![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
The implication of the suggestion that "months of silence" regarding my points constitute a consensus position opposed to my own contradicts the established procedure -- both inside and outside Wikipedia -- whereby "silence denotes assent".
The implication that I have pushed a single position does not correspond to my varied attempts to suggest acceptable alternative lead-sentences and paragraphs. The suggestion that an RfC demonstrates some consensus opposed to my edits appears at odds with the content and progress of that RfC.
The statement that I have 'edited this page to remove statements to the effect of "Nietzsche was a German"' misrepresents my frequently-stated view: that we can (and should) include in the article an account of Nietzsche's "German" background (but that labeling Nietzsche "a German philosopher" appears to lack the significance that highlighting it in the lead accords it).
The repeated labeling of my edits and discussions as a "campaign" detracts from the desirability of addressing the issues seriously and fully.
The claim that a consensus exists to highlight Nietzsche's Germanness in the lead of our article contradicts the lack of discussion on the Talk-page (the place for establishing consensus).
The idea that a silent cabal can establish consensus without dealing with opposing points or by implicitly dismissing such points as not "worthy of consideration" contradicts the collaborative nature of Wikipedia.
The claim that "we are not a debating club" might suggest a reluctance to address points of discussion and provided evidence, which would also abandon the spirit of Wikipedia for some sort of stultifying appeal to authority.
The reluctance to enter into debate about the issues might suggest a lack of evidence or of readiness to consider the facts..
The proposal to ignore the comments of a fellow-Wikipedian "until support ... is demonstrated" pre-judges a potential debate and flies in the face of the aim of achieving consensus by open discussion on the merits of an argument.
-- Pedant17 ( talk) 03:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Browsing in Blackburn, Simon. The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-211694-0. furnishes some instructive examples of labeling. Blackburn does not always shy away from the politically correct: Berkeley and Burke appear as "Irish", Wittgenstein as "Austrian" and Adam Smith as "Scottish".
Others where formal citizenship appears irrelevant include Socrates and John Wyclif. Many British-nationals appear as "English" (Russell, Ayer), but compare Bradley and Isiah Berlin. The Sorbian/Wendish/Lusatian origins of Leibniz do not get a mention.
Citizenship-nationality does not always come to the fore: Buber appears as "Jewish", Augustine of Hippo as "Christian", Avicenna as "Islamic", Freud as "Viennese" and Samuel Johnson as "American".
Philosophers who straddle various national labels don't necessarily miss out.: Rousseau gets the note "Born in Geneva", and Marcuse "born in Berlin". But Lenin appears as neither "Russian" nor "Soviet". Habermas and Arendt avoid the "German" label; Santayana appears neither as Spanish nor American. Benjamin Franklin remains nationalistically unclassified.
But most significantly, Friedrich Nietzsche and Karl Marx, the 19th-century stateless philosophers from Prussian territory, lack any nationalistic label.
Evidently, Blackburn does not have a strict policy or a definitive in-house guideline as to dealing with citizenship/nationality/ethnicity. But his practical approach provides us with significant clues as to how we can best characterize cases such as those of the stateless ex-Prussians Nietzsche and Marx.
-- Pedant17 ( talk) 03:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The current version of the lead highlights the problem of using ambiguous set formulae. It reads "... Nietzsche ...was a nineteenth-century German philologist and philosopher." The implication that Nietzsche worked in the field of German philology misleads: he specialized in classical philology. The implication (per the Wikipedia Manual of Style for biographies) that Nietzsche carried out his significant work as a German citizen misleads even more: he gave up his citizenship (of Prussia -- not of Germany) in 1869: before he achieved notability in the 1870s and 1880s. We've not yet seen compelling evidence situating Nietzsche's philosophy firmly within any ongoing German-cultural strand of philosophical thought: the man appears sui generis. Accordingly I propose dropping the adjective "German" from the lead-sentence, thus removing much of the misleading ambiguity and allowing us to move on to concentrate on more substantive matters -- Pedant17 ( talk) 03:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello everybody, I have requested a translation of the German article about the Nietzsche-Archiv. See Wikipedia:Translation/Nietzsche-Archiv. Help would be greatly appreciated.-- Chef aka Pangloss 18:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
"This fact is supported by the number of highly attractive women who read this collection of his writings while drinking gourmet coffee in Barnes and Nobles book stores located around the United States."
