User talk:Petrejo

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are a few links you might find helpful:


 * Be Bold!
 * Don't let grumpy users scare you off.
 * Meet other new users
 * Learn from others
 * Play nicely with others
 * Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
 * Tell us about you

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.Non-vandal 07:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Friedrich Nietzsche
I rolled back your edits because it seemed blatantly self-evident that Nietzsche was a philosopher and philologist. His disillusionment with philology is mentioned in the article. --Knucmo2 20:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It may be self-evident to you, but not to all scholars. Your one-sidedness should be balanced by an objective scholasticism. Walter Kaufmann was more objective, for example, when he admitted that there is no lack of philosophers who won't regard Nietzsche as a formal philosopher. Philosophy is more than fine writing of one's opinions. Logic, Science, Ethics, all harmonized in an Organon -- that's the legacy that Aristotle left philosophy proper, and Nietzsche not only neglected to study the philosophers of his own day (preferring to dabble) but he also neglected the very form of Classical Philosophy, resorting to anecdote and poetry. Nietzsche did indeed have a most beautiful style. He was a great writer by any measure. Yet 'philosopher' is not an honorary title to be conferred by non-specialists. It's not a metaphor. It has a scientific meaning. --PETREJO 8 May 2006


 * Paul Strathern seems to think he is a philosopher, as does Earl Russell and the SEP. It is not an honorary title for starters. Being called Sir, or having an OBE is.  Also, because Descartes, Plato, Aristotle, Socrates and Leibniz or any of the Pre-Socratics were not specially trained as philosophers, I'm going to go and delete them from the category of philosopher if are going to insist that Nietzsche isn't (they didn't have the training either requisite for being a specialist).  Also, a philosopher isn't a scientist, his title cannot be said to have "scientific" meaning.  It certainly has semantic meaning, and that is indeed, a grave misuse of the term philosopher, perhaps the legacy of logical positivism.  Also you are not aware of some philosophers that Nietzsche studied.  He plunged into Schopenhauer at great length: "I threw myself into the corner of the sofa with my new treasure...", and he also studied Kant, read Plato and was an excellent scholar of Roman/Greek culture (and the philosophers associated with it).  He published essays on Heraclitus, Parmenides and Aristotle and read F. A. Lange's latest works.  This completely rebuts your point that he didn't engage with contemporary philosophers of his time.  He did study at least one of the philosophers of his own day (he singles out Goethe for praise at times too, and was openly critical of David Strauss).  There are several philosophers who have not contributed to logic, Descartes and Kant for one, who thought that Aristotle had gone far enough.  Plato didn't talk much about logic either, though his successor as we know did.  And what's this I hear about Nietzsche's lack of "ethics"?  Nietzsche was, if nothing more, a philosopher who closely examined the morality of its time, seeking to undermine it and expose its hypocrisy (his solution was less than adequate, but that does not dispose of him).  He was clearly aware of the science of his time, praising it several times throughout his work, and even postulating his "Will-to-Power" against Darwin's struggle for existence. --Knucmo2 09:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Knucmo2, just become some philosophers believe Nietzsche was a philosopher does not cancel the fact that others disbelieve it. Read Walter Kaufmann's discussion about this in his book on NIETZSCHE.  Also, the quality of Nietzsche's writings can't be compared with those of the FOUNDERS of Philosophy -- Nietzsche mainly wrote anecdotes of his OPINIONS, and let himself be as emotional and irrational as he wanted to be.  That may be great journalism, but it isn't in the realm of Philosophy.  Neither Descartes, Plato, Aristotle, Socrates and Leibniz or any of the Pre-Socratics were guilty of this sort of emotional screed.  Philosophy, as Hegel says, has NOTHING to do with OPINIONS, and anybody who thinks it does, says Hegel, has a BASIC lack of understanding about the project of Philosophy.  It isn't simply my own private research that suggests that Nietzsche should be relegated to the Literature Department.  I'm not alone among scholars in this.  Also, you're quite mistaken in your contention that Nietzsche wrote any 'excellent' treatises on great Philosophers -- he wrote comedy, he wrote anecdotes, he dropped their names, but he made no contribution that other scholars rely upon in their opinions of the great Philosophers.  Nietzsche is ENTERTAINING at his best, and PATHETIC at his worst, and while all that makes him a great poet or literary figure, it doesn't qualify him as a Philosopher, in the estimation of several Philosophers (ref. Kaufmann himself).  Commenting on something at the margins does not qualify him.  He didn't do the reading -- he doesn't deserve the degree.  He never OBTAINED the degree either, as a matter of sheer historical fact.  In any case, the real issue is that your article is POV -- you are an ADVOCATE of Nietzsche.  You CENSOR alternative views that simply post Nietzsche's own words!  Reflect on your position, please.  You're doing damage to the NPOV project.  --PETREJO TUE16MAY06


 * You mean to tell me that:
 * Your characterisation of Nietzsche as "pathetic at his worst" isn't a POV?
 * That no philosophers do coin witty epigrams, quotations or sayings?
 * That only philosophers who have obtained a degree in philosophy should be called philosophers?
 * This was what I extracted from your emotional-charged response above. Again, I don't see why you're getting so angry, as it is not conducive to any discussion whatsoever.  There does need to be reference to this apparent plethora of scholars who believe that Nietzsche is not a philosopher, if the changes are going to be put in.  And even this might merit a different page purely devoted to the criticism of Nietzsche.  I haven't censored any viewpoint whatsoever, but the way you are approaching editing this page will not endear any fellow editors to your stance on Nietzsche, however "well informed" it might be. --Knucmo2 00:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * (1) No, 'pathetic at his worst,' isn't POV because probably all of us are pathetic at our worst. (2) Also, it isn't the purpose  of Philosophy to coin epigrams -- yet Nietzsche evidently thought it was.  (3) Also, it's not the degree that counts, but the discipline -- and Nietzsche shows the discipline of a journalist in the arena of Philosophy, making him a great writer, but not necessarily a great Philosopher.  He's a poor Philosopher, IMO, if he merits the title at all.  Why?  No contributions to formal logic, to natural science, or to a systematic approach to ethics; what is that?  He wrote about  ethics, one may say, in a profoundly opinionated and bold manner, yet he didn't stoop to show his arguments.  What is that?  That's Literature, surely, and perhaps great poetry.  But not Philosophy. Petrejo 12:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * (1)Actually, Petrejo, that would mean it is POV, since it doesn't need stating. Otherwise, every article on Wikipedia would need a sentence saying "this person is pathetic at their worst". (2) You're right about the purpose of philosophy, but I don't find it at all evident that Nietzsche thought this. He doesn't say as much, anyway. (3) Most people say Nietzsche is a philosopher, and the article should reflect that by saying "Most commentators class Nietzsche as a philosopher, though some disagree" and give details and references. mg e kelly 12:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * All right, Mgekelly, I agree. Let's start with Walter Kaufmann's long-evaded statement about this. Petrejo 04:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Petrejo, the way round these objections against your POV edits is to make them NPOV by stating who has these other views of Nietzsche and referencing them. That stuff about Nietzsche being popular in the literature of the imperialist stage of capitalism (which really just means "contemporary literature") was completely POV crap. mg e kelly 05:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Mgekelly, you are welcome to your opinion about imperialism, but you didn't explain why you removed all those relevant quotes that I posted from Nietzsche himself. Those quotes speak the language of imperialism, and I think your POV is one-sided, biased, and lacks the objectivity that Wikipedia seeks. Until you explain why you continue to delete compromising quotations from Nietzsche himself, Mgekelly, I will continue to re-post them in the interest of scholarship and objectivity. --PETREJO 9 May 2006

