Goebbles recorded Hitler as saying 'that is why Nietzsche is inevitably far closer to the way we see the world than Schopenhauer for the task of philosophy is to simplify and intensify life not to cover it with a veil of pessimism." edited Patterson, D and Roth, J Fire in the Ashes : God, Evil and the Holocaust 2005 University of Washington Press page 11 "Nietzsche's influence on Hitler is undeniable. In fact, historian William Shirer has written that 'Hitler often visited the Nietzsche museum in Weimar and publicized his veneration for the philosopher by posing for photographs of himself staring in rapture at the bust of the great man' Zacharias, Ravi The Real Face of Atheism 2004 Baker Books page 62 "So profound and operative was Nietzsche's influence upon Hitler that it provided a conceptual framework for his demagogical to obliterate the weak and inferior of the world. That being done, Hitler would establish the supremacy of the 'superman' in an unobstructed and dominant role. Hitler also personally presented a copy of Nietzsche's works to Benito Mussolini. " page 26 of Zacharias A look through google books shows plenty of evidence that scholars generally believe Hitler at least superficially read Nietzsche and was at least to a limited extent influence by his ideas. Only a Nietzsche apologist would fail to see the evidence Nietzsche influenced the Nazis. And this is not a fringe theory, but a scholarly consensus. The statement I complained about above, "Hitler, for example, probably never read Nietzsche and, if he did, his reading was not extensive,[247][248][249][250] although he was a frequent visitor to the Nietzsche museum in Weimar and did use expressions of Nietzsche's, such as "lords of the earth" in Mein Kampf. The Nazis made selective use of Nietzsche's philosophy." should be changed based on all the sources I have shown demonstrating that scholars do think Hitler read Nietzsche at least superficially, and was influenced by his ideas. If more evidence scholars believe that is needed, more can be provided. RandomScholar30 (talk) 03:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

See WP:BECONCISE. You may have a point, but it's not necessary to offer a million quotations from scholarly works to back it up. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * My basic point is the statement should be changed to that scholars are divided on whether Hitler read Nietzsche, instead of saying there is an overwhelming consensus Hitler never read him. We could insert the sources I quoted from, except for Hannah Newman because she is certainly fringe and Zacharias because he is possibly fringe, and Newman is a Jewish apologist and Zacharias a Christian apologist so they're not neutral sources, but I think all the other sources are mainstream and neutral, so they could be cited to show that there are some scholars who also feel Hitler did read Nietzsche, at least superficially, and was at least mildly influenced by Nietzsche's ideas. RandomScholar30 (talk) 04:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm anticipating the reply that Hannah Newman is fringe. I would oppose citing her in the article, the reason I found her useful is because even though she's fringe she cites other mainstream scholarship, and I used her as a bridge to find some of my evidence, but I understand we cannot use her as a source in the article itself because she is fringe. RandomScholar30 (talk) 04:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

In addition to not posting massive numbers of scholarly references on the talk page, it would also be helpful to not add excessive and unnecessary citations, as you did here. Just find one or two that support your point and leave it at that, please. See WP:OVERCITE. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have removed the overcitations. Its now only four citations, two from my viewpoint, and two from the opposing viewpoint. RandomScholar30 (talk) 05:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Cause of "madness"
Quite a few diagnoses to choose from, the favourite seemingly being CADASIL syndrome The brain cancer theory of Leonard Sax, at the Montgomery Centre for Research in Child Development in Maryland, was also reported in 2003 by The Daily Telegraph. So I've added that article as a secondary source there. But Sax also claimed that "the story of Nietzsche having caught syphilis from prostitutes was actually concocted after the Second World War by, an academic who was one of Nietzsche's most vociferous critics." Should this claim also be added there? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2016
{{subst:void|State UNAMBIGUOUSLY your suggested changes. Other editors need to know what to add or remove. Blank edit requests will be declined. If the world can not change to suit Adam, Adam must change the world.

