![]() | 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 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 |
Building a new article on wikipedia and I am looking to collaborate with a Nietzsche scholar. The focus is specifically geared towards unravelling N.'s last two works: Twilight of The Idols and The Anti-Christ. I have to be extremely judicious (conservative) in my attribution of themes to Nietzsche, so I'd like to have someone more tapped into the peer-reviewed, manistream consensus of standard Nietzsche scholarship to mediate and provide guidance to the claims I am about to make. Either contact me here->
-- SKY child 07:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Or by electronic mail: scott (at) infinitelogic (dot) ca THANKS!
In the influenced section of the info box, do only other philosophers belong there? Or does anyone he influenced belong there? Because I know musican Marilyn Manson's lyrics has influenced by his philosophy. So I was wondering if only philosophers belong there. KMFDM FAN ( talk!) 15:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I added Nikos Kazantzakis in the influenced section Greco22 ( talk) 12:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC) kazantzakis was also philosopher,read the article in wikipedia...pls dont remove it.thank you Greco22 ( talk) 14:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I have read in several articles that F.N. was "never actually an atheist", but just a rejectionist of theology and religion. Perhaps we need to find some sources that back it up and not categorize him under atheists but rather as agnostic? pictureuploader ( talk) 03:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
"Nietzsche was quite accepting of Aristotle" -> This is a lie, of course. Where does Nietzsche discuss Aristotle's ontology or theology? He doesn't: as a matter of fact, his discussions of Aristotle are rare almost to the point of being nonexistent. [4] N. clearly expresses in the Twilight of the Idols: he rejects a worldview based on actions produced by agents - a worldview that he believed was forged, inauthentically, by grammatic functions. He even says that we might wound up believing in God only on account of grammar. And as an empiricist, he was critical of the use of logic to unveil the reality of the external world: logic, he says, oversimplifies the things it represents and doesn't take into account that things change through time. As for the prime mover theory, it is based on an assumption that Nietzsche rejected entirely: namely, that there are stable units of matter that needed to be put into motion by an external force (or mover). But Nietzsche rejected stability; instead he put that all things are in eternal movement, in a play of forces. It is on this that his fondness of Heraclitus is based: Heraclitus was the first philospher, or perhaps the only one before N., that rejected stability. As for that other comment on N's philosophy - that he put humanity as a whole in the place of divinity as the center of a new, quasi-religious, worldview - it is equally inane and unfounded. Mere misinterpretation caused by idiosyncratic worldview and undisciplined reading. It only goes to show the very base level of wikipedia editors' scholarship. Guinsberg ( talk) 07:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
If Nietzsche was born before the unification of Germany and the foundation of the modern german state can we say that Nietzsche was a german philosopher withour incurring in some form or anachronism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robskin ( talk • contribs) 16:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I added a book over at the reference section and here is a review if anyone is interested (to validate whether the book can be potentially useful to expand upon the article etc.). [5]. Cheers! Calaka ( talk) 10:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Can someone please supply Nietzsche's wiki page with an audio aid which corretly pronounces his name. A lot of people in America pronounce it like 'nee chee' but others say it is more correct to pronounce it as 'neech-eh' . This would help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.104.208 ( talk) 09:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I have never heard the pronunciation [vɪlhəlm] in German. I corrected the IPA to [vilhεlm]. Do others agree? CecilWard ( talk) 18:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Existentialism and postmodernism are mentioned as fields heavily influenced by Nietzsche, and I wonder if not nihilism should be mentioned there, as well; Nietzsche's connection with nihilism is more widely known than with postmodernism, for example. Revan ltrl ( talk) 20:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
The pronounciation is given as German pronunciation: [ˈfʁiːdʁɪç ˈvɪlhεlm ˈniːtʃə]. A change was reverted, because tsch is spoken as (German pronunciation: [tʃ]. That is correct and that is why I pointed out his name is Nietzsche, not Nietsche. The correct version is German pronunciation: [ˈfʁiːdʁɪç ˈvɪlhεlm ˈniːtsʃə]. -- Zz ( talk) 15:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
According to the Pentagraph page “tzsch” is [tʃ] and not [tsʃ]. Either that page is incomplete or this one is wrong :) -- 201.52.39.16 ( talk) 10:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
There is a message in the article stating, "The policy for the article, by consensus, is to include only philosophers in this category. Please see the talk page if you have questions or wish to comment." Yet the influenced category includes several people who are obviously not philosophers (Adler, Freud, Jung, Harold Bloom and Camille Paglia) and some others who only marginally count as philosophers (Bataille and Baudrillard). Can these simply be removed, or will someone object? UserVOBO ( talk) 22:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Who has decided on the 'consensus' that only so called philosophers should be included in this section? Nietzsche's influence on XX-century culture has been beyond measure and 'editing out' writers, poets, composers and others reminds one of 'Thought-Police’. Perhaps, the only sensible consensus would be – on how many of each category could be included, as space is limited. 16.05.10. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.104.28 ( talk) 20:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Just have a look at Schopenhauer’s page (especially the ‘influenced’ section), and the most wonderful freedom of REASON (not of DOMINATION) becomes apparent. The world is ever so beautiful without the ‘Thought-Police’. I am bowing out. Yours for ever, EMC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.104.28 ( talk) 13:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the category, as there is no consensus about the nature of Nietzsche's illness, or whether it was due to infectious causes or not. UserVOBO ( talk) 00:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Is this the consensus of the ‘herd’ or consensus of geniuses (which would be impossible!)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.104.28 ( talk) 07:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I recently added the words "Nietzsche has also been widely considered the philosophical inspiration for Nazism and fascism." to the lead. This is an absolutely crucial fact about Nietzsche, and it must be in the lead, which is the only part of the article many people will read. It was removed by RJC, with the edit summary, "remove Nazi influence from intro; most scholars dispute fairness of link; perception addressed in article, but too much credence given to association if put up here"