Your latest edit to FN which I have reverted selects texts in a trememdously misleading way, is in no way encyclopedic or NPOV. mg e kelly 05:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, Mgekelly, your one-sided excerpts from Nietzsche are the ones that are misleading. Your one-sided imbalance requires a balancing input. Your insistence upon showing only the positive side of Nietzsche is strong evidence of your lack of objectivity. You should consult at least one other scholar before you take such high-handed actions merely to suit your own preconceptions. As Walter Kaufmann says, there is no shortage of philosophers who won't count Nietzsche as a philosopher. Where is the treatise on Logic? Nowhere. Where is the treatise on Natural Science? Nowhere. Where is the formal treatise on Ethics? Nowhere. Where is the treatise on contemporary philosophers? Nowhere. We get from Nietzsche mainly anecdotes of cleverness, and one-liners. It is a valid proposition that such a production, even if it carries a beautiful style and powerful prose, still doesn't raise itself to the level of Western Philosophy. Your insistence, Mgekelly, on soft-pedaling Nietzsche is intellectually lazy at best. I will continue to re-post these actual quotes from Nietzsche himself until some semblance of objectivity is attained in this Wikipedia entry. --PETREJO 11 May 2006


 * Hello, Mr. Petrejo. I've been observing your discussion about Nietzsche, and I would like to offer you my insights on some particular points you have made. First of all, I would like to know where I can find the ad hominem attacks, which you so much emphasizes, Nietzsche allegedly employs against Kant and other philosophers. I've read almost all of the Nietzsche's works and sincerely, while I recognize his abrasive style is somewhat unusual and seemingly counterproductive in dealing with some issues, I haven't seen anything remotely like what you described. Curiously enough, most of your criticism against Nietzsche seems to me pure ad hominem.


 * You have made some very misleading statements about his relationship to other philosophers, and some of them impressed me with your degree of misinformation and ignorance. For example, you asserted that Nietzsche didn't grasp Kant's philosophy, because he charged the latter "with metaphysics and with reifying (I think you meant "reviving") the thing-in-itself." In fact, Nietzsche, like any other (former) Schopenhaurian, did recognize Kant's wonderful work on refuting traditional metaphysics: but he charges Kant with limiting himself again by concepts he himself had once refuted. And then you wrote that Kant was "the first to show the world the error of reifying (sic.) the thing-in-itself." This is utterly false. Please read a bit of Schopenhauer's main works so you can have an idea of the nonsense you posted.


 * You have also charged Nietzsche with being a mere "journalist" and by no means a true philosopher, because he supposedly doesn't do anything other than stating his own opinions about philosophical issues (as if after Hume it was possible to pretend to be a rationalist). In fact, Nietzsche himself had his philosophical motives for ignoring dialetics (I think everyone who knows his works, knows what I'm talking about). Moreover, if you want to be honest and coherent, you should charge Schopenhauer with the same accusations you use to dismiss Nietzsche. By the way, since when, in order to be considered a philosopher, one must write a study case about some other philosopher? (Which he actually did! Have you read any of Nietzsche's works, sir?) Kant, for one, had never done such a thing. (One doesn't even have to know other thinkers in order to build a coherent philosophical system.) And because of Nietzsche's aphorismatical style, this would not be possible to take place in his main works. He indeed, however, wrote pieces criticizing idealistic and kantian epistemology, traditional morality, schopenhaurian aesthetics, darwinian theories, etc., in a fragmentical manner.


 * A quote from you:


 * Where is the treatise on Logic? Nowhere.  Where is the treatise on Natural Science?  Nowhere.  Where is the formal treatise on Ethics?  Nowhere.  Where is the treatise on contemporary philosophers?  Nowhere


 * Now I'm sure you are either a not very bright person or a dishonest and cynical troll. Or maybe both.


 * And then there's your plainly childish and quite desperate attempts to definitely link Nietzsche to Nazism. I'm not going to discuss this case, but your persistence on this theme only proves to me you are only emotionally trying to dismiss Nietzsche. -- User Guinsberg, July 24, 2006


 * You asserted that Nietzsche was no philosopher because he didn't contribute at all to formal logic, science, ethics, etc.. Actually, Nietzsche's contribution to ethics has been heavy, and I really don't believe you'd questioned this. To suggest that Nietzsche wasn't a philosopher because he didn't have a systematic approach to ethics truly made me blush. Everybody knows his goal as a philosopher was to dissect the origins of ethics and and eliminate all honoured feelings and actions as "moral" -- how can you demand him to approach ethics in a systematic and traditional manner? And I'm not even to mention his contributions to psychology. And about natural science and formal logic: can you list the contributions Schopenhauer and Kant made in these areas? -- User Guinsberg, July 24, 2006


 * Wittgenstein was not a philosopher. Isn't that true, User:Petrejo?Lestrade 19:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

Warning
You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Friedrich Nietsche. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. Just zis Guy you know? 11:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked you for 24 hours for editing logged out to evade 3RR on Friedrich Nietzsche-- Shanel § 23:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

WHAT YOU SHOULD DO, IN THE INTEREST OF OBJECTIVITY, IS TO READ THE ITEMS YOU ARE DELETING -- WHICH ARE NOT VANDALISM. YOUR POV ARTICLE IS A DISGRACE TO THE NPOV PROJECT. *READ* WHAT YOU ARE BANNING. --PETREJO TUE17MAY06


 * First, don't shout, show some civility. Secondly, these are not reproaching you for the content of your edits, but for persistently editting the same page with the same info. Read WP:3RR. Adding the same info to a page three times in a row will get you blocked, and rightly so. mg e kelly 03:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * But *deleting* the same info on a page 29 times won't get *you* blocked? Why not?  Where is your privilege granted?  My contributions to NPOV are valid.  Your one-sided advocacy is POV. --PETREJO FRI19MAY06


 * That certainly would get me blocked if I did it three times in 24 hours. Why don't you read some of the links to policy people helpfully type out for you instead of ranting? mg e kelly 10:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Then why weren't you blocked? My contribution was deleted every time I posted it, and if that was thrice in 24 hours, then so was your deletion.  Let's start again today.  So far your party has deleted my contribution in the past half-hour.  I'll post it again.  Let's see your timing.  --PETREJO SAT20MAY06 (6:10am CST)


 * All right, that's two deletions in the past hour or so. I'll post it a third time.  Let's see your timing again.   --PETREJO SAT20MAY06 (6:52am CST)


 * All right, that's three deletions in a little over an hour. How can we get YOU blocked for 24 hours now?   --PETREJO SAT20MAY06 (7:15am CST)


 * Dude, I have not reverted 3 times within 24 hours in a long, long time. The problem you are experiencing is that several editors are reverting your POV edits to Friedrich Nietzsche, hence none of us are violating this policy. I would love there to be another way, but you seem resistant to discussion. mg e kelly 17:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, I've been discussing this at length here and using email with Knucmo2 for days. I even sent you a personal email, Mgekelly, but you didn't reply.  Whoever reverted my NPOV edits to Friedrich Nietzsche and imposed that Censorship didn't offer the courtesy of a reason, either.  So, this raises the question -- if my NPOV contributions are being attacked by *multiple* POV Censors, how does the Wikipedia policy address that?  By continuing to block me alone?  --PETREJO SAT20MAY06 (7:05pm CST)

Regarding reversions made on May 20 2006 (UTC) to Friedrich Nietzsche

 * Dear William M. Connnolley, I've been discussing these multiple-reverts at length in User Talk and using email with Knucmo2 for days. I even sent Mgekelly (one POV Censor who keeps deleting my NPOV contributions) a personal email, but Mgekelly didn't reply.  Whoever reverted my NPOV edits to Friedrich Nietzsche and imposed Censorship this last time didn't offer the courtesy of a reason, either.  So, this raises the question -- if my NPOV contributions are being attacked by *multiple* POV Censors, how does the Wikipedia policy address that?  By continuing to block me alone? --PETREJO SAT20MAY06 (7:05pm CST)


 * I reverted your passage yesterday, and the 'courtesy of a reason' I wrote on the Talk:Friedrich Nietzsche page when you started your repeated insertions of text. (See the section titled 'Petrejo's changes'). The article talk page is a good place to talk about the article - it is much easier than having a lot of 1-to-1 discussions on user talk pages and by email.
 * Two more points - if multiple editors are opposing a point of view which only you support, it is idiosyncratic to assert that they are all pushing a POV and you, alone, represent the NPOV. (see )
 * Secondly, if you had come to the talk page and worked with other editors, we could have hashed out a new criticism of Nietzsche section by now. I'm not opposed to the idea, as the article isn't well-balanced at the moment, and I don't think the other people who revert you would be opposed either.
 * Since you are new to WP, and there is no mention of some relevant pages above, I recommend looking at the policies and guidelines on neutral point of view and consensus. Cheers, --Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  12:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really dealing with the content: I'm only enforcing WP:3RR. I really do suggest that you read it! William M. Connolley 13:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the process. I'll move the discussion to the Talk:Friedrich Nietzsche page.  There we might try to determine the actual NPOV -- which is sometimes *not* the majority view.