{Virimi Vakatawa{subst:^|Write your request ABOVE this line and do not remove the tildes and curly brackets below. }If the world can not change to suit Adam, Adam must change the world.}109.150.80.102 (talk) 23:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 23:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

This article states Nietzsche was not Anti-Jewish, but there is evidence from his own quotes he was.
This article states Nietzsche was not Anti-Jewish, but I've seen evidence in his own quotes he was. This article states, "While Nietzsche attacked the principles of Judaism, he was not antisemitic". As I pointed out above, Jewish apologist Hannah Newman in The Rainbow Swastika quoted an Anti-Jewish statement of Nietzsche's [begin quote] Nietzsche likewise considered the Christian Bible nearly worthless because of its Jewish origin: "In Christianity, seen as the art of sacred lying, we're back with Judaism.... The Christian is but a Jew of more liberal persuasion." (_Antichrist_, quoted in Angeberts, p.126)[end quote] Wikipedia has that quote on its article about The AntiChrist [begin quote]  According to Nietzsche, "In Christianity, as the art of holy lying, the whole of Judaism...attains its ultimate perfection." "The Christian is only a Jew of a 'more liberal' persuasion."[end quote] The Antichrist, § 44 This article seems to have an apologetic tone in favor of Nietzsche to me. I think at least some of his Anti-Jewish quotes such as the one I just cited should be included to balance the apology for Nietzsche. RandomScholar30 (talk) 19:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Nietzsche was not anti-Semitic, and even seemed to hate anti-Semites, based on his own actual works. What is important is to distinguish between his *actual* works and the works of his that were edited whole-cloth by his sister and her husband (who were extraordinarily anti-Semitic and pro-Fascism).  It's her version of The Will to Power that gets quoted by anti-Semites, as well as other works that she altered. 24.107.137.18 (talk) 00:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes. The article on Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche makes this clearer and the "Colli and Montinari research" section at The Will to Power (manuscript) also clarifies. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Friedrich Nietzsche. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.iep.utm.edu/nietzch/
 * Added tag to http://www.iep.utm.edu/nietzch/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140924114053/http://www.ehumanista.ucsb.edu/eHumanista%20IVITRA/Volume%205/Volum%20Regular/7_Perez.pdf to http://www.ehumanista.ucsb.edu/eHumanista%20IVITRA/Volume%205/Volum%20Regular/7_Perez.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110421040017/http://www.weple.org:80/timeline.html to http://www.weple.org/timeline.html#ids=14631,12007,12598,700,10671,9518,37304,95184,&title=8%20German%20Philosophers

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Nietzsche did not write what was attributed to him
Nietzsche did not write was attributed to him. He was given the writings by a certain people and passed them of as his own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.161.200.5 (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * DO you have a reliable source for this assertion? -- Jayron 32 16:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Friedrich Nietzsche. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141226203214/http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/holderli.htm to http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/holderli.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.weple.org/timeline.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Friedrich Nietzsche. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927184745/http://www.hypernietzsche.org/navigate.php?sigle=sgunzel-4 to http://www.hypernietzsche.org/navigate.php?sigle=sgunzel-4
 * Added tag to http://www.search.eb.com.librarypx.lclark.edu/eb/article-9034925
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060513011228/http://www.philosophos.com/philosophy_article_31.html to http://www.philosophos.com/philosophy_article_31.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061116213847/http://www.hypernietzsche.org/navigate.php?sigle=jgrzelczyk-4 to http://www.hypernietzsche.org/navigate.php?sigle=jgrzelczyk-4
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061116213847/http://www.hypernietzsche.org/navigate.php?sigle=jgrzelczyk-4 to http://www.hypernietzsche.org/navigate.php?sigle=jgrzelczyk-4

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Friedrich Nietzsche. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706132337/http://www.actaneurologica.be/acta/article.asp?lang=en&navid=133&id=14389&mod=acta to http://www.actaneurologica.be/acta/article.asp?lang=en&navid=133&id=14389&mod=acta

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Friedrich Nietzsche. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121124011911/http://babbledom.com/2011/02/17/intermission/ to http://babbledom.com/2011/02/17/intermission/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110612202020/http://www.fathom.com/feature/61007/ to http://www.fathom.com/feature/61007/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120429020746/http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/poets/stevens.php to http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/poets/stevens.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation of ″Friedrich″ in the audio file
The pronunciation of ″Friedrich″ in the audio file is a little bit strange: [ˈfriːdrɪç] instead of [ˈfʁiːdʁɪç] (the standard pronunciation). --Wikiraven65 (talk) 10:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The middle name sounds like ˈwɪlhɛlm rather than ˈvɪlhɛlm to me, too. William Avery (talk) 21:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Friedrich Nietzsche. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130520200025/http://modernism.research.yale.edu/wiki/index.php/Oswald_Spengler to http://modernism.research.yale.edu/wiki/index.php/Oswald_Spengler