I can understand why RJC did that, but it was a mistake. It is true that the Nazis distorted Nietzsche's ideas, and there is probably general scholarly consensus about that. That does not alter the fact that the idea that Nietzsche was responsible for Nazism has been very widely held, and the article is doing its readers (not all of whom would know this) a disservice if it cannot inform them of that. If necessary, add further information to show that the connection has been disputed, but please don't remove this basic, crucial fact. UserVOBO ( talk) 19:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't think this is a question of whether the association is mentioned or not. I think it is a question of whether it is misleading to highlight it in the first few paragraphs. The man said that the Jews were the strongest race in Europe, that next to them the Germans weren't even a race, and that if anything the Germans were the least Aryan people in Europe. He attacked German nationalism, devotion to the state, and socialism. It is difficult to see anything in the National Socialist program of which he approved. Historically, it is true, his sister convinced various people that Nietzsche would have been a Nazi, but no one respects her analysis. Linking him with the movement in the introduction obscures rather than reveals his thought. RJC Talk Contribs 23:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I apologize for writing in such a way that other editors felt that I was 'biting' a newcomer. I would like to point out, however, that my post is not a borderline personal attack, nor is it devoid of substantial content. Before turning to the issue of substantial content, I'd like to point out that my 'scorn' was for "editorial suggestions" and for "controversial suggestions based on what the scholarly consensus 'probably' is". I referred to a quote of a published author's work, that was cited, as "useless", "ambiguous" and as "twaddle". The reader will note that these observations pertain to suggestions and citations, not to any editor involved in this discussion. It is therefore something of a stretch to imagine a personal attack (borderline or otherwise). As for implying that someone is a "crusader", if that qualifies in anyone's eyes as a borderline personal attack, then I really don't know what to say. Moving along to the issue of "substantial content" I suppose it will be necessary to rephrase the same observations, as nobody seems to have understood me the first time around:
1. Discussion of N. being associated with Nazis being included in the opening paragraph would give this issue undue weight and thereby throw the lead out of balance.
2. Justification of the need to include this material is based, by the editor proposing its addition, on a judgment of what scholarly consensus "probably" is. This strongly suggests that the editor proposing the change has not yet bothered to do the background research necessary to justify such an addition.
3. The one or two citations provided as justification are ambiguous and therefore insufficient to establish putative "consensus" in any way shape or form.
On one hand we have the suggestion that Nietzsche was "widely considered the philosophical inspiration for Nazism and fascism" followed by the somewhat confusing (in the light of the previous statement) assertion that "It is true that the Nazis distorted Nietzsche's ideas." We are left to wonder how Nietzsche could have been the inspiration (not an inspiration mind you, but the inspiration) if it was first necessary to distort his ideas. Nietzsche's work being exploited by a group is a very different thing from it being an "inspiration". For example, was the work of Jesus the inspiration for the Spanish Inquisition? It has been asserted that people once believed that the earth was flat; is it therefore appropriate to assert in the opening paragraph of the article on geography that people once believed the earth was flat? Misconceptions can be noted in an article, and perhaps should be, but do they belong in the lead? As for the assertions of RJC, myself, and other editors, that the inclusion of this material in the opening paragraph would give it undue weight, this seems an ineluctable conclusion, as the editor who made this suggestion has himself or herself indicated that this portion of the article is "the only part of the article many people will read". In short, the editor in question seems to be suggesting that we need to be sure that we perpetuate a misconception in the portion of the article that most people are likely to read. This is also a place in the article where precisely the degree of attention and breadth of citations necessary to ensure NPOV cannot be brought to bear. It is worth pointing out that this article already discusses the issue of Nietzsche's appropriation by Nazis. As RJC observed, "Linking him with the movement in the introduction obscures rather than reveals his thought." As other editors have accurately observed, this is not an NPOV issue at all. It's an issue of undue weight. (And/or if NPOV plays a role it is trumped here by undue weight.) As for another editor's suggestion (as regards this article and the "Influence and Reception" article) that "there is basically conflicting information between these articles" I have to ask what on earth he or she is talking about. I recently extensively rewrote the "Influence and Reception" article so I am entirely familiar with it. Nothing in this article conflicts with the information in "Influence and Reception". The difference is one of emphasis, which is entirely appropriate: the article about Nietzsche and his thought does not discuss the reception and distortion of his ideas to the same extent as the article on the man's influence and reception.--
Picatrix (
talk)
18:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't quote it selectively at all. She is not "arguing that there's nothing 'inherently' absurd about associating Nietzsche with the Nazis". I would suggest you look more closely at what she wrote, or read the entire article.
Strong writes:
"I am not ultimately interested in the questions "Who owns Nietzsche?" or "Who are Nietzsche's legitimate and bastard children" Instead, I am interested in asking what it means to ask such questions. Indeed, I want to argue that Nietzsche's writing serves to break the hold that such claimed genealogies might have on us."
and
"I need to be clear here: I am not trying to argue that "Nietzsche was (would have been) a Nazi," but I am also not trying to exclude that possibility on the grounds that his texts "show" us that he wasn't (or would not have been). Such "refutations" depend on showing that the Nazis misread Nietzsche's texts. For a text to be misread, one has to assume it contains a meaning, or at least does not contain certain meanings, in this case the ones that the Nazis claimed to find. Refutation here requires only that one bring to light a "correct" reading; from this it would follow that the Nazis were wrong or desperate in their reading of Nietzsche, and the question of the relationship would be closed."