This might be original research. I don't want to change it as yet because I don't know if there has already been debate, but I wanted to highlight it for regular editors of this page.-- Tom Joudrey 00:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
This one might be a little easier. Where is Nietzshe buried? Perhaps this information could be included in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.168.254.30 ( talk) 10:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The corruption of Nietzsche's philosophy in the Wikipedia articles by radical-left activists is insane. What better way to neutralize one's enemy than to appropriate, weaken, soften and distort him? The German Rudiger Safranski, at least, has the balls to speak the truth in a world gone mad with doctrinaire socialistic political correctness:
"According to Nietzsche, nature produces the weak and the strong, the advantaged and disadvantaged. There is no benevolent providence and no equitable distribution of chances to get ahead in life. Before this backdrop, morality can be defined as an attempt to even out the 'injustice' of nature and create counterbalances. The power of natural destinies needs to be broken. In Nietzsche's view, Christianity represented an absolutely brilliant attempt to accomplish this aim ... Nietzsche greatly admired the power of Christianity to set values, but he was not grateful to it, because its consideration for the weak and the morality of evening things out impeded the progress and development of a higher stage of mankind.
Nietzsche could envision this higher stage of mankind only as a culmination of culture in its 'peaks of rapture,' which is to say in successful individuals and achievements. The will to power unleashes the dynamics of culmination, but it is also the will to power that forms a moral alliance on the side of the weak. This alliance works at cross-purposes with the goal of culmination and ultimately, in Nietzsche's view, leads to widespread equalization and degeneration. As a modern version of the 'Christian theory of morality,' this alliance forms the backbone of democracy and socialism. Nietzsche adamantly opposed all such movements. For him, the meaning of world history was not happiness and prosperity of the greatest possible number but individual manifestations of success in life. The culture of political and social democracy was a concern of the 'last people,' whom he disparaged. He threw overboard the state-sponsored ethics of the common welfare because he regarded such ethics as an impediment to the self-configuration of great individuals. If, however, the great personalities were to vanish, the only remaining significance of history would be lost in the process. By defending the residual significance of history, Nietzsche assailed democracy and declared what mattered was 'delaying the complete appeasement of the democratic herd-animal'(11,587; WP 125) ... Nietzsche opted against democratic life organized according to the principle of welfare. For him, a world of that sort would signal the triumph of the human herd animal...
If we are content to regard this highly personal philosophy and these maneuvers of self-configuration with fascination and perhaps even admiration, but are not willing to abandon the idea of democracy and justice, it is likely that Nietzsche would have accused us of feeble compromise, indecisiveness, and epitomizing the ominous 'blinking' of the 'last men.'" Safranski, Rudiger (trans. Shelley Frisch), Nietzsche: A Philosophical Biography, Norton, 2002, pp. 296-298. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.10.2 ( talk) 13:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone with a medial background addressed or speculated on his original illness? From the section titled "Professor of Basel" the following quote from that section "moments of shortsightedness practically to the degree of blindness, migraine headaches, and violent stomach attacks." Not much to make a diagnosis from, but I'd be interested in any thoughts on what this might be, besides syphilis that is. 76.170.27.6 14:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Then there's always the possibility that he was a malingerer. His illnesses were always of the type that showed no external signs. He wanted to get out of his position as professor of philology. He tried to wreck his own philology career by writing the idiosyncratic The Birth of Tragedy. After failing to switch careers in order to become a philosophy or biology professor, he might have succeeded in leaving philology by gaining a medical disability pension. The thought of being a philosopher with unlimited leisure, like Schopenhauer, appealed to him greatly because he desperately wanted every minute of his life to be his own. Faking illness is a common way to extricate oneself from a situation that is difficult to leave. There is always a possibility of trickery when the symptoms of an illness are subjective, internal, and not verifiable by objective observation. Lestrade ( talk) 17:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Lestrade
I tried to improve this article, but I am afraid my English is again far from supreme. Could somebody check for errors and style? Thank you.-- Chef aka Pangloss 14:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
This article should not recieve a Wikiproject Lutheranism banner (based on the project's own rules) because the subject is not a Lutheran nor has made a significant contribution to Lutheranism. If there are questions, please see the project's talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackturner3 ( talk • contribs) 21:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I skimmed the article. I think it It appears to have been written by an undergraduate who took a few courses in philosophy. It is mediocre at best. It needs to be rewritten, and it needs new sections on N.'s appropriation by the Nazi's, his anti-democratic stance, his purported misogyny, the role of Kaufmann with respect to translation and rehabilitation, and his substantial influence on 20th century writers, intellectuals, philosophers, and cultural critics, among others.