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:18, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

His name is pronounced with an 'ISH" at the end. Thank you.  I have been to Rocken.  That's how they say it.  His first name by the way.  Der wille zer macht my friends.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Friedrich Nietzsche. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120607060856/http://www.nietzschespirit.com/files/The_Most_Despicable_Man_is_Coming...the_Last_Man.html to http://www.nietzschespirit.com/files/The_Most_Despicable_Man_is_Coming...the_Last_Man.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation audio
The audio recording does not seem to conform to the IPA notation which accompanies it. "Ich" in "Friedrich" seems to be pronounced more like x than ç, though I might just be mishearing that. But "Wilhelm" is definitely pronounced with an (English) w instead of a (German) v. 108.34.206.74 (talk) 04:52, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Neitzsche Hiking Trail image
This image was added by User:Giessauf on 27 October 2017. Why is it considerd to be "vandalism"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:47, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That looks to be a good-faith edit adding a (somewhat) relevant image to the article. Probably should not be included as it is strange to have a picture of some unknown person featured in the article, but it is not vandalism. Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:15, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree. If the trail is really notable, there should be better sources (is it really named after this Neitzsche and why?)? And I'm really not sure what it's doing in the "Works" section. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The wording of the caption was "Nietzsche hiking trail in Èze village to Eze sur mer", which could be taken to falsely imply that the person shown in the image is Nietzsche. In any event, it does appear to simply be one person's attempt to get their picture in Wikipedia and shouldn't be tolerated. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I feel that's wholly unfair and your personal interpretation. How do you depict "a hiking trail" without a hiker, exactly? An image of the sign alone would seem somewhat sterile and artificial. And how many images of this "Nietzsche hiking trail" do we have to choose from? If you think the image is such a abuse of editing privileges, you can always request deletion. The only real question for me is: "what significance does the "Nietzsche hiking trail" really have in relation to Friedrich Nietzsche?" Can anyone answer that? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I said "could be taken to falsely imply", so of course I'm granting that it's an interpretation. I would see nothing wrong with an "image of the sign alone" if one were available. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Do we actually know why the "Sentier Nietzsche" in Èze was so named? There is certainly no mention at that article. But look here? Under "Origin of the name" it says this (very roughly translated, links added):
 * Friedrich Nietzsche arrived on the Côte d'Azur in 1883 and settled in Nice. At that time, his morale was at its lowest. His books were selling badly, he had just quarreled with Richard Wagner and was driven out by Lou Andreas-Salomé. On the Côte d'Azur, he found the creative emotion necessary to write.


 * Nietzsche's stay in Eze is not proven, but according to oral tradition, he was allegedly lodged in Èze-sur-Mer, on the site of the former post office and in village.


 * Like many writers, he needed to walk to create: "The agility of the muscles was always the greatest in me when the creative power was strong.The body is excited ... I could then, without having the notion of fatigue being on the road in the mountains for seven or eight hours in a row, I slept well, I laughed a lot, I was in a perfect state of vigor and patience".


 * He conceived the third part of his work Thus Spoke Zarathustra. "The following winter, under the alcyonian sky of Nice, which for the first time shone in my life, I found the third Zarathustra - and I had thus finished (...) This decisive part which bears the title: "Old and New Tables" was composed during a most painful climb from the station to the wonderful Moorish village Eza, built in the middle of the rocks".