PETREJO SUN21MAY06

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Furthermore, reinserting the same commentary multiple times may cause you to violate the three-revert rule, which can lead to a block. R.E. Freak 07:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The process as it stands allows two editors to gang up on a single editor. I've discussed this on the Talk pages, and those who delete my contributions are merely emotional in their POV.  They won't edit my contribution, which consists only of *quotations* from the subject of Wikipedia article, they simply keep erasing it -- 34 times already.  What limits *their* POV?  Please advise. --PETREJO TUE23MAY06

Nietzsche request
I'll see what I can do. &mdash;  ßott    e    siηi   (talk) 22:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, I have noticed that you seem to sign your comments by typing the name and date yourself. It is much more preferable to sign by typing four tildes (~) after your comment. &mdash;  ßott    e    siηi   (talk) 23:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Also you should be aware that the individual who created the account the mirrored your name and struck out all of your comments has been blocked indefinitely. &mdash;  ßott e  siηi  (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * All right, let me try that. Petrejo 04:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Cool!


 * By the way, don't you mean that the *account* (not the individual) who reversed my name and struck out my comments has been blocked indefinitely? Very likely it was one of the individuals of the group that was already in contest with me.  But discerning who that was may be well-nigh impossible, right?  Petrejo 04:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Husserl and Heidegger
Hi Petrejo,

I moved a piece inserted by you in the article phenomenology regarding Husserl and Heidegger to the discussion page, because I think it is too POV in its present form. I agree somewhat with what you wrote, but I thin kit is expressed in too an extreme way and is not entirely correct. I'd like to discuss how to improve it on the Talk:phenomenology page.

Kindest regards, Cat 19:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk page etiquette
Hi Petrejo,

good luck with removing all the strike-throughs from the FN talkpage. However, I would suggest that it's pretty poor behaviour to change the wording of your past commets (other than for spelling etc) without indicating that they've been changed. This is what strike-through is usually used for on Wikipedia. For example, if you change "Well, Knucmo2, you're certainly ignorant (ignore-ant) of a wider view of" to "Well, Knucmo2, you're wilfully ignorant of a wider view of" (I can't remember if that's the new version, and I can't be bothered to check - it's just an example), you really should strike-through the old bits so that it reads "Well, Knucmo2, you're certainly wilfully ignorant (ignore-ant) of a wider view of". This is important because otherwise other people's comments may seem unfair when they were fair to what was originally there or what have you. mg e kelly 11:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, OK, I'll bear that in mind in the future. I'll try to fix that up ASAP.  Petrejo 11:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Allowed?
(I don't mind receiving emails, but I generally don't respond via email, so I'm leaving my comments here.) Well, it is sort of allowed. Generally, it is frowned upon to remove others' comments from talk pages, but in cases where it violates some other policy, like WP:POINT or WP:NOR, or seems like POV-pushing or linkspamming, it is sometimes done. Like I said on the talk page, I don't think it is the right tactic to take here, since your edits are clearly in good faith, even if, from the perspective of many other editors, misguided. As I also said on that page, I'd recommend for you to take a different tactic with this situation, regardless of who is being antagonistic to whom (which isn't to blame you or anyone else, but to hopefully get this whole discussion moving forward in a positive direction). Just pasting many of the same quotes you've added to the article could look like you're just planning to reinsert them at a later date. Instead, gathering secondary sources, from people who have commented on Nietzsche, and then quoting them (and, if applicable, including their quotes of Nietzsche) would be more likely to look like a good-faith attempt at cooperation. Even more helpful, from you and others, would be to paste proposed additions and deletions to the talk page for comment before applying them to the article. Regarding the article specifically, Nietzsche has always struck me as a complex philosopher, so I would like to see many interpretations appear in the article space, both positive and negative. Of course, I don't have the final say, but I think that if you contributed with this idea in mind you'd be more likely to win over the other editors. If there's anything I can do to help out, just let me know. -Smahoney 00:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk: Friedrich Nietzsche
Here's the deal, plain and simple: You need to knock it off with the hostility on Talk:Friedrich Nietzsche. I don't care who started it, but you're continuing it and it needs to stop now. If necessary I'll be happy to contact other editors who are furthering the conflict, or to start formal mediation procedures, if you think that will help, but you need to make some effort to knock this crap off. It is childish, it is disruptive, and it is likely to get you banned from editing.

The other thing I wanted to contact you about was to make sure you understand the point of gathering sources on that page, since your comments seem to suggest that you don't. The purpose is to gather together different POVs on Nietzsche so that they can all be included in the article, and referenced to various sources, not to prove that one or the other is right. I think there is a general consensus that the Nietzsche-as-proto-Nazi POV needs to be represented in the article, not as true, but as one among many readings. -Smahoney 21:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * So, this ten-against-one scenario is somehow OK, and no matter how many insults they cast at me, I'm supposed to take it, but not respond at all? Because, Smahoney, I'm not hostile.  What do you call hostility?  Where was I hostile?  The topic is heated, granted, but I'm not casting insults -- if I am, please tell me.  I'm being objective; making every effort.


 * It is very difficult in the ten-against-one scenario, and I've wondered if you're doing all you can to bring NPOV and objectivity to the scene. Is it possible that we need another dispute resolver, Smahoney?  What about mediation?  I don't see that I'm being unreasonable -- frankly, and I'm working very hard to do whatever is asked of me.


 * It seems to me that I work very hard -- for weeks -- and others simply are allowed to insult me and mock my efforts and erase what I contribute. So, it is difficult, and yes, I may be defensive now and again.  But hostile?  I don't think so.  Please tell me where I've been hostile so that I can see what you mean.  Thanks.  Petrejo 23:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * First, keep in mind that the 10 against one scenario is one that you've largely created. You stormed in, made some changes every other editor sees as POV, and then engaged in a revert war over them, and from what I've been able to ascertain you haven't once considered the possibility that your POV isn't the One True POV.  As for examples of your hostility:
 * From your last edit:
 * 1. You referred to editors who disagree with you as "one-sided POV advocates".
 * 2. You asked editors, "do you POV advocates have the courage"
 * From the edit before that:
 * 1. "Any silence on your part now only confirms suspicions of your POV up to and including charges of hero-worship."
 * 2. "When an explanation is offered, it contains no other reason than you folks felt like it, it was 'useless' to you, and the like." (See WP:Assume good faith)
 * 3. "and clear to any objective reader" (which characterizes anyone who disagrees with you as not objective)
 * Moreover, the overall tone of most of your posts to the talk page is aggressive, deals with persons rather than content (and if it deals with content, it is usually content attributed to a specific person or group - "your content"), you fail every step of the way to assume good faith, you have all the attributes of a POV warrior, so sure that his POV is THE POV that he's unwilling to listen to anyone else, etc.
 * And here, once again, you turn the discussion away from yourself and toward someone else: "I've wondered if you're doing all you can to bring NPOV and objectivity to the scene". Its not my job to bring NPOV and objectivity to the scene any more than it is anyone else's job.  I'm just an editor here, like you and everyone else - the only difference is that I'm not getting directly involved with the article and I have a vested interest in seeing an end to this bickering.  To answer your question, yes, you're just supposed to take it if people lob insults at you.  You're not expected to never lose your cool, but yeah, you have to take it, and so does every other editor here.  As for formal mediation, if you want it, and if everyone else agrees to it, maybe that's the direction that should be taken, although if what you want is for someone to take "your side" and tell you that you're 100% correct and everyone else wrong, you're not going to find it there as they don't rule on content disputes.  What I would recommend, sincerely and without trying to insult you, is that you seek out a mentor and spend some time reading, and thereafter keep in mind WP:CITE, WP:NPOV, Civility, Etiquette, No personal attacks, and WP:Assume good faith.  If you do decide to pursue mediation, this link might be useful to you: Resolving disputes. You may also, if you decide to pursue some formal dispute resolution, want to try to avoid the trap of Wikilawyering.  I'm not saying I've seen you wikilawyering before, but its something that comes up fairly often.  -Smahoney 01:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