estling_ken@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.36.238.145 ( talk) 19:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I assume this issue has likely come up before; however, given the increased activity in editing both Nietzsche's influences and influenced I think the following question should be raised: What are we considering an influence of Nietzsche? He obviously was extremely well read and comments on a massive amount of people. Is every mere philosopher or thinker whom Nietzsche studied and critized to be considered someone he was influenced by? I think it should also be noted for editors of this main article, the article on Nietzsche's influence and receptions is quite weak. It lacks depth, proper citations, a strong opening paragraph, consistent structure, and many of the factors listed for a "good" article rating under the project philosophy. PhilipDSullivan 01:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
As to the recent deletion of Voltaire from his influences: Nietzsche has obviously read Voltaire taking the fact the he critisizes his work (one instance I am certain of is in the beginning of chapter 2 free spirit in beyond good and evil). Because much of what Nietzsche accomplishes throughout this writting is spring boarded from his critique of previous works it seems possible to view these works that he has read and felt worthy of response to to be considered works, subsequently writers, that influenced him. Obviously if we acknowledge all of these instances of response to a specefic work or writer the list of Nietzsche's influences will be considerably long. So, what is our criteria for an influence of Nietzsche? Should it be anyone he mentions in his writting plus books and articles known to be read, like those mentioned in the numerous biographical accounts and held within the library of his books. PhilipDSullivan 01:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Since I did the most recent clean-up to the influences/influenced sections of the infobox, I'll give my thoughts. I think that they should be trimmed far more than they currently are (I actually think they should be done away with altogether, but I lost that vote). In the course of that discussion and several alternative proposals (see Template talk:Infobox Philosopher), it was suggested that persons named as influences or influenced should be mentioned in the article. If a person did not exert a verifiable influence substantial enough to be mentioned, he shouldn't be listed in the infobox. The same goes for the category of "influenced." Voltaire was taken out simply because he wasn't mentioned in the article. On a related note, I don't think that he should be listed in the article simply to get him into the infobox. Given the current manner of doing things, Plato has to be listed in every philosopher's infobox, which makes his being listed meaningless. And a philosopher of Nietzsche's stature would require listing as "influenced" every subsequent thinker, no matter how mediocre or obscure, again defeating the purpose of naming anyone in particular. The compromise adopted — of listing only persons significant enough to warrant independently substantiated mention in the article — seems best. RJC Talk 05:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I have been constantly re-re-re-editing the Nietzsche article to include Anton LaVey in the "influenced" section. LaVey is highly influenced by Nietzsche and so I think that it is deserved that he be included. After all, Wikipedia is about informing people, so regardless of whether or not LaVey is in the actual article or not, he is still influenced, and should therefore be included. User:In Tyler We Trusted Talk 22:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
My own opinion is that Anton LaVey is an insignificant example of a person who might have attempted to take advantage of Nietzsche's reputation as a highly controversial thinker in order to push forward his own public relations agenda. In order for him to be included here as a figure influenced by Nietzsche one would have to establish that:
1. LaVey's "thought" is notable in itself in terms of serious philosophical discussion; that
2. Nietzsche did influence LaVey, and
3. that his influence upon LaVey was notable, verifiable, and presented in a neutral fashion.