We can see here that the author is not entering into the 'meaning of the text debate' at all, which is precisely why the ambiguity in interpretation is underlined (which is in keeping with the entire thrust of the article, which focuses on why Nietzsche lends himself to such a wide range of interpretations. But the author immediately indicates:
"Such a 'meaning of the text' approach has met with some success. Indeed, perhaps no opinion in Nietzsche scholarship is more widely accepted than that the Nazis were wrong and/or ignorant in their appropriation of Nietzsche. Credit in the English-speaking world for having demonstrated this, and thus for having again made possible the serious study of Nietzsche, is generally accorded to the late Walter Kaufmann."
and
"Nietzsche is available to a wide range of political appropriations, indeed perhaps to all."
and
"Nietzsche's texts, therefore, are written in such a manner that if one seeks to find out what they "really mean," to appropriate them, one will only project one's own identity onto them."
In any case the author's own argument in this particular essay is less important (given that it introduces more subtlety in interpretation and more ambiguity) than the affirmative statement I quoted at the outset. The point is not whether the author claims a Nazi relationship, the point is that a reputable scholarly publication written to a high standard provides us with a citation that unequivocally states " Indeed, perhaps no opinion in Nietzsche scholarship is more widely accepted than that the Nazis were wrong and/or ignorant in their appropriation of Nietzsche." I did not offer the quote to establish whether the author (Strong) felt an argument could be made for Nietzsche being a 'proto-Nazi'. I offered the quote as a first citation establishing scholarly consensus regarding Nazi misappropriation of Nietzsche. The title of this article is, after all, "Nietzsche's political misappropriation". Given that the author asserts that Nietzsche is "available to a wide range of political appropriations, indeed perhaps to all" how then is it possible to pretend that he or she could make an argument for or against any particular affinity between Nietzsche and Nazism over any other political stance? The quote stands as a solid contemporary citation in support of the assertion that scholarly consensus favors the idea that the Nazis misappropriated Nietzsche. -- Picatrix ( talk) 12:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Users goethean and Picatrix are correct. Some Nazi intellectuals (if I can use the term) claimed Nietzsche as a precursor of Nazism. This appropriation was neither official nor universal even at the time, and was based - as indicated briefly above - not on what Nietzsche himself published but on selective compilations taken largely from his unpublished writings by editors with political agendas. I am not aware of any serious dispute about these facts: an excellent source is the part of Hans Sluga's Heidegger's Crisis devoted to Nietzsche (begins page 42). There may be a minority support for the view that Nietzsche had an authentic influence on Nazism, but that should not be respresented in the lede. User VOBO raises a concern that the position I'm putting forward here violates POV, but I am not sure why. There are plenty more sources; what I don't see here (although the name of Leszek Kolakowski was thrown out) is a reasonably current source to support the language VOBO advocates. Do you have anything? KD Tries Again ( talk) 20:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again
Perhaps it has been your experience that Nietzsche is associated in "the popular mind" (whatever that might be) with the Nazis and with little else. That has not been my experience. In any case editorial decisions should not, of course, be driven by your experience or mine. Yet again, do you have any citations that support your assertion that today Nietzsche is overwhelmingly associated with Nazism in the "popular mind" and with little else? Do you have any citations supporting your assertion that this is a "critical fact", and in what context? I recognized and noted in the discussion above that the claim of influence and the historical fact of the perception of influence were two separate issues. Now you appear to be trying to slide over from the historical fact of the Nazi association into a claim of contemporary relevance based on your highly personal and in any case questionable assessment of the "popular mind". Based on the complete absence of citations to support your assertion that today Nietzsche is associated in the "popular mind" with Nazism, you appear to be supporting your suggestion based on the following chain of reasoning:
1. I think most people think Nietzsche was a Nazi, so I'll say (based on a habit of claiming what scholarly consensus "probably" is, rather than actually providing citations) that this is overwhelmingly the popular association.