(1) I deny I created the 10-against-1 scenario, Smahoney -- I've been polite to anybody who'd be polite to me. There has been one, single person so far; then that person vanished from the discussion page.


 * I'm not saying you created it on the talk page, but that you started edit warring, which people see as aggressive behavior.

(2) I've a personal policy to return good for good, and never return nasty for nasty -- but I don't take nasty from others, as that isn't dignified or humane, IMHO.

(3) I am willing to be self-critical, Smahoney, in a social context where others are also willing to be self-critical. Yet to be self-critical in the opposite context, where others are openly insulting -- that's merely low self-esteem, IMHO.

(4) I didn't storm in, actually, I've contributed to this article going back more than a year. But I've only recently made substantial changes to the article.

(5) The fact the every other editor sees my changes as POV is worthy of pause and reflection, surely -- yet I also expect the others to show some modicum of pause and reflection about their own POV (which is obvious, to me) and so far they've not done so.


 * I think there's been some consideration there. But the point, keep in mind, isn't to find the true POV, but to include all POVs that are notable.

(6) I assure you that I don't regard my viewpoint as the ONE TRUE POV. I've only want a fair hearing and to be fairly considered with words and arguments and re-eding of my contribution. Instead I get insults and erasings. People repeat their POV again and again, but they don't offer arguments. That's an objective statement, IMHO.

(7) Yes, I did refer to some editors as "one-sided POV advocates", and if that's true, then how is that hostile? They are also obliged, like I am, to argue their case, aren't they? Or do they have certain rights because they were there first? If so, I haven't seen that policy.


 * No. No one is obliged to argue their case, beyond "this is notable because it appears here and here and here".  And calling someone a one-sided POV advocate is just name-calling, whether or not that name happens to apply.

(8) Yes, I did challenge some editors to 'have the courage' to allow Nietzsche's actual words be posted online -- at least inside the Discussion Page. That's because those texts help me make my point. Yet they erase Nietzsche's own words, Smahoney; words that are relevant to the argument I'm making. They don't discuss -- they erase and insult, saying, 'useless', and so on. That's not any kind of a discussion, is it?


 * When I see things like this I'm not sure you understand the argument you should be making. You're never going to get anywhere if your point, as it seems to be, is that Nietzsche was this or that.  That's not, generally, the way articles work around here.  The argument you should be making is that the view that Nietzsche was an anti-Semite, nationalist, proto-Nazi, whatever, is a notable one.  I think one of the reasons you're running up against so much trouble there is that you still seem to be trying to make the case (whether or not that is actually your goal) that your POV is the one to be included in the article, rather than a single view, among many, to be included.

(9) Yes, I did challenge Ignis by saying, "any silence on your part now only confirms suspicions of your POV up to and including charges of hero-worship." Is that truly hostile? Is it not merely a challenge to debate? Ignis has insulted me continually since I've been there, and he's erased my postings inside the Discussion Page. (I presume you know what I refer to, and don't need examples). How else can I reach this senior editor? If you can think of a way, then kindly tell me.


 * Yes, that is truly hostile. Another way of looking at it is that you accused Ignis of shoddy scholarship motivated by hero-worship.  That Ignis has insulted you doesn't give you the right to insult back (and I believe I've already spoken with Ignis about his/her approaches with you).

(10) Yes, I did say, "when an explanation is offered, it contains no other reason than you folks felt like it, it was 'useless' to you, and the like." Actually, I said that in good faith, Smahoney, and I do assume good faith until I see the opposite. My statement was true and correct. That term, "useless," is a direct quote. It isn't the only one.

(11) Yes, I did say, "clear to any objective reader," and I believe that's true -- e.g. when Nietzsche says that Jews created a Christianity which he condemns as "the one immortal blemish of mankind," that is clear language to any objective reader. Now, actually, the other editors know its clear, and that is exactly why they delete it on sight. See? If somebody wants to teach me something different, they should use arguments (not merely insults) to do so. I'm open to arguments. I'm open to new information. I can be convinced of another view; I'm not dogmatic or closed-minded. But I do insist upon being treated with some respect. When I'm not treated with respect, I can (as most people) behave somewhat defensively. But should I apologize for my defensive behavior when the other editors (all but one who has now left) continue to heap insults on my head? It doesn't sound reasonable or dignified. I do presume good faith, Smahoney -- until I see the opposite. And I've seen almost entirely the opposite since I arrived at this discussion with my scholastic contributions.


 * Presuming to know that goes on in the minds of other editors is the quickest road to assuming bad faith. Again, I think one of the major issues that you still don't quite have a grasp on is that what is, to you, "clear to the objective reader" is never going to be the content of Nietzsche.

(12) You say the "overall tone" of my posts is aggressive. That's strong language and I disagree. I'm not an aggressive person -- though I'll engage in self-defense. I prefer to criticize Content rather than Persons -- although I'll defend myself if I'm personally attacked. Sadly, if other editors attack me personally more and more, I'm morally obliged to defend myself more and more. That seems reasonable to me, so please explain another approach, Smahoney, if you have one. (And please, tell me if you need to see cases where others have insulted me.)


 * A better approach is to either ignore others' personal attacks or politely remind them on their talk pages that personal attacks are not tolerated at Wikipedia. (I'm completely guilty of breaking this rule too, but its still a good one): Never, ever, ever, criticize a person here.  Criticize behaviors when appropriate (for example, "Hey, could you not use personal attacks?  I don't think they're very productive.") is fine.  Criticizing article content is fine.  But criticizing persons is not.  Calling names is not.  And it doesn't matter how many people break the rule.  Its just not okay.

(13) I'm not a POV warrior. I don't insist that my contributions must always be posted and override the others. That never occurred to me -- ever. I did expect that others would calmly edit my posts in order to include them. But that hasn't happened. I was shocked and dismayed to see my contributions repeatedly reverted.


 * Right, well, that your contributions were reverted should have been a clue to do some work on them rather than just re-revert. An option when things like that come up without an edit summary is to calmly ask why the content was removed on the talk page of the person who removed it.  Simply re-reverting is not an option.  See WP:3RR.

(14) Yes, I did wonder "if you're doing all you can to bring NPOV and objectivity to the scene". I was stunned to see that the Nietzsche article is no longer Protected, without any formal announcement. How did that occur? Do you tacitly agree with the other editors erasing my posts on sight? Please let me know.


 * I have no idea how the article became unprotected. And you know that I don't agree with other editors erasing your posts on sight, although I do agree with the decision of many editors, myself included, to delete the section you added to the article.