While I am willing to listen to any putative argument for influence, I should say that my own feeling is that the case for Nietzsche's influence on LaVey is nonexistent. LaVey (and subsequent actors in this "current", e.g. Michael Aquino of the "Temple of Set") has offered no indication that he actually understood Nietzsche's thought, so how could he have been influenced by it? I'm happy to consider any reputable study of LaVey's "philosophical" thought if such a thing exists. In the absence of any such reputable study one can only dismiss LaVey's theatrical attempts to manipulate the remnants of hysterical collective responses for his own ends as a species of base self-interest. Furthermore, LaVey himself has not yet, to my knowledge, been established as notable thinker in his own right. If LaVey's "thinking" is notable in its own right then we might ask how he was influenced by Nietzsche. Keep in mind that this does not mean "how you personally happen to think he was influenced by Nietzsche". Citations are necessary. Attempts to make mention of "black metal" or "death metal" bands supposedly "influenced" by Nietzsche have been consistently (and in my opinion justifiably) dismissed here. Neither LaVey nor the various angry head-bangers have done anything notable with Nietzsche's thought. Claiming him as an influence, or using a modification of a title of one of his books (or exploiting a phrase from his works) in naming a song is not sufficient grounds to include him as an influence here. While LaVey is an excellent example of how to scare housewives by shaving your head and growing a diabolical goatee, he is not, in my opinion, an individual worthy of mention in relation to Nietzsche. Lest you assume that I'm just arguing the party line, look at the trouble I went to in order to have Stirner mentioned. If you are willing to do the same work, and you are able to provide the same support for your argument, I'll listen to it.-- Picatrix ( talk) 01:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
The implication of the suggestion that "months of silence" regarding my points constitute a consensus position opposed to my own contradicts the established procedure -- both inside and outside Wikipedia -- whereby "silence denotes assent".
The implication that I have pushed a single position does not correspond to my varied attempts to suggest acceptable alternative lead-sentences and paragraphs. The suggestion that an RfC demonstrates some consensus opposed to my edits appears at odds with the content and progress of that RfC.
The statement that I have 'edited this page to remove statements to the effect of "Nietzsche was a German"' misrepresents my frequently-stated view: that we can (and should) include in the article an account of Nietzsche's "German" background (but that labeling Nietzsche "a German philosopher" appears to lack the significance that highlighting it in the lead accords it).
The repeated labeling of my edits and discussions as a "campaign" detracts from the desirability of addressing the issues seriously and fully.
The claim that a consensus exists to highlight Nietzsche's Germanness in the lead of our article contradicts the lack of discussion on the Talk-page (the place for establishing consensus).
The idea that a silent cabal can establish consensus without dealing with opposing points or by implicitly dismissing such points as not "worthy of consideration" contradicts the collaborative nature of Wikipedia.
The claim that "we are not a debating club" might suggest a reluctance to address points of discussion and provided evidence, which would also abandon the spirit of Wikipedia for some sort of stultifying appeal to authority.
The reluctance to enter into debate about the issues might suggest a lack of evidence or of readiness to consider the facts..
The proposal to ignore the comments of a fellow-Wikipedian "until support ... is demonstrated" pre-judges a potential debate and flies in the face of the aim of achieving consensus by open discussion on the merits of an argument.
-- Pedant17 ( talk) 03:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Browsing in Blackburn, Simon. The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-211694-0. furnishes some instructive examples of labeling. Blackburn does not always shy away from the politically correct: Berkeley and Burke appear as "Irish", Wittgenstein as "Austrian" and Adam Smith as "Scottish".