2. Nazism is bad.
3. Readers should know that Nietzsche was associated with Nazism.
While I won't argue the second point, or the third (as already noted the association is already discussed in the article), you'll forgive me, I hope, if I ask that you provide citations that support the first. I asked you above if you perhaps might be motivated by the desire to ensure that readers were 'warned' about Nietzsche. I note I received no response. Steven Aschheim, certainly a formidable scholar with a very extensive, subtle, and thorough knowledge of Nietzsche's work and its reception, noted:
"precisely because of its immense emotive and symbolic power and its relevance as a governing metaphor of 'evil,' the accusation of or comparison with Nazism and Nazi-like behavior and intentions is employed by virtually all sides of many political and cultural debates as a potent "label," the ultimate critique and form of political outlawing" - Aschheim, In Times Of Crisis (2001) pp 52-53
Aschheim, by the by, seriously examines the various ways in which Nietzsche has been associated with Nazis. I recommended his work to you once already. Here's one example of his thoughts on Nietzsche and Nazis:
"During the Third Reich, then, Nietzsche and Nietzschean categories were fundamental axes around which grasping, defining and critiquing the era revolved. Even when the relationship was adversarial, there was a perceived need to confront its claims, to conduct arguments within its terms. A widespread sense prevailed that, in a profound if inchoate way, Nietzsche's "authentic metaphysical domain" was somehow bound up with the essence of the Nazi project. These hermeneutical questions and the nature of the Nietzsche-Nazi relationship have been the subject of heated and unresolved debate and reflection from the 1930s through our own time. They hold up a mirror to Nietzsche's ongoing role as a peculiarly sensitive symbol and seismometer of our own crucial existential and cultural concerns." – Aschheim, The Nietzsche Legacy In Germany, 1890-1990 (1994) p271
However, this same scholar, and the one that most unflaggingly makes convincing arguments for continuing to associate Nietzsche with Nazism based on more than misappropriation notes:
"[…] We have also examined the role that Nietzschean impulses played within the increasingly fractured, crisis-ridden worlds of German religion and socialism and their multifunctional infusion into a host of currents, marginal as well as central. These included the artistic avant-garde, the Stefan George circle, vegetarians, sexual liberationists, the Youth movements, feminism, Zionism, expressionism, völkisch groups, conservative revolutionaries, and, of course, national socialism." - The Nietzsche Legacy In Germany, 1890-1990, p308
We can see here the same sort of thing we see in Strong's assessment quoted above: "Nietzsche is available to a wide range of political appropriations, indeed perhaps to all."
"The paradigmatic Nietzsche of the 1930s, 1940s, and early 1950s, then, was the Nietzsche regarded as the thinker most crucially and intimately definitive of the Nazi order. […] This perception began to shift in about the mid-1950s and, although there have always been counter-challenges, it has proceeded so apace that, for many younger people educated from about the 1970s on, the identification seems virtually incomprehensible. Not only Nietzsche's de-Nazification–and a corresponding de-Nietzscheanization of Nazism–but also his disassociation from the political right has become close to a fait accompli within English-speaking countries and France. […] the Nietzsche(s) of our own times could only arise, like those of other times, because changed circumstances induced and encouraged him to be read and emphasized in this particular way. Nietzsche has simultaneously influenced but also been appropriately reconstructed to fit what his champions take to be our own age of radical ideological and epistemological indeterminacy. Like other constructions–including my own–all interpretations of Nietzsche are particularly and historically conditioned." - In Times of Crisis, pp 15-20
You will note in this quote that Aschheim specifically states that the association of Nietzsche with Nazism has decreased, and that among the educated today, the Nazi identification might seem "incomprehensible". I have provided citations supporting the assertion that today the scholarly consensus tends towards the idea that Nietzsche was 'missppropriated' and should not be seen as a proto-Nazi ("Indeed, perhaps no opinion in Nietzsche scholarship is more widely accepted than that the Nazis were wrong and/or ignorant in their appropriation of Nietzsche."). I have provided a citation that shows that in English speaking countries and in France, the Nazi association is no longer dominant. I have provided many, many citations (here and in the Influence and Reception article) showing that he appealed to a broad and often contradictory range of social and political movements. I have even given you a champion you could mine for citations (if you felt inclined to share more than your personal opinions) in the form of Aschheim, who's a damned fine scholar. And what citations have you provided?
If we mention his appropriation (whether mis- or not) in the lead paragraph we should also mention his appropriation by other movements in the same sentence (as I myself and RJC have previously suggested). I would weigh in for Anarchism, Zionism, Marxism (post, though there are earlier currents) and Fascism (including, of course, National Socialism). I emphasize, however, that I have yet to see any compelling reason for cramming any of this into the lead paragraph. I would also recommend (again and yet again) that 'we' stop sharing our opinions here and start sharing citations. -- Picatrix ( talk) 16:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
This discussion has been going on for quite some time and I think we're repeating arguments. Has anyone been persuaded that the Nazis should be mentioned in the lede? If this is the position of one editor, after the arguments have been exhausted, then it might be time to move on. RJC Talk Contribs 15:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I am only an amateur Nietzsche reader, but I've noticed that in this article Nietzsche's musical compositions are barely mentioned.
Whilst I do appreciate that his music pales into insignificance next to his philosophy, I think that it would nevertheless be worth mentioning at some point, if only for the biographical value (particularly when one considers the emphasis Nietzsche himself placed upon his music).
Unfortunately, I am not particularly well-versed in this subject. This lecture ( http://www.virtusens.de/walther/n_komp_e.htm) seems reputable, but that's not something I can confirm. Are there any Nietzsche scholars who can validate the aforementioned lecture, and/or give some suggestions as to the incorporation of Nietzsche's music into the article? I'd be happy to have a go at condensing the lecture, although, not being particularly well-versed in the subject, I don't know how well it would turn out. Naviduk ( talk) 17:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm surprised there´s a whole page on his reception and no page whatsoever on criticism on him! He must have detractors and critics, why nothing of that is shown in a heading of its own? Undead Herle King ( talk) 06:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
This, from the end of the second paragraph of the Youth section: "At Schulpforta, Nietzsche received an important introduction to literature, particularly that of the ancient Greeks and Romans, and for the first time experienced a distance from his family life in a small-town Christian environment" seems to be able to be read two ways: it could read "experienced a distance from his family and its small-town Christian environment" or that he "experienced a small-town Christian environment which was distant from his family."