(15) You say you "have a vested interest in seeing an end to this bickering," but shouldn't that also involve criticizing everybody, and not just the minority here?


 * I'm not just criticizing you. The difference is that when I've said to someone else, "hey, knock it off with the insults" they say, "oh, sorry.  You're right of course" (whether or not they actually knock it off is up in the air), whereas you offer justification after justification, point the finger at others, say you have a moral responsibility, etc.  So then there's more criticizing of you because I feel a responsibility to respond to your justifications, hoping that you'll suddenly get it and become a great editor.  Because, basically, it seems to me that all that is standing between you and really becoming one of the greats is your attitude and an incomplete understanding of WP:NPOV.

(16) I agree that all editors are supposed to take criticism -- but I ask you to review the material, so you can see that the leading editors there aren't taking any at all. To take criticism when others are only laughing -- that's undignified, IMHO.

(17) I am considering formal mediation. No, I don't expect anybody to take 'my side' but I do expect somebody to be assertive in bringing equity to this situation. The pro-Nietzsche advocates don't want to hear any criticism of Nietzsche -- and that, to me, is unacceptable. I believe my take is NPOV, and their take is POV. I regard that as true, correct, reasonable, and intuitively obvious to any objective observer.


 * The "pro-Nietzsche advocates" as you call them actually have all, as far as I'm aware, agreed that including criticisms of Nietzsche is fundamental to the article and that multiple readings of Nietzsche, including those which link him to the Nazis, are completely necessary. What they seem to disagree with is your style, gathering leading quotes (I notice, for example, that you didn't include any of the quotes where Nietzsche says the Jews are by far the strongest race, that people born of mixed lineage are always going to be stronger people than those who aren't, that Nationalism is idiotic, etc.) and attempting to show that "Nietzsche's view was this, as any objective reader can see".  Nietzsche's writing, biased as it may be at times, is more complex than to allow for such an interpretive method.  Which is why secondary sources are, I think, preferable in this situation.


 * As far as mediation goes, be careful what you expect from it. They don't really rule or judge, but try to get people to work together.

(18) However, it doesn't seem true to you, Smahoney, going by your behavior with regard to me --I mean -- you threated to "ban me from editing" today. Imagine my feeling after my many efforts, to hear your negation of my efforts while the other editors of this page simply walk away freely.


 * I did not threaten to ban you from editing. I don't have the power to ban you from editing.  I said your behavior is likely to get you banned.

(19) I'm aware of Wikipedia:Civility, and I've always promised to be Civil to those who refrain from insulting me, i.e. who are Civil to me. Being the martyr just isn't my style, and I don't believe that Wikipedia:Civility requires that I play the martyr.

(20) Finally, Smahoney, I've no interest whatsoever in Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. I'm not here to litigate anything -- my requests are plain, simple and haven't changed. I want to express my studies about Nietzsche without having them erased on sight -- but modified and worked into the text, as in any normal Wikipedia scenario. If I can't get that kind of an outcome from your efforts at dispute resolution, I feel I have no other alternative but to seek a Wikipedia mediator to explain a truly objective outcome to this dilemma. Petrejo 04:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Good. I brought it up just because I've seen it come up many times before.  And if you finally decide that a mediator is what you want, I'd be happy to point you in the right direction.  -Smahoney 18:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I noticed, by the way, that rather than return insults on the talk page you politely asked someone to stop. Thank you - if everyone can keep that up I think things will actually calm down on that page eventually. -Smahoney 18:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The reason I did, Smahoney, is because of your direct intervention on my behalf the day before. You didn't so much take my side, but you made it unusually clear that you weren't going to believe the other side on their say-so, and you emphasized the word, polite, in your advice to them.  On that basis I finally decided that you are impartial, and that I don't need to request Wikipedia mediation at this point.


 * I'll follow your advice more closely -- notice that my wording was just about identical to the wording that you suggested to me. I can be very cooperative when I feel I'm dealing with a level playing field.


 * As for the Protection/Unprotection aspect, however, I feel betrayed. I wish to speak to the person in charge of that aspect.  It seems to me the rules of Wikipedia were violated by asking only one side of a dispute if consensus was reached, and believing their misinformation when they said, 'yes'.  That's how it seems to me today.  Anyway, Smahoney, it's good to know that you weren't the person behind the alleged violation of the rules.  Thanks again for your impartial guidance.  Petrejo 22:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know the details of the page's protection, but I do suspect that it either is unrelated to you or was in response to your continual reinserting of the exact same content despite several users disagreeing with it. Either way, I suggest that you compose a paragraph or so on the talk page that references your sources and submit it for editorial review.  As I've suggested before, I just don't see this as a group of editors trying to defend Nietzsche's name against any possible attack but as a group of editors who don't agree with your specific contributions to date.  Submitting such a paragraph for review (and keeping in mind that it may be edited before insertion) is a good way to show that you're not here to push your POV but actually want to make meaningful contributions to the article, which is what I suspect is your goal.  While it may not seem fair that you have to prove your good intent, especially considering assume good faith, you did come on strong at first, you seemed completely uncompromizing, and your rhetoric on the talk page has often been polemic, so the request may not be entirely out of line.  Do also keep in mind that there is already consensus from the editors involved that the article needs a lot of work, that it has some POV and neutrality issues, and that it lacks coverage of many notable interpretations of Nietzsche's work, so in the end you're all working towards the same goal.  -Smahoney 01:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

See my comments to your most recent version at and suggested revision at. -Smahoney 20:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, Smahoney, we've obtained a major step -- a 3rd draft agreed upon by many editors on the list. But I've waited two weeks, and the grumblings against posting the 3rd draft grows.  I tried posting the draft to the Wikipedia article, but it was removed almost immediately.  I'm thinking we may need another voice for NPOV on this article.  Perhaps mediation is merited.  What do you think? Petrejo 04:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Mediation on Nietzsche
Hello, I offered my opinion on this issue on the case page and would like your input on my suggestion. --Marinus 13:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I closed the case because I thought we were done. If this isn't so, just tell me and we'll continue the mediation. Sorry about that. --G ood I ntentions talk 05:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Nietzsche Again
I just wanted to say that while I disagree with your understanding of Nietzsche I enjoy your pointed discussions of him. Since there is no consensus among scholars on Nietzsche there should be several opinions reflected in the Wiki article. Have you read any of the recent books on the (neo-)Kantian Nietzsche? They are very interesting and I think they nicely show the sort of contemporary views Nietzsche was responding to. Are you publishing anything on Hegel? Pomonomo2003 13:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's no surprise that Nietzsche can be characterized as neo-Kantian, because everybody after Kant falls into that category in various ways. Kant's legacy was intellectual laziness -- one simply avoids the challenge of metaphysics, and that's it.  But Nietzsche wasn't a Kantian in any scholarly sense of actually WRITING an essay about Kant's theory; nor can a few choice anecdotes substitute for a scholarly essay.  Nietzsche just didn't have the patience for Philosophy proper.  As for writing on Hegelianism, I have a longtime discussion going on Hegel's Ontological Solution of the Existence of God on the Yahoo! discussion group, Hegel-Intro, in cooperation with Kai Froeb.  Also, I helped Froeb set-up www.hegel.net.  Also, Edwin Mellen Press did publish (2002) my labor of love, the only English edition of Bruno Bauer's 1843, CHRISTIANITY EXPOSED.  Some scholars proposed that this banned book was the inspiration (50 years later) for Nietzsche's THE ANTICHRIST, but I basically demonstrated that was impossible.  Nobody has disputed my claim now that the English translation of Bauer's book is open for the world to see. Petrejo 16:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Nietzsche and Bauer corresponded in the 1880's - I wonder if the letters have been translated? From what I hear Bauer seems to have had a higher opinion of Nietzsche than you do. Regarding Nietzsche and Kant, the best material for seeing the connection between them is in the Nachlass, not the books Nietzsche published. The best books I've seen on Nietzsche-Kant are:


 * Michael Steven Green: Nietzsche and the Transcendental Tradition
 * R. Kevin Hill: Nietzsche's Critiques: The Kantian Foundations of His Thought
 * Robin Small:	 Nietzsche in Context
 * George J. Stack: Nietzsche's Anthropic Circle : Man, Science, and Myth

They generally rely heavily on Nietzsche's notes and neo-Kantians such as Kuno Fischer, F.A. Lange, Afrikan Spir (who I had never heard of until I read Green) and, of course, Schopenhauer. I would also like to see a book on Nietzsche's ties to the radical anthropology of the Young Hegelians, most especially Feuerbach and Stirner. Obviously, I do not mean to say that Nietzsche was a (belated) Young Hegelian any more than I think he can be understood purely as a neoKantian. -But a discussion of similarities and differences would be interesting. I also find almost any discussion of Hegel and God very intriguing. What do you consider the best of the secondary literature on this? I have Book III of his 'Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion' and was impressed. I am now looking to pick up the first volume used (i.e., cheap). Pomonomo2003 17:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The relationship between Bauer and Nietzsche was short and sweet. They agreed entirely on what a jackass David Strauss was.  This gave Bauer, an old man, great comfort.  I gather he tried to encourage Nietzsche to read Hegel, and I gather also that Nietzsche didn't have the background, that is to say, the capacity for it.  Like Wagner, he was keen for quicker fame, and reading Hegel takes many years.


 * Nietzsche was right that Bauer loved to read any humiliation of Strauss, and it's not impossible that Nietzsche sought to please Bauer, who was actually famous in the underground. There wasn't a book on theology in the latter half of the 19th century that ignored the writings of Bruno Bauer, despite the right-wing suppression of his writings.  So it must be attributed to the left-wing attack from Marx and Engels that caused his name to be nearly forgotten in the 20th century.  Marx and Engels colluded to smash Bauer to bits, mainly because Bauer dared to criticize socialism, but also because Bauer was a Hegelian and intelligent, and so remained a threat.


 * And although Nietzsche calls Bauer "my most attentive reader", in his essay, in a previous year he called Bauer, "my entire reading public." Bauer no doubt fostered the genius of this anti-Strauss poet.  However, I find no evidence that they corresponded into the 1880's.  Once Nietzsche joined Wagner's anti-Semitic drivel and his Arthur Schopenhauer superficialities, Bauer couldn't have tolerated that.


 * And as for Nietzsche's obvious anti-semitism, one can find exceptions here and there -- so the main course isn't found in ECCE HOMO but in his anti-Christian writings, especially, THE ANTICHRIST, because his version of anti-Semitism was specifically an anti-Christian anti-Semitism. Jesus and the Jews were to blame for the Christian catastrophe.  It is in this context -- not in the context of biological superiority as such -- that Nietzsche is the most vitriolic.  Don't stop with ECCE HOMO, but go to the Wikipedia "quotations" page for Nietzsche, and peruse the many quotations I supplied there from multiple writings by Nietzsche -- there is a real hatred there that many scholars, like Kaufmann, must blind themselves to avoid.


 * As for the Aryan ideal of Wagner and his ilk, Nietzsche did circle with it for many years -- without, however stooping as low as some of them, yet nevertheless it did slip out here and there. His condemnation of Judeo-Christianity was exceedingly emotional.


 * As for Nietzsche 'burying' his Kantianism in unpublished notes -- do you suggest that they amount to a Treatise on Kant? I've seen no evidence of that.  I've seen a sentence here and there.  I believe I've even seen one full paragraph about Kant -- and it was short.  I've never, ever seen a full chapter of formal Philosophical criticism of *any* Philosopher by Nietzsche.  I won't count anecdotes; anybody can do anecdotes.  Even L. Ron Hubbard could do anecdotes about Kant and that didn't make *him* a Philosopher proper.  Same with H.L. Mencken. Yes, Nietzsche was eclectic and esoteric, but so was LRH.  It's simply not enough to deserve the title.


 * Also -- Philosophy never works at being obscure -- that's the vanity of Poets. As a Poet Nietzsche shines like a blazing sun.  His wordsmithery is among the highest in European literature.  He was a genius at prose.  That *still* doesn't make him a Philosopher proper.


 * By all means, Pomonomo2003, if you believe I've overlooked some of Nietzsche's actual writings, feel free to share them with me. I'm an avid reader and I've read everything that Nietzcshe wrote translated into English.  That includes some disputed texts and the Nietzsche/Wagner correspondence.  So, I'd be delighted to read more of Nietzsche as it becomes available.  Share it with me and let me form my own opinion.


 * In that spirit, too, I'll share the best books on Hegel's Theology that I know of. First I'll say that in the past 180 years of Hegel scholarship, the vast majority after Bruno Bauer is painful and inadequate.  Most of it has been damaged by Marxism on the one hand, and by inferior metaphysicians like the British McTaggart and Bradley on the other.  Useless.


 * The only satisfactory secondary literature begins after the Fall of the USSR. That's when Western scholars feel free to dive in.  The Hegel Society of America that began around that time had close ties with the best German scholars in the field. So the books I recommend are from that period and forward -- nothing else comes close.  Here you go:


 * 1. Dr. Dale M. Schlitt HEGEL'S TRINITARIAN CLAIM (1984)
 * 2. Walter Jaeschke, REASON IN RELIGION (1986)
 * 3. PHILOSOPHY, THEOLOGY, AND HEGEL'S BERLIN PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION (1991), Dr. Philip M. Merklinger
 * 4. Stephen Rocker, HEGEL’S RATIONAL RELIGION (1995)
 * 5. Cyril O’Regan, THE HETERODOX HEGEL (1995)


 * Some superb translators who wrote only essays (not books) on the topic include: Dr. Theodore Geraets; Dr. Edward Beach; Dr. Peter C. Hodgdon; Dr. Jon Stewart. Also, in 2004, Patricia Marie Calton authored, HEGEL'S METAPHYSICS OF GOD: THE ONTOLOGICAL PROOF OF A TRINITARIAN DIVINE ONTOLOGY, has many strengths as well as many flaws.


 * Insofar as Hegel's Christianity was never popular, that is in part the fault of Marx and Nietzsche and the extremes of political polarism in the 20th century that directly derive from them.


 * Some of the writers above do argue for a new 'Hegelo-Christian' revelation, and so do I, but it is a minority voice in the Hegel Society of America, and some long-standing voices in that movement have quit because of it.


 * I try to teach people about Hegel's Christianity as far as possible -- but it is slow-going. Yet I'm convinced that as Bishop Spong says, Christianity must change or die because young people are too sophisticated for traditional dogmatics.  Hegel's dialectical Trinity is close to finally having a proper hearing.