Others where formal citizenship appears irrelevant include Socrates and John Wyclif. Many British-nationals appear as "English" (Russell, Ayer), but compare Bradley and Isiah Berlin. The Sorbian/Wendish/Lusatian origins of Leibniz do not get a mention.
Citizenship-nationality does not always come to the fore: Buber appears as "Jewish", Augustine of Hippo as "Christian", Avicenna as "Islamic", Freud as "Viennese" and Samuel Johnson as "American".
Philosophers who straddle various national labels don't necessarily miss out.: Rousseau gets the note "Born in Geneva", and Marcuse "born in Berlin". But Lenin appears as neither "Russian" nor "Soviet". Habermas and Arendt avoid the "German" label; Santayana appears neither as Spanish nor American. Benjamin Franklin remains nationalistically unclassified.
But most significantly, Friedrich Nietzsche and Karl Marx, the 19th-century stateless philosophers from Prussian territory, lack any nationalistic label.
Evidently, Blackburn does not have a strict policy or a definitive in-house guideline as to dealing with citizenship/nationality/ethnicity. But his practical approach provides us with significant clues as to how we can best characterize cases such as those of the stateless ex-Prussians Nietzsche and Marx.
-- Pedant17 ( talk) 03:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The current version of the lead highlights the problem of using ambiguous set formulae. It reads "... Nietzsche ...was a nineteenth-century German philologist and philosopher." The implication that Nietzsche worked in the field of German philology misleads: he specialized in classical philology. The implication (per the Wikipedia Manual of Style for biographies) that Nietzsche carried out his significant work as a German citizen misleads even more: he gave up his citizenship (of Prussia -- not of Germany) in 1869: before he achieved notability in the 1870s and 1880s. We've not yet seen compelling evidence situating Nietzsche's philosophy firmly within any ongoing German-cultural strand of philosophical thought: the man appears sui generis. Accordingly I propose dropping the adjective "German" from the lead-sentence, thus removing much of the misleading ambiguity and allowing us to move on to concentrate on more substantive matters -- Pedant17 ( talk) 03:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello everybody, I have requested a translation of the German article about the Nietzsche-Archiv. See Wikipedia:Translation/Nietzsche-Archiv. Help would be greatly appreciated.-- Chef aka Pangloss 18:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
"This fact is supported by the number of highly attractive women who read this collection of his writings while drinking gourmet coffee in Barnes and Nobles book stores located around the United States."
This might be original research. I don't want to change it as yet because I don't know if there has already been debate, but I wanted to highlight it for regular editors of this page.-- Tom Joudrey 00:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
This one might be a little easier. Where is Nietzshe buried? Perhaps this information could be included in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.168.254.30 ( talk) 10:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The corruption of Nietzsche's philosophy in the Wikipedia articles by radical-left activists is insane. What better way to neutralize one's enemy than to appropriate, weaken, soften and distort him? The German Rudiger Safranski, at least, has the balls to speak the truth in a world gone mad with doctrinaire socialistic political correctness:
"According to Nietzsche, nature produces the weak and the strong, the advantaged and disadvantaged. There is no benevolent providence and no equitable distribution of chances to get ahead in life. Before this backdrop, morality can be defined as an attempt to even out the 'injustice' of nature and create counterbalances. The power of natural destinies needs to be broken. In Nietzsche's view, Christianity represented an absolutely brilliant attempt to accomplish this aim ... Nietzsche greatly admired the power of Christianity to set values, but he was not grateful to it, because its consideration for the weak and the morality of evening things out impeded the progress and development of a higher stage of mankind.