I assume it means away from his Christian family, but I hardly know a thing about the environment of Schulpforta, so I thought someone else could make the change. SSBDelphiki ( talk) 14:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Seems to me that the "Influence from Heraclitus" section could be merged with the following section, which could be renamed "Influences." SSBDelphiki ( talk) 14:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Can we have some evidence please, for all the names which have just been added? -- Snowded TALK 10:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
In order to understand N's break with Wagner, one must read N's The Case of Wagner, as well as Schopenhauer's The World as Will and Representation, Volume I, Book 4. I know that this is an extremely difficult demand to make on anyone. If, however, they are read, it will then be evident that N was rejecting the attitude that the world is an evil place that must be avoided and hated. N took this to be the Christian attitude. If these two writings are not read, then it will not be clear why N broke with Wagner. Lestrade ( talk) 00:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Lestrade
Nietzsche was rejecting far more than what he saw as the Christian, and Buddhist view of the world. He also argues that 'the word 'spirit' in the NT is a mere misunderstanding', and also says we must 'resist our ambition which would found religion', an ambition to answer the question of who redeems mankind. This is before his creation of the Zarathustra figure, which is arguably a religious icon. - ML —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.159.190 ( talk) 13:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Max Oehler's "study" on Nietzsche's ancestry needs to be taken with a grain of salt. First of all Oehler was a Nazi party member, and as curator of the Nietzsche-Archiv he worked as much as possible to popularize his Nazi view of Nietzsche in speeches and essays.
I've also added Nietzsche's own Self-concept, yet to have them both, removed by an editor that seems to the gatekeeper of this article.
Please do discuss here before reverting.
Thanks Likeminas ( talk) 16:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Can this be doulbe check, becuase I been talking with alot people and none heard he claim to be polish descent before ? As you can tell i did not destory anything and one can put it back. It just alot people I ask claim they never heard of it before.(Danny Boy 17:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC))
Now that we know that Nobel–Prize winner Herta Müller is from a Romanian town called Nitzkydorf or Niţchidorf, we might suspect that Nietzsche's name is Romanian, not Polish or German. He looks Romanian. Lestrade ( talk) 00:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)Lestrade
Nieczy is a Polish surname, pronounced in a similar fashion to the German rendering of it which is Nietsche. I'm amazed by comments which attempt to deny Nietsche's Polish roots. Anyone familiar with German history realizes that it would indeed be difficult to identify a German who did not have Polish ancestry. The Prussians are descended from Poles who have embraced a dialect of the Batavian (Deutsch) language as a result of the influence of the Catholic Church whose priests derived from the Low Countries. As the influence of the Church spread eastward across the Rhine, the Dutch or Deutsch dialects spread with it. Wherever the priests proselytized and crusaded as they moved across Germany they created administrative enclaves and encouraged and insisted on the adoption of their language. The numerous German cities with Polish or Slavonic names, Berlin ( "the Barges"), Leipzig (the Linden Tree), Dresden (the Flat Lands), Naumberg (Nubgrad), Rostock, Lubeck, Kiel, Chelmnitz ( they probably grew hops there)bear witness to the origins of the culture and people who identify themselves as Germans today. The Irish, Scots and Welsh are Celts who have largely abandoned, for whatever reason, their highly structured, ancestral Celtic languages for the simpler English and the Germans are largely Poles, Czechs, Sorbs and Wends who have, for somewhat different reasons abandoned their highly structured Slavonic languages for the simpler Deutsch. The characterization of Nietsche's association with his conspicuously Polish roots as "fictive" is naive and disingenuous. 205.232.233.166 ( talk) Frank Templar, A German who,like Nietsche, KNOWS his nation's origins.
Nietzsche is commonly classified as a “ German” philosopher by professionals and non-specialists alike. [1] The modern unified nation-state called Germany did not yet exist at the time of his birth, but the German Confederation of states did, and Nietzsche was a citizen of one of these, Prussia – for a time. When he accepted his post at Basel, Nietzsche applied for the annulment of his Prussian citizenship. [2] The official response confirming the revocation of his citizenship came in a document dated April 17, 1869. [3] Thus, officially he became stateless.
Nietzsche's feelings about his national identity were clearly complex. In Ecce Homo, he writes:
Even by virtue of my descent, I am granted an eye beyond all merely local, merely nationally conditioned perspectives; it is not difficult for me to be a "good European." On the other hand, I am perhaps more German than present-day Germans, mere citizens of the German Reich, could possibly be—I, the last anti-political German. And yet my ancestors were Polish noblemen: I have many racial instincts in my body from that source—who knows? [...] When I consider how often I am addressed as a Pole when I travel, even by Poles themselves, and how rarely I am taken for a German, it might seem that I have been merely externally sprinkled with what is German. [4]
A later revision of the same passage was discovered in 1969 among the papers of Peter Gast. [5] In it Nietzsche is even more adamant about his Polish Identity. “I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood.” [6] On yet another occasion Nietzsche stated “Germany is a great nation only because its people have so much Polish blood in their veins... I am proud of my Polish descent.” [7]
A later revision of the same passage was discovered in 1969 among the papers of Peter Gast. [8] In it Nietzsche is even more adamant about his Polish Identity. “I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood.” [9] On yet another occasion Nietzsche stated “Germany is a great nation only because its people have so much Polish blood in their veins... I am proud of my Polish descent.” [10]
I have to clear up this misunderstanding: Nietzsche had no Polish ancestors. I've found an article (unfortunately in Hungarian) where contemporary philosophers talk about his fictive ancestors whom he created for himself. [11] I'll try to find an English article.