 * Finally, there is no Hegelian right. It never existed and you can't cite anybody who claimed to be that.  There were some non-Hegelians and anti-Hegelians who claimed to be left-Hegelians -- starting with David Strauss (the writer who first coined the terms of right-Hegelian and left-Hegelian), but Strauss was a liar.  Bruno Bauer proved that abundantly. Petrejo 05:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I have read all the published works of Nietzsche too. (I once did a line by line commentary on the first chapter of 'Beyond Good & Evil'.) And if one is going to read him from the POV of the Judeo-Christian tradition there will be certainly a great deal to be indignant about. (But as Nietzsche said, "no one lies as much as the indignant do." (BGE, Free Spirit, section 26.)) Now, if one were to read Nietzsche from the POV of German 'Aryanism' one would be throwing fits of indignation over his many remarks about the Germans and Richard Wagner. Since you mentioned the book, in the penultimate section of the Antichrist we read:

"Oh, these Germans, what they have cost us already! In vain—that has always been the doing of the Germans.— The Reformation, Leibniz, Kant and so-called German philosophy, the Wars of "Liberation," the Reich—each time an in vain for something that had already been attained, for something irrevocable ... They are my enemies, I confess it, these Germans: I despise in them every kind of conceptual and valuational uncleanliness, of cowardice before every honest Yes and No. For almost a thousand years they have messed up and confused everything they touched with their fingers; they have on their conscience everything half-hearted—three-eighths-hearted!—of which Europe is sick..." (Antichrist, Section 61)

Nietzsche understood himself as a 'good European' and not some Aryan bigot. And as for Wagner? Nietsche wrote books detailing his contempt for Wagner! Have you actually read them? Nietzsche's Wagner phase really only entails the period of the 'Birth of Tragedy'; after that he moves away. It is silly to refer to Nietzsche tout court as a Wagnerian. Indeed, it is entertaining, btw, to recall that Nietzsche refers to the 'Birth of Tragedy', this 'Wagnerian' work, as "offensively Hegelian" in Ecce Homo. Thus he says: "An 'idea' -the antithesis dionysian and apollonian- translated into the metaphysical; history itself as the evolution of this 'idea'; in tragedy this antithesis elevated to a unity; from this perspective things which had never before caught site of one another suddenly confronted with one another, illuminated by one another and comprehended..." It is a pity and a shame that Nietzscheans and anti-Nietzscheans continue to think of the 'Birth of Tragedy' as Nietzsche's defining work. Nietzsche can be very smart on Hegelianism, btw. Long before the fact he predicts the Kojevean form of Hegelianism:

"History understood in the Hegelian fashion has been mockingly called God's vicissitudes on earth, though the God referred to has been created only by the history. This God, however, became transparent and comprehensible to himself within the Hegelian craniums and has already ascended all the dialectically possible steps of His evolution up to this self-revelation: so that for Hegel the climax and terminus of the world-process coincided with his own existence in Berlin. Indeed, he ought to have said that everything that came after him was properly to be considered merely as a musical coda of the world-historical rondo or, even more properly, as superfluous. He did not say it: ..." (Untimely Meditations, On the Uses and Disadvantages of History for Life, section 8, p. 104. RJ Hollingdale translator.)

This is a premonition of Kojeve! The name Kojeve gives to the 'superfluous' is Posthistoire. But enough of that. Let me point out, once again, that Nietzsche was an esoteric writer; in order to understand his myriad points one must divine his purpose. When you point out (correctly) that his "condemnation of Judeo-Christianity was exceedingly emotional" one must keep in mind his esotericism; he writes in this manner (indignantly) in order to reach those that can only respond to indignation. Indignation is a closed circle; the anti-Semites, like most of the vulgar 'Nietzscheans', circle around their despicable joys and imagine they are thinking.

No, Nietzsche did not, even in the unpublished notes, write a treatise on Kant. But such a treatise can be teased out of them. However, he would have considered this unimportant. He is concerned with other things; specifically the survival of human culture. This is what impressed Bauer. However, Nietzsche, in the final (post-Zarathustra) phase came to think such salvation entailed philosophical world-making. Why? After all, Nietzsche in the middle period (between 'Birth of Tragedy' and Zarathustra) basically is another 'enlightener'; indeed, he even dedicates a book to Voltaire! However, when Nietzsche comes to believe that it is impossible to ground culture on knowledge and faces up to the consequences of this he writes Zarathustra. This is the fundamental difference between Hegel and Nietzsche: Hegel still believe that the human socio-cultural world can be grounded on knowledge, Nietzsche denies that. Hegel writes the Phenomenology, Nietzsche writes Zarathustra. Postmodernism is a footnote to this divergence between Hegel and Nietzsche. You say there is only one reason to work at being obscure but this too is, I believe, an error. Besides vanity, obscurity allows one to achieve goals 'behind the back' of an irrational history. But this is an ancient song. We find esoteric practices in Plato, Farabi, Averroes, Machiavelli and Spinoza. Are they also not philosophers? The notion that people cannot be brought to philosophy is an ancient one. It is a mistake to dismiss it lightly. The 'skillful writing' of Nietzsche was imposed upon him by a humanity that cannot be brought to philosophy; it is not primarily a matter of talent - it is, for Nietzsche, a philosophical necessity.

On the point about sharing, let me go one step further, I've enjoyed your old reviews on Amazon (and also, btw, your work on the Hegel message board) and do wish you would start reviewing at Amazon again. I have reviewed some books there too. If you ever find the time I wouldn't mind your sharing your opinion of my reviews there. It is a pleasure to read intelligent people that disagree with you. In fact, it is more; those that agree with you tend to only show you what you already know - those that disagree with you show you otherwise. We learn from our intelligent enemies! While, for the most part, one only enjoys ones too agreeable friends...

You have, in my opinion, misread the import of Nietzsche's esotericism; it is not about vanity, it is about results. This is my 'gift' to you. As to the Hegel books, I am in your debt. Thank you very much! I've read Hegel and also a bit of the British Idealists (I no longer own anything by the British Idealists) and agree with your dismissing them. A couple of questions: first, you did not mention the book by Deland S. Anderson 'Hegel's Speculative Good Friday: The Death of God in Philosophical Perspective' - why? It seems, at least from the title and blurb at Amazon, that this book would be interesting too. Secondly, 'Hegel and the Solution to Our Postmodern World Crisis' by K. S. R. Foldes has been recommended to me. Any info you have on these would be greatly appreciated. I am very interested in the possibility of a "new 'Hegelo-Christian' revelation" and it is a pity that supporters of this possibility have allowed themselves to be silenced. In fact, I have made myself notorious among my small circle of 'friendly enemies' for insisting that a new religion, when it comes, can only rise on either Nietzschean or Hegelian presuppositions.

I agree that my saying 'Hegelian right' was a mistake, I should have said 'religious Hegelianism' instead. But I was riffing off Kojeve's insistence that there are only two 'Hegelian' possibilities; 'right' liberal secularist capitalism and 'left' materialist, atheist socialism. The point I was making was that religious Hegelianism is not as dead as Kojeve and the times assume. I believe on this last point we agree. Pomonomo2003 15:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, Pomonomo, you made several errors in your last post to me.


 * (1) Nobody disputed that Nietzsche was ambivalent with regard to Germany, the homeland of his language of choice -- yet one must not jump to conclusions or abstract from his few criticisms a false conclusion. Nietzsche was an elitist -- a sort of aristocrat.  The Germans had long experimented with alternatives to aristocracy and feudalism.  This is what annoyed Nietzsche about the Germans.  You neglected that.


 * (2) You're also mistaken to only look at Nietzsche's so-called contempt for Wagner from the one side. Yes I actually read Nietzsche's attacks on Wagner.  However you've neglected that Nietzsche spent ten long years in his close, almost worshipping association with Wagner.  The truth isn't whether Nietzsche was Wagnerian or anti-Wagnerian -- Nietzsche was two-faced about many matters.  Nietzsche worshipped Wagner for ten years and then he hated Wagner for ten years.  You neglected that.


 * (3) As for the Aryan cause -- you are mistaken to imagine that Nietzsche had nothing to do with it. You overlooked some important texts by Nietzsche in order to neglect that very clear fact.  You neglected Nietzsche's sayings about Jews and the 'Master Race' in 'Genealogy of Morals', 'The Antichrist' and 'The Will to Power' that I supplied for Wikipedia on the quote board:   http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche yet they deserve careful attention.


 * (4) Nietzsche's quip that 'Birth of Tragedy' was "offensively Hegelian" was a literary quip. Nietzsche didn't have the horsepower to be Hegelian.  He parroted some basic Hegelian terms that were common in the 19th century Germany, like everybody else.  That no more made him a reader of Hegel than most intellectuals in Germany.