Nietzsche could envision this higher stage of mankind only as a culmination of culture in its 'peaks of rapture,' which is to say in successful individuals and achievements. The will to power unleashes the dynamics of culmination, but it is also the will to power that forms a moral alliance on the side of the weak. This alliance works at cross-purposes with the goal of culmination and ultimately, in Nietzsche's view, leads to widespread equalization and degeneration. As a modern version of the 'Christian theory of morality,' this alliance forms the backbone of democracy and socialism. Nietzsche adamantly opposed all such movements. For him, the meaning of world history was not happiness and prosperity of the greatest possible number but individual manifestations of success in life. The culture of political and social democracy was a concern of the 'last people,' whom he disparaged. He threw overboard the state-sponsored ethics of the common welfare because he regarded such ethics as an impediment to the self-configuration of great individuals. If, however, the great personalities were to vanish, the only remaining significance of history would be lost in the process. By defending the residual significance of history, Nietzsche assailed democracy and declared what mattered was 'delaying the complete appeasement of the democratic herd-animal'(11,587; WP 125) ... Nietzsche opted against democratic life organized according to the principle of welfare. For him, a world of that sort would signal the triumph of the human herd animal...
If we are content to regard this highly personal philosophy and these maneuvers of self-configuration with fascination and perhaps even admiration, but are not willing to abandon the idea of democracy and justice, it is likely that Nietzsche would have accused us of feeble compromise, indecisiveness, and epitomizing the ominous 'blinking' of the 'last men.'" Safranski, Rudiger (trans. Shelley Frisch), Nietzsche: A Philosophical Biography, Norton, 2002, pp. 296-298. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.10.2 ( talk) 13:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone with a medial background addressed or speculated on his original illness? From the section titled "Professor of Basel" the following quote from that section "moments of shortsightedness practically to the degree of blindness, migraine headaches, and violent stomach attacks." Not much to make a diagnosis from, but I'd be interested in any thoughts on what this might be, besides syphilis that is. 76.170.27.6 14:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Then there's always the possibility that he was a malingerer. His illnesses were always of the type that showed no external signs. He wanted to get out of his position as professor of philology. He tried to wreck his own philology career by writing the idiosyncratic The Birth of Tragedy. After failing to switch careers in order to become a philosophy or biology professor, he might have succeeded in leaving philology by gaining a medical disability pension. The thought of being a philosopher with unlimited leisure, like Schopenhauer, appealed to him greatly because he desperately wanted every minute of his life to be his own. Faking illness is a common way to extricate oneself from a situation that is difficult to leave. There is always a possibility of trickery when the symptoms of an illness are subjective, internal, and not verifiable by objective observation. Lestrade ( talk) 17:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Lestrade
I tried to improve this article, but I am afraid my English is again far from supreme. Could somebody check for errors and style? Thank you.-- Chef aka Pangloss 14:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
This article should not recieve a Wikiproject Lutheranism banner (based on the project's own rules) because the subject is not a Lutheran nor has made a significant contribution to Lutheranism. If there are questions, please see the project's talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackturner3 ( talk • contribs) 21:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I skimmed the article. I think it It appears to have been written by an undergraduate who took a few courses in philosophy. It is mediocre at best. It needs to be rewritten, and it needs new sections on N.'s appropriation by the Nazi's, his anti-democratic stance, his purported misogyny, the role of Kaufmann with respect to translation and rehabilitation, and his substantial influence on 20th century writers, intellectuals, philosophers, and cultural critics, among others.