 * Nietzsche returned to the Riviera every year until 1888.
 * So all we seem to have is an "oral tradition". And I'm not sure those sources are strong enough to use here. There is no mention of Eze at Friedrich Nietzsche. Any other thoughts? --Martinevans123 (talk) 23:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this is not an oral tradition. It is said that Nietzsche himself, wrote about an "ecstasy" in Eze in several of his letters as well as in Ecce Homo (where it was called Eza). Darwin Naz (talk) 05:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, but unless we have some firmer evidence, that looks like WP:OR? Martinevans123 (talk) 06:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Thus Spoke Zarathustra
Nietzsche himself stated (in Ecce Homo, I believe) that the publication of Zarathustra brought some measure of fame and recognition, which quite reversed the complete failure of his previous works. He described entering a café in Turin in 1886 or 1887 and being recognized. Therefore the article has clearly falsified that particular episode by describing Zarathustra as not only a failure but as mostly privately printed.Cdg1072 (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Cdg1072. I can no longer find the part you are referring to. Maybe someone already updated the information. I believe that whoever added the claim about the text being mostly privately printed based it on the account that the Fourth Part (which was not intended as the last part but an Interlude) was not published and were only circulated among Nietzsche's friends. It was published later (1892) but after the outbreak of his insanity. Ecce Homo was written in 1888. You are, of course, correct that most of the book was printed. - Darwin Naz (talk) 23:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2019
there is a mention in the text of "Stibbe" without any link. This is a small town in today's Poland. So my proposal is to replace "Stibbe" with "Stibbe (today Zdbowo in Poland)" to clarify. 176.199.210.164 (talk) 23:27, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * - the article on Zdbowo doesn't say it was formerly called Stibbe - I checked the Hollingdale source and he simply says Stibbe - do you have a source for this? - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 00:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done – Þjarkur (talk) 01:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

False quote attributed to Nietzsche
"I praise, I do not reproach, [nihilism's] arrival. I believe it is one of the greatest crises, a moment of the deepest self-reflection of humanity. Whether man recovers from it, whether he becomes master of this crisis, is a question of his strength!"[176] - The quote is not in the citation given. The given reference says 'Friedrich Nietzsche, Complete Works Vol. 13.' I have searched for a source for this quote yet there is not one to a specific work of Nietzsche's, only this volume. The 13th volume of the first authorized edition of The Complete Works of Nietzsche, edited by Oscar Levy - does not contain this quote at all. The 13th volume is in fact 'On the Genealogy of Morality,' the quote appears nowhere there. There is no proof Nietzsche ever said this quote, yet it does appear online quite often.


 * Comment: I only moved this unsigned post to the bottom. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, as far as I can google: KSA (Kritische Studienausgabe, 1980), Vol. 13 (Posthumous Fragments 1887/1888) p. 57, 26 - 30; this according to "Heidegger & Nietzsche", ed. Babette Babich, Holger Zaborowski, p 23, footnote 25. T 88.91.200.88 (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Human, All Too Human (BBC Documentary, 1999) as a source
This recent edit added this as a source. The video, the "Nietzsche: Beyond Good and Evil" episode of the BBC Human, All Too Human series, is blocked for me for copyright reasons here in UK. Maybe it's fully available in the US? Although I'd be surprised if the BBC has relinquished copyright on this series anywhere. I note that the same episode is available to watch at YouTube, but it looks very unlikely the poster there holds the copyright. The claim, that "Academic records from one of the schools attended by Nietzsche noted that he excelled in Christian theology" is indeed supported in a clear statement by Manfred Ewart who has the actual paper records to hand (see from about 10:30). The video would make an excellent source for this article, if it were not a breach of copyright. But is there any better source for Nietzsche's school reports? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Citizenship, nationality and ethnicity
@Freeknowledgecreator

It matters Max Oehler was Friedrich Nitzsche's cousin, as this was his only title to be the the curator of the Nietzsche Archive at Weimar, which was, according to Wikipedia article on Oehler, run as a family enterprise, while Oehler was a soldier and not a scholar. Apart from the fact, Oehler was a Nazi sympathizer, him being Nietzsche's maternal cousin also makes his claims related to Nietzsche's paternal genealogy less reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abc966 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The claim that "him being Nietzsche's maternal cousin also makes his claims related to Nietzsche's paternal genealogy less reliable" is original research. You may believe this, but it really isn't a good reason to include such information in the article. It was unclear to me whether it was supported by any of the citations in the article. I'd like to see what other editors think. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