Can you contact me somehow user RJC? Thanks -> -- Skychildandsonofthesun ( talk) 05:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC) (new-ish to wiki-editing so not sure how to contact you, thanks)
{{
cite book}}
: |edition=
has extra text (
help)
It's obvious that the German name–ending "sche" is a variation of the Slavic ending "ski." It occurs in many Germanized Slavic names. Lestrade ( talk) 01:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)Lestrade
The question of whether Nietzsche was Polish has come up again. This has been discussed multiple times in the talk archive (e.g., here, which also points to discussions on the German Wikipedia). Quoting everyone who says that Nietzsche was Polish seems to give undue weight to that view; quoting Nietzsche to that end also gives undue weight and constitutes original research (we can quote primary sources only for uncontroversial biographical facts). As such, I have reverted some edits that attempted to substantiate the fact that Nietzsche was Polish and cast doubt upon contrary evidence. RJC Talk Contribs 16:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
(un-indented)Let me start off by saying this is the English Wikipedia, so I’ll stick to it regardless of the ongoing or past discussion that might have taken place in the German, Polish, Spanish or any other language Wikipedia for that matter. So if you wish to present information in another language (to be used as reliable source) please do so by pointing to the original source and its proper translation as required by the English Wikipedia.
Now it seems to me that you are claiming two things here: 1)That Nietzsche’s self-concept of his own ancestry should not be included because “Nietzsche's own words fall under WP:PRIMARY”
Well, I can only hope you’ve read WP:Primary because it clearly states that; “A primary source may only be used to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge.”
My edits don’t claim he WAS Polish. They only describe how Nietzsche felt about his ancestry. I’ve added no interpretation or synthesis to it. So I don’t really see how they can possibly violate that Wiki rule. If anything, I’d argue that by not including his own statements on his own ancestry would amount to a violation of WP:NPOV.
(See the debate on the ancestry/race debate on the Barrack Obama article for a nice example.)
You also for some reason continue to think that WP:BLP applies to this article.
Here's what I found this on that policy:
This policy does not apply to edits about the deceased, but material about the deceased may have implications for their living relatives and friends, particularly in the case of the recently deceased, so anything questionable should be removed promptly.
In other words, that policy should not be quoted again. It just doesn't apply, despite poor Messianic analogies.
As for Oehler's reliability, I haven’t not removed it from the article. In fact -I think it should definitely stay- but just not as a “matter of fact” as it was previously presented.
Oehler was associated with the Nazis in an era where the concept of the “Ubermensch” was a hot seller; thus, finding Nietzsche to be entirely German on his “study” was not a big surprise, if you asked me.
Now, I’m not saying that his claims are entirely incorrect, but they should not be presented as “facts” unless other reliable sources agree with it, and more importantly they should be presented within its proper historical context. So far, I’ve seen nothing on his studies but a single (offline) source on it. If it is so widely accepted by scholars, one would expect more sources on it, don’t you agree?
Likeminas ( talk) 19:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
(un-indented) I don’t know how you come up with that non-sense of me trying to appear as a “Nietzsche expert”. I've never said or even implied to be one. But leaving snobbish stuff aside, I hope you can forgive my ignorance for not knowing German and requesting that you present English material in the English Wikipedia as it is normally required… Anyways, I digress.
Please notice, that nowhere I ask for the removal of the material that claims Nietzsche was pure German, I don’t even disagree with the inclusion of the so-called “study” done by the Nazi sympathizers. I just don’t personally agree with all that material being presented as fact.
Like I said before, removing almost all descriptions of Nietzsche’s own self-perception gives undue weight to one side of the issue.
And by the way; trying to equate WP:BLP with WP:SPS seems just like a desperate attempt. WP:SPS 1) is not self-serving; the guy is dead, he’s got nothing to gain from such claims, especially when “most scholars” have refuted them, right? 2)Which third parties? Please name them. 3), 4), 5) comply very nicely with article.
So, in view that the current version of the article has an unbalanced POV and omits relevant information on the subject, I will tag it accordingly. Likeminas ( talk) 14:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Polish orientalist, Ignacy Pietraszewski(1796-1869), was a philosophy professor at Berlin University, expert on Zoroastrianism and the Avesta, i.e. the sacred language of Zoroastrianism. In his "Das slavische Eigentum seit dreitausend Jahren, oder nicht Zendavesta, aber Zendaschta, das heisst das lebenbringende Buch des Zoroaster" ("Slavic Heritage of Three Thousand Years, but not Zendavesta only Zendaschta, Being the Lifegiving Book of Zoroaster," 1857 (?)), he claimed the Polish language is closely related to the Avestan language, i.e. the sacred (Iranian) language of Zoroastrianism (in the Avestan language Zoroaster is called Zarathustra). For his views Pietraszewski lost his job at Berlin University (due to Polonophobic sentiment?). It seems highly lkely that Pietraszewski's works had a strong influence on Nietzsche, but, characteristically, this subject does not seem to have been ever investigated by so-called experts on Nietzsche (due to their Polonophobia, or anti-Polish racist attitude?). To the author of the entry on Nietzsche: I hope you don't remove also this post of mine. You already took off my post pertaining to Nietzche's Polish extraction - a post containing no abuse of any one, only pertinent points and questions. Are you a Polonophobe, i.e. anti-Polish racist, by the way? I understand you're American, aren't you? Of what origin? The modern anti-Polish racism comes almost exclusively from the USA.