estling_ken@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.36.238.145 ( talk) 19:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I assume this issue has likely come up before; however, given the increased activity in editing both Nietzsche's influences and influenced I think the following question should be raised: What are we considering an influence of Nietzsche? He obviously was extremely well read and comments on a massive amount of people. Is every mere philosopher or thinker whom Nietzsche studied and critized to be considered someone he was influenced by? I think it should also be noted for editors of this main article, the article on Nietzsche's influence and receptions is quite weak. It lacks depth, proper citations, a strong opening paragraph, consistent structure, and many of the factors listed for a "good" article rating under the project philosophy. PhilipDSullivan 01:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
As to the recent deletion of Voltaire from his influences: Nietzsche has obviously read Voltaire taking the fact the he critisizes his work (one instance I am certain of is in the beginning of chapter 2 free spirit in beyond good and evil). Because much of what Nietzsche accomplishes throughout this writting is spring boarded from his critique of previous works it seems possible to view these works that he has read and felt worthy of response to to be considered works, subsequently writers, that influenced him. Obviously if we acknowledge all of these instances of response to a specefic work or writer the list of Nietzsche's influences will be considerably long. So, what is our criteria for an influence of Nietzsche? Should it be anyone he mentions in his writting plus books and articles known to be read, like those mentioned in the numerous biographical accounts and held within the library of his books. PhilipDSullivan 01:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Since I did the most recent clean-up to the influences/influenced sections of the infobox, I'll give my thoughts. I think that they should be trimmed far more than they currently are (I actually think they should be done away with altogether, but I lost that vote). In the course of that discussion and several alternative proposals (see Template talk:Infobox Philosopher), it was suggested that persons named as influences or influenced should be mentioned in the article. If a person did not exert a verifiable influence substantial enough to be mentioned, he shouldn't be listed in the infobox. The same goes for the category of "influenced." Voltaire was taken out simply because he wasn't mentioned in the article. On a related note, I don't think that he should be listed in the article simply to get him into the infobox. Given the current manner of doing things, Plato has to be listed in every philosopher's infobox, which makes his being listed meaningless. And a philosopher of Nietzsche's stature would require listing as "influenced" every subsequent thinker, no matter how mediocre or obscure, again defeating the purpose of naming anyone in particular. The compromise adopted — of listing only persons significant enough to warrant independently substantiated mention in the article — seems best. RJC Talk 05:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I have been constantly re-re-re-editing the Nietzsche article to include Anton LaVey in the "influenced" section. LaVey is highly influenced by Nietzsche and so I think that it is deserved that he be included. After all, Wikipedia is about informing people, so regardless of whether or not LaVey is in the actual article or not, he is still influenced, and should therefore be included. User:In Tyler We Trusted Talk 22:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
My own opinion is that Anton LaVey is an insignificant example of a person who might have attempted to take advantage of Nietzsche's reputation as a highly controversial thinker in order to push forward his own public relations agenda. In order for him to be included here as a figure influenced by Nietzsche one would have to establish that:
1. LaVey's "thought" is notable in itself in terms of serious philosophical discussion; that
2. Nietzsche did influence LaVey, and
3. that his influence upon LaVey was notable, verifiable, and presented in a neutral fashion.
While I am willing to listen to any putative argument for influence, I should say that my own feeling is that the case for Nietzsche's influence on LaVey is nonexistent. LaVey (and subsequent actors in this "current", e.g. Michael Aquino of the "Temple of Set") has offered no indication that he actually understood Nietzsche's thought, so how could he have been influenced by it? I'm happy to consider any reputable study of LaVey's "philosophical" thought if such a thing exists. In the absence of any such reputable study one can only dismiss LaVey's theatrical attempts to manipulate the remnants of hysterical collective responses for his own ends as a species of base self-interest. Furthermore, LaVey himself has not yet, to my knowledge, been established as notable thinker in his own right. If LaVey's "thinking" is notable in its own right then we might ask how he was influenced by Nietzsche. Keep in mind that this does not mean "how you personally happen to think he was influenced by Nietzsche". Citations are necessary. Attempts to make mention of "black metal" or "death metal" bands supposedly "influenced" by Nietzsche have been consistently (and in my opinion justifiably) dismissed here. Neither LaVey nor the various angry head-bangers have done anything notable with Nietzsche's thought. Claiming him as an influence, or using a modification of a title of one of his books (or exploiting a phrase from his works) in naming a song is not sufficient grounds to include him as an influence here. While LaVey is an excellent example of how to scare housewives by shaving your head and growing a diabolical goatee, he is not, in my opinion, an individual worthy of mention in relation to Nietzsche. Lest you assume that I'm just arguing the party line, look at the trouble I went to in order to have Stirner mentioned. If you are willing to do the same work, and you are able to provide the same support for your argument, I'll listen to it.-- Picatrix ( talk) 01:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)