 * - I don't see the addition of this material as improving the article - it doesn't really aid in our knowledge or understanding of Nietzsche or his philosophy - we don't have to include every detail of his genealogy WP:NOTEVERYTHING - the Nietzsche Archive was established after his death so is not directly relevant to his life and work - and "cousin" is a vague term, as there are many degrees of cousin - Epinoia (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * - If "the Nietzsche Archive was established after his death" then that's a valid part of his legacy. Very many bio articles have entire "Legacy" sections full of such details. The fact that Max Oehler was Friedrich Nietzsche's was cousin seems directly relevant to the archive. I don't see any problem with briefly mentioning Oehler as a cousin, provided it's properly sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * - that Max Oehler was curator of the Nietzsche Archive was already in the article - I added that Oehler was N's cousin (relationship established in the Max Oehler article) - Epinoia (talk) 17:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2019
Typo in Psychological illness and death (1889–1900) section. co-operated should be cooperated. 2600:1700:1111:5940:CC26:102A:9E52:83CC (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: WP:ENGVAR. The hyphenated version is commonly used outside the USA. NiciVampireHeart 16:42, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

The spelling "cooperate" is universally accepted in the Commonwealth. The hyphenated form is considered outdated, even a little pretentious. I have altered the article accordingly; "capitulate" captures the meaning of "finally co(-)operating" without the allegation/potential of regional bias. 121.45.171.107 (talk) 08:42, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Petition to remove citation template at the beginning of "The 'slave revolt' in morals'
The section seems well sourced, with virtually every section having in-line citations. It seems the template is no longer appropriate. I vote it should be removed. Jwarlock (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Needs a better lead/intro
The lead section/introduction of a Wikipedia article is supposed to provide a short description of the article, a basic summary, a concise overview. The lead section of this article is WAAAY too detailed and fails to provide a basic description of who he was. I realize he was a complex figure and a 'basic description' is difficult, but presently the opening paragraph tells us the academic positions he held, when he died along with a pretty detailed description of his last years (i.e. stuff that should be in the body of the article) while never saying in plain English who Nietzsche was, why he's famous; I don't think I've ever seen so many linked terms/phases in an introduction. When I've posted a criticism of an article before the response I got was 'well then why don't you fix it?' The reason I'm not doing that here is because I came to this article precisely because I knew very little about Nietzsche or his philosophy. But a sentence like "Neitzsche was probably best known for his contributions to _______ (part of philosophy) and his view that mankind _____", or whatever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niccast (talk • contribs) 05:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

1960s, etc."

 * "Nietzsche's thought enjoyed renewed popularity in the 1960s and his ideas have since had a profound impact on 20th and early-21st century thinkers... " But N. was major influence on T. Mann (Nobel Prize, 1929); Cocteau (1940s). These two examples aren't unique. The "renewed popularity" is possibly correct (esp. in the U.S.), but his "profound impact on 20th..." C. thinkers didn't occur "since" the 1960s.

2601:405:4A80:9E50:E9C9:F9B8:754C:E8EB (talk) 13:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Influences
I wonder if we can shorten the Influences section in the infobox by linking to Ancient Greek philosophy instead of listing individual philosophers and Greek tragedy instead of listing individual playwrights - cheers, Epinoia (talk) 17:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Problem is not length. Problem is purported date-of-birth order. Hostile to eyes, and inherently flawed. Dates of many are guesses. Some maybe did not exist. Some are multiple people. It is not even correct as it is. 86.23.205.181 (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Those FN influenced
Ayn Rand is misplaced on the list of those whom FN influenced. She explicitly denied this influence on a number of occasions, which I can find if necessary. She considered FN to be a subjectivist, a nihilist and tainted by his opposition to the power of reason.

Daedalus 96 (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)


 * – removed Rand from Influenced section of infobox – thanks, Epinoia (talk) 17:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Technically, that Rand explicitly denied this influence is a corollary of influence. 86.23.205.181 (talk) 18:29, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Revision of the word "Overman"
Hello, I am new to Wikipedia and am still learning Wikipedia's functions. As one of my first edits I propose þe "Overman" is conformed into "Übermensch" or "Superhuman" or "Superman". Now, þe reason it is translated incorrectly as "Overman" by a certain Walter Kaufman is because: "(Kaufman avoided 'superman' because he was worried that the concept would be trivialized in the minds of Nietzsche's American readers by the popular comic book hero)". I will first talk to some of u who have edited this article before entertaining þe idea of changing þe term "Overman" into affect.