![]() | 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 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 |
Building a new article on wikipedia and I am looking to collaborate with a Nietzsche scholar. The focus is specifically geared towards unravelling N.'s last two works: Twilight of The Idols and The Anti-Christ. I have to be extremely judicious (conservative) in my attribution of themes to Nietzsche, so I'd like to have someone more tapped into the peer-reviewed, manistream consensus of standard Nietzsche scholarship to mediate and provide guidance to the claims I am about to make. Either contact me here->
-- SKY child 07:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Or by electronic mail: scott (at) infinitelogic (dot) ca THANKS!
In the influenced section of the info box, do only other philosophers belong there? Or does anyone he influenced belong there? Because I know musican Marilyn Manson's lyrics has influenced by his philosophy. So I was wondering if only philosophers belong there. KMFDM FAN ( talk!) 15:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I added Nikos Kazantzakis in the influenced section Greco22 ( talk) 12:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC) kazantzakis was also philosopher,read the article in wikipedia...pls dont remove it.thank you Greco22 ( talk) 14:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I have read in several articles that F.N. was "never actually an atheist", but just a rejectionist of theology and religion. Perhaps we need to find some sources that back it up and not categorize him under atheists but rather as agnostic? pictureuploader ( talk) 03:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
"Nietzsche was quite accepting of Aristotle" -> This is a lie, of course. Where does Nietzsche discuss Aristotle's ontology or theology? He doesn't: as a matter of fact, his discussions of Aristotle are rare almost to the point of being nonexistent. [4] N. clearly expresses in the Twilight of the Idols: he rejects a worldview based on actions produced by agents - a worldview that he believed was forged, inauthentically, by grammatic functions. He even says that we might wound up believing in God only on account of grammar. And as an empiricist, he was critical of the use of logic to unveil the reality of the external world: logic, he says, oversimplifies the things it represents and doesn't take into account that things change through time. As for the prime mover theory, it is based on an assumption that Nietzsche rejected entirely: namely, that there are stable units of matter that needed to be put into motion by an external force (or mover). But Nietzsche rejected stability; instead he put that all things are in eternal movement, in a play of forces. It is on this that his fondness of Heraclitus is based: Heraclitus was the first philospher, or perhaps the only one before N., that rejected stability. As for that other comment on N's philosophy - that he put humanity as a whole in the place of divinity as the center of a new, quasi-religious, worldview - it is equally inane and unfounded. Mere misinterpretation caused by idiosyncratic worldview and undisciplined reading. It only goes to show the very base level of wikipedia editors' scholarship. Guinsberg ( talk) 07:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
If Nietzsche was born before the unification of Germany and the foundation of the modern german state can we say that Nietzsche was a german philosopher withour incurring in some form or anachronism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robskin ( talk • contribs) 16:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I added a book over at the reference section and here is a review if anyone is interested (to validate whether the book can be potentially useful to expand upon the article etc.). [5]. Cheers! Calaka ( talk) 10:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Can someone please supply Nietzsche's wiki page with an audio aid which corretly pronounces his name. A lot of people in America pronounce it like 'nee chee' but others say it is more correct to pronounce it as 'neech-eh' . This would help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.104.208 ( talk) 09:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I have never heard the pronunciation [vɪlhəlm] in German. I corrected the IPA to [vilhεlm]. Do others agree? CecilWard ( talk) 18:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Existentialism and postmodernism are mentioned as fields heavily influenced by Nietzsche, and I wonder if not nihilism should be mentioned there, as well; Nietzsche's connection with nihilism is more widely known than with postmodernism, for example. Revan ltrl ( talk) 20:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
The pronounciation is given as German pronunciation: [ˈfʁiːdʁɪç ˈvɪlhεlm ˈniːtʃə]. A change was reverted, because tsch is spoken as (German pronunciation: [tʃ]. That is correct and that is why I pointed out his name is Nietzsche, not Nietsche. The correct version is German pronunciation: [ˈfʁiːdʁɪç ˈvɪlhεlm ˈniːtsʃə]. -- Zz ( talk) 15:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
According to the Pentagraph page “tzsch” is [tʃ] and not [tsʃ]. Either that page is incomplete or this one is wrong :) -- 201.52.39.16 ( talk) 10:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
There is a message in the article stating, "The policy for the article, by consensus, is to include only philosophers in this category. Please see the talk page if you have questions or wish to comment." Yet the influenced category includes several people who are obviously not philosophers (Adler, Freud, Jung, Harold Bloom and Camille Paglia) and some others who only marginally count as philosophers (Bataille and Baudrillard). Can these simply be removed, or will someone object? UserVOBO ( talk) 22:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Who has decided on the 'consensus' that only so called philosophers should be included in this section? Nietzsche's influence on XX-century culture has been beyond measure and 'editing out' writers, poets, composers and others reminds one of 'Thought-Police’. Perhaps, the only sensible consensus would be – on how many of each category could be included, as space is limited. 16.05.10. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.104.28 ( talk) 20:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Just have a look at Schopenhauer’s page (especially the ‘influenced’ section), and the most wonderful freedom of REASON (not of DOMINATION) becomes apparent. The world is ever so beautiful without the ‘Thought-Police’. I am bowing out. Yours for ever, EMC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.104.28 ( talk) 13:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the category, as there is no consensus about the nature of Nietzsche's illness, or whether it was due to infectious causes or not. UserVOBO ( talk) 00:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC) Is this the consensus of the ‘herd’ or consensus of geniuses (which would be impossible!)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.104.28 ( talk) 07:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I recently added the words "Nietzsche has also been widely considered the philosophical inspiration for Nazism and fascism." to the lead. This is an absolutely crucial fact about Nietzsche, and it must be in the lead, which is the only part of the article many people will read. It was removed by RJC, with the edit summary, "remove Nazi influence from intro; most scholars dispute fairness of link; perception addressed in article, but too much credence given to association if put up here"