 * (5) As for the so-called 'Kojevean form of Hegelianism,' it is a marxist joke of the first order. No contemporary scholar takes Kojeve's marxist Hegel as anything more than a long series of errors.  Insofar as Nietzsche was pre-Kojevean, Nietzsche merely pre-figured that same misunderstanding of the great thinker whom he never studied.  But was that even Nietzsche's distinction?  By no means.  He got that from Wagner who got it from Feuerbach the dilletante.


 * (6) When an advocate takes refuge in the 'esoteric' in any literature, one must perceive a will to interpret anything one wishes any way one wishes. Such mystification amounts to obscurantism, and is unworthy of the scholar.


 * (7) It is clearly prejudiced to imagine that Christians can be summarized with the word, 'indignant.' The rich history of Christian literature over two thousands years requires a recognition with deeper thought than that simple insult.


 * (8) To say that a treatise on Kant can be 'teased out' of Nietzsche's unpublished notes says almost nothing, because such a Treatise can be 'teased out' of almost every bit of literature after Kant. One can even 'tease out' of Hegel's writings such a treatise.


 * (9) Nietzsche wasn't alone in contemplating the survival of human culture -- and it is silly to imagine that he was a leader in this field. His blind attacks on Christianity and Judeo-Christianity are not constructed on high theory, nor on deep insight, but on emotional outburst.


 * (10) You say you know what impressed Bruno Bauer about Nietzsche, Pomonomo? Do you have empirical evidence?  I have empirical evidence that the attacks on David Strauss were Bauer's joy.  Aside from that, Bauer didn't pay much attention to Nietzsche.  Nietzsche was a great wordsmith, but it took more than that to please Bruno Bauer.


 * (11) When Nietzsche declares in 'Zarathustra' that it is impossible to ground culture on knowledge, this act relegated Nietzsche to the Literature Department and removed him from the Philosophy Department, according to Hegel and the Hegelians. Reality is Rational, said Hegel, and Hegel went forth to prove it.  Nietzsche, like most post-Kantians, absolved himself of proving anything he wrote.  That, Pomonomo, isn't Philosophy -- that's Poetry.


 * (12) You wrote: "obscurity allows one to achieve goals 'behind the back' of an irrational history." The logical contradiction in such a proposition should be intuitively obvious.  If history is irrational, then how is the writer rational?  And who would be his readers?  The self-proclaimed elite?  But we saw what they did in 1945!


 * (13) Again -- even if Nietzsche echos and parrots a philosopher here and there -- that does not make him a Philosopher.


 * (14) Since you invited me, I'll opine on your reviews on Amazon if I can find them.


 * (15) You speak of the 'results' of Nietzsche.  Those results, in my reading, are hatred, chauvanism, irrationalism, anti-Chrisianity, anti-Judaism, and the advocacy of Masters and Slaves.  All these things are contrary to the Hegelian orientation, and even if they weren't, I would still regard them as pathetic.


 * (16) As for the book by Deland S. Anderson, 'Hegel's Speculative Good Friday: The Death of God in Philosophical Perspective', I'm not familiar with it. Because you mentioned it, though, I'll put it on my long reading list.


 * (17) As for the book by KSR Foldes, 'Hegel and the Solution to Our Postmodern World Crisis', I'm not familiar with that one, either. I'll put it on my list.


 * (18) IMO it is impossible to found any religion on Nietzsche's irrational edifice.  Religion isn't irrational -- and any proposition that Religion is irrational is based on a profound misunderstanding of the history of Religion.


 * (19) I am encouraged that you are open to the possibility that a new upsurge in Religion might come from the Hegelian wing of Philosophy. I am firmly convinced that Hegel is the future. Petrejo 00:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox
Please don't use my personal user page sandbox for your edits. You can create your own user subpage or use the general Wikipedia sandbox at Sandbox. Thank you. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 03:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I have no idea what a sandbox is, or that you had a sandbox, or that I was in your sandbox. Insofar as I was ever in your sandbox, I have no idea how I got there, as my editing was done as I normally do it.  This is Wikipedia, and I'm able to edit a page.  That's all I know.  Petrejo (talk) 03:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Hegel Society of America
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Hegel Society of America, and it appears to include a substantial copy of. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 04:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * My initialing Wikipedia entry for the Hegel Society of America (HSA) had an excerpt from the HSA home page. As a member of the HSA my usage was called for.  Nevertheless, I changed the wording so that the excerpt no longer matches the HSA home page. Petrejo (talk) 05:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Bruno Bauer
Sorry for reverting your edits, I hit the wrong button. I reverted back to your version, then accidently reverted back, the reverted again. I think I'm having a bad day. Anyways, I apologise for the confusion. Brougham96 (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Petrejo! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Howard Kainz -

Disambiguation link notification for October 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edwin Walker, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Robert Morris and Hatch Act (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

November 2012
Please do not add or change content, as you did to Edwin Walker, without verifying it by citing reliable sources. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Gyrofrog (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edwin Walker, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Adlai Stevenson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind attitude and your corrections. Yes, I intended to link to Ambassador Adlai Stevenson. --Paul

Disambiguation link notification for January 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edwin Walker, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Adlai Stevenson. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Existence of God, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jacobi ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Existence_of_God check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Existence_of_God?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lee Harvey Oswald, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page FPCC. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Request releated to police interrogation section
Wonder if you can fix this minor goof in the police interrogation section on Lee Harvey Oswald article: the current words, “went downstairs where he encountered Baker” give the impression Oswald said the encounter took place at the second floor lunchroom but Holmes clarifies that Oswald was talking about encountering the officer at the vestibule on the first floor by the front entrance. Holmes describes two set of doors which were in the building vestibule (which were a front lobby between two set of doors). I propose the paragraph could be rewritten to reflect Holmes’ testimony something like: “Oswald said he was at the first floor vestibule by the front entrance and wanted to see what the “commotion” was when he encountered an officer.”213.107.51.142 (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Can you add PM theory to LHO article?
Here are ideas on how to put the PM theory on the Oswald article. The article says that Oswald told Holmes he was “working on an upper floor when the shooting occurred, then went downstairs”. Looking though Harry Holmes’ testimony, especially on page 306, it is clear what Holmes meant where Oswald said he encountered the officer: ...as I started to go out and see what it was all about, a police officer stopped me just before I got to the front door, and started to ask me some questions... Mr. BELIN. By the way, where did this policeman stop him when he was coming down the stairs at the Book Depository on the day of the shooting? Mr. HOLMES. He said it was in the vestibule. Mr. BELIN. He said he was in the vestibule? Mr. HOLMES. Or approaching the door to the vestibule. He was just coming, apparently, and I have never been in there myself. Apparently there is two sets of doors, and he had come out to this front part. Mr. BELIN. Did he state it was on what floor? Mr. HOLMES. First floor. The front entrance to the first floor. Mr. BELIN. Did he say anything about a Coca Cola or anything like that, if you remember? Mr. HOLMES. Seems like he said he was drinking a Coca Cola, standing there by the Coca Cola machine drinking a Coca Cola. Based on this, I think the paragraph regarding Holmes on the “Police interrogation” section should be reflected to say “Holmes (who attended the interrogation at the invitation of Captain Will Fritz) said that Oswald replied that he was at the “front entrance to the first floor” when he encountered a policeman.”

The following paragraph could be added within the Oswald article, under the last paragraph of the "Other investigations and dissenting theories" section, worded something along the lines of:


 * Some researchers have theorised that a man seen standing on the Depository front steps in films during the assassination, called the "prayer man", was Oswald, saying that original reports indicate Oswald “went outside to watch P. Parade” (referring to the presidential motorcade), and was “out with [William Shelley, the depository foreman] in front”, and that he was at the “front entrance to the first floor” when he encountered a policeman. 62.254.69.147 (talk) 09:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
Hello, Petrejo. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Bruno Bauer, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Spam);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Daask (talk) 18:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)