Self evidently "þ" or "Thorn" represents: th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hælþ (talk • contribs) 15:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Before september 2016 there was between parentheses: (translated variously as "overman", "superman", or "super-human"). What is wrong with that ? Keesal (talk) 19:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Would not a more accurate translation b better? And if I was to I would need to change þe book of quote origin from Kaufman's under þe "Übermensch" section. I have a "Barnes and Noble Classic" First edition of "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" from 2005 which was translated by Clancy Martin from Walter Kaufman, R.J Hollingdale, and Thomas Common. Because I cannot find a online pdf of my translation- what can I do to prove its validity? Can I create a subpage or can I simply change þe terms used under þe headline of þe atricle?    "Kaufmann and others preferred to translate Übermensch as 'overman'. A better translation like 'superior humans' might better fit the concept of Nietzsche as he unfolds his narrative. Scholars continue to employ both terms, some simply opting to reproduce the German word."


 * Edit: I have recently discovered I have þe ability to use þe ISBN code on þe back of my book as a form of citation for quote origin change. I will use þe ISBN in þe instance of my request being accepted.


 * Here is my book's quote wiþ þe citation which will b used: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:H%C3%A6l%C3%BE/Quote_change_and_term_change_for_the_%22Overman%22
 * I have shown, wiþ irrefutable evidence, my book's existance and þe original quote's folly. I have shown with þe ISBN where my book might even b purchased. I will review þe contemporary state of þe article before editing þe section.
 * I proceed wiþ caution.Hælþ (talk) 12:26, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I think it's better if the word "Übermensch", in quotes, is used. There is, after all, the wiktionary entry Übermensch, if needed. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Oh, þank you. I will do þat þen. Also, why must people sign þeir sentences in þese talk spaces? I see now.Hælþ (talk) 12:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


 * In English orthography we generally write the phonemes for voiceless fricative /θ/ and voiced fricative /ð/ using the Th (digraph)? Perhaps you have a different type of keyboard or keypad mapping? Thanks Martinevans123 (talk) 12:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I am using þe "English International" keyboard. One of þe only reasons I have it is: I may be able to use þe Thorn letter. It's evolved from an English runic, although its (English) use stopped around þe beginning of the Middle English period I believe. Indeed, it creæts a "Θ" sound.Hælþ (talk) 12:58, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


 * How very charming. Why can't you just use "th" like everybody else? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Overhuman is the best translation. Mensch is not strictly gendered, giving human over man. Über is more like over than super, since in English one cannot quite go super a bridge nor go super a tale again nor supercome anything.86.23.205.181 (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Well that's very inventive. And I can see the logic, sort of. But if we wanted a literal translation of the German "mensch" that might be person, not human. Can you provide a single example of the word "overhuman" in any reliable source? (And I don't mean just in relation to Nietzsche.) Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Inventive? It's Nietzsche's business, not mine. Of this nearsynonymous humanperson, if you want to be pedantic, human is collective and individual, person is individual. The Übermensch is collective and individual. One cannot say "the person" in a collective way.86.23.205.181 (talk) 18:22, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, we have a few to choose from in the first line of Übermensch? But we don't yet have overhuman. Any scholarly sources at all? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Nobody should choose from what Wikipedia says. Wikipedia is mostly edited by people who have no idea what they are talking about. Or rather, Wikipedia is mostly edited by bots to render the encyclopedia speciously reputable. Howsomever, if what you want to construct is a list of ways it has been translated, I think Parkes translated it overhuman, and Oxford University Press published it, and that is a scholarly source. 86.23.205.181 (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * "Wikipedia is mostly edited by bots"?? That's news to me. I'm well aware that "WP is not WP:RS" and I have never edited Übermensch. But I would imagine that the first line there reflects reliable sources. If it doesn't, feel free to correct it. But thanks for the Parkes source, perhaps you have the other details for that one to hand? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

One cannot say merely details and expect that to mean anything. About these bots, I may have exaggerated their number, but not their impact on credibility.

But as for this, who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of it. If it wants to edit and with a suitable alphabet, this is something to point its nose at. But I advise great caution with interpreting interpretations of Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Even one's own interpretations are not to be trusted. Understanding this, one can edit that article. 86.23.205.181 (talk) 09:21, 9 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Do you have the Parkes details or not? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Discusses the concept and translation. 86.23.205.181 (talk) 10:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you want? "Parkes, G. (2005) "Introduction §The Overhuman", in Nietzsche, F., Thus Spoke Zarathustra (Parkes G. ed and trans.) [Ebook], Oxford University Press"


 * Yes, that's right, thanks. The section, headed "The Overhuman" (pages xvii-xx) can be previewed at . Graham Parkes is not yet deemed notable, but he appears at Nietzsche and Asian Thought. Here's his bio at UCC: . Martinevans123 (talk) 11:08, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Gentlemen, þis is y I have simply retarded þe term used to its original form of "Übermensch". No English translation can adapt to þe German word in a proper manner of accuracy. Thus, I have kept þe word in its original form.

As for my choice of letters, "th" is an attempt of the English language at transliterating þe letter Theta (Θ) from þe Greek alphabet. Similarly is þe case of "Ph" Phi Φ. I believe "Þ" is more efficient in representing a "θ" sound in þe English language. Considering it's an archaic letter of þe latter. Hælþ (talk) 07:30, 10 August 2021 (UTC)


 * This is English Wikipedia, not the English-attempt-to-transliterate-Greek Wikipedia. The rest of us just use the normal 26, in various well-known combinations. If you can't write in English don't be surprised if everyone ignores you. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Towhat does it matter I use "Þ" as a form of writing? It gives more phonetic consistency to a language which has nearly no phonetic consistency. Hælþ (talk) 08:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Hælþ


 * Feel free to go and edit a Wiki language variant that's more phonetically consistent. L'italiano è molto meglio: Friedrich Nietzsche. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I would be more þan reluctant if I had greater acquaintance wiþ þe ones I know. Und Mein Herr, du bist richtig auch des Italienisch.


 * Most native speakers of English will never encounter þ. It will hardly be efficient to use it. 86.23.205.181 (talk) 06:12, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Sertainly, but I see no purpose in cwuarreling o'er a simple lettre which hath its purpose in forming a Theta sownde. But I am responding past due and it is superfluous to send þis messege or retayn eny defence of such a subject. Inanycase, I wish ye thy best of luck.Hælþ (talk) 08:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Which page is correct?
on this page, it is stated that his sister, Elizabeth, edited Nietzsche's works to fit her Ultranationalist and Nazi view point. However, on Elziabeth's page, it is stated that the assertion she edited his works is false. Which page is correct? it appears that on Nietasche's page, scholars took issue with her 'edits' and unedited versions of his work were released; that isn't stated on Elizabeth's page.

how can someone who maybe researching the man, know which page is factually correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.249.147.156 (talk) 16:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Relationship with Paul Rée and Lou Salomé
Academic consensus suggests the narrative of Nietzsche, Rée, and Salomé's relationship as represented on the Wikipedia page is not accurate.

Please see: Frau Lou - Rudolph Binion (1968) Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist - Walter Kaufmann (4th edition, 2013)

R.J Hollingdale's account of Nietzsche’s relationships to Lou Salomé and Paul Rée is dated by Binion’s book. He has been cited numerous times on the wiki page. The information has been proven incorrect for a variety of reasons.

Robert S. Leventhal is also cited, providing misleading information that Nietzsche proposed to Salomé three times. How is this webpage a credible source to begin with? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakemichaelw (talk • contribs) 02:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Wow!
That's a really super portrait of Nietzsche! Kudos to whoever uploaded it!

SpicyMemes123 (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * It was User:Anton~commonswiki, on 3 April 2005. He was looking the other way in those days. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Influences and Influenced
I removed the Influences and Influenced lists from the infobox. Many of the names listed were not, as per the editing note at the beginning of the lists, “explained and cited in the body of the article.” The main influences and those influenced are in the body of the article in sections such as the lead, Friedrich Nietzsche and Friedrich Nietzsche. Many of the names in the lists could not be verified as either influences or influenced: WP:VERIFY states that “All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable.”

As so many people have read and been influenced by Nietzsche, compiling a list of those he has influenced is a gargantuan task. By what criteria do we decide who belongs on such a list? How do we gauge who was most strongly influenced and who was only mildly influenced? As the lists has strayed so far from the original intent, it’s best to leave the influences and influenced to names mentioned in the body of the article and remove them from the infobox. - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 14:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Can it be rephrased?
As someone who isn't an English native speaker, I find it hard to understand the following sentence and even translate it

"It does so by making out slave weakness, for example, to be a matter of choice, by relabeling it as "meekness".

For example the phrase "making out" has a lot of different meanings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.22.160.62 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)