I can understand why RJC did that, but it was a mistake. It is true that the Nazis distorted Nietzsche's ideas, and there is probably general scholarly consensus about that. That does not alter the fact that the idea that Nietzsche was responsible for Nazism has been very widely held, and the article is doing its readers (not all of whom would know this) a disservice if it cannot inform them of that. If necessary, add further information to show that the connection has been disputed, but please don't remove this basic, crucial fact. UserVOBO ( talk) 19:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't think this is a question of whether the association is mentioned or not. I think it is a question of whether it is misleading to highlight it in the first few paragraphs. The man said that the Jews were the strongest race in Europe, that next to them the Germans weren't even a race, and that if anything the Germans were the least Aryan people in Europe. He attacked German nationalism, devotion to the state, and socialism. It is difficult to see anything in the National Socialist program of which he approved. Historically, it is true, his sister convinced various people that Nietzsche would have been a Nazi, but no one respects her analysis. Linking him with the movement in the introduction obscures rather than reveals his thought. RJC Talk Contribs 23:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I apologize for writing in such a way that other editors felt that I was 'biting' a newcomer. I would like to point out, however, that my post is not a borderline personal attack, nor is it devoid of substantial content. Before turning to the issue of substantial content, I'd like to point out that my 'scorn' was for "editorial suggestions" and for "controversial suggestions based on what the scholarly consensus 'probably' is". I referred to a quote of a published author's work, that was cited, as "useless", "ambiguous" and as "twaddle". The reader will note that these observations pertain to suggestions and citations, not to any editor involved in this discussion. It is therefore something of a stretch to imagine a personal attack (borderline or otherwise). As for implying that someone is a "crusader", if that qualifies in anyone's eyes as a borderline personal attack, then I really don't know what to say. Moving along to the issue of "substantial content" I suppose it will be necessary to rephrase the same observations, as nobody seems to have understood me the first time around:
1. Discussion of N. being associated with Nazis being included in the opening paragraph would give this issue undue weight and thereby throw the lead out of balance.
2. Justification of the need to include this material is based, by the editor proposing its addition, on a judgment of what scholarly consensus "probably" is. This strongly suggests that the editor proposing the change has not yet bothered to do the background research necessary to justify such an addition.
3. The one or two citations provided as justification are ambiguous and therefore insufficient to establish putative "consensus" in any way shape or form.
On one hand we have the suggestion that Nietzsche was "widely considered the philosophical inspiration for Nazism and fascism" followed by the somewhat confusing (in the light of the previous statement) assertion that "It is true that the Nazis distorted Nietzsche's ideas." We are left to wonder how Nietzsche could have been the inspiration (not an inspiration mind you, but the inspiration) if it was first necessary to distort his ideas. Nietzsche's work being exploited by a group is a very different thing from it being an "inspiration". For example, was the work of Jesus the inspiration for the Spanish Inquisition? It has been asserted that people once believed that the earth was flat; is it therefore appropriate to assert in the opening paragraph of the article on geography that people once believed the earth was flat? Misconceptions can be noted in an article, and perhaps should be, but do they belong in the lead? As for the assertions of RJC, myself, and other editors, that the inclusion of this material in the opening paragraph would give it undue weight, this seems an ineluctable conclusion, as the editor who made this suggestion has himself or herself indicated that this portion of the article is "the only part of the article many people will read". In short, the editor in question seems to be suggesting that we need to be sure that we perpetuate a misconception in the portion of the article that most people are likely to read. This is also a place in the article where precisely the degree of attention and breadth of citations necessary to ensure NPOV cannot be brought to bear. It is worth pointing out that this article already discusses the issue of Nietzsche's appropriation by Nazis. As RJC observed, "Linking him with the movement in the introduction obscures rather than reveals his thought." As other editors have accurately observed, this is not an NPOV issue at all. It's an issue of undue weight. (And/or if NPOV plays a role it is trumped here by undue weight.) As for another editor's suggestion (as regards this article and the "Influence and Reception" article) that "there is basically conflicting information between these articles" I have to ask what on earth he or she is talking about. I recently extensively rewrote the "Influence and Reception" article so I am entirely familiar with it. Nothing in this article conflicts with the information in "Influence and Reception". The difference is one of emphasis, which is entirely appropriate: the article about Nietzsche and his thought does not discuss the reception and distortion of his ideas to the same extent as the article on the man's influence and reception.--
Picatrix (
talk)
18:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't quote it selectively at all. She is not "arguing that there's nothing 'inherently' absurd about associating Nietzsche with the Nazis". I would suggest you look more closely at what she wrote, or read the entire article.
Strong writes:
"I am not ultimately interested in the questions "Who owns Nietzsche?" or "Who are Nietzsche's legitimate and bastard children" Instead, I am interested in asking what it means to ask such questions. Indeed, I want to argue that Nietzsche's writing serves to break the hold that such claimed genealogies might have on us."
and
"I need to be clear here: I am not trying to argue that "Nietzsche was (would have been) a Nazi," but I am also not trying to exclude that possibility on the grounds that his texts "show" us that he wasn't (or would not have been). Such "refutations" depend on showing that the Nazis misread Nietzsche's texts. For a text to be misread, one has to assume it contains a meaning, or at least does not contain certain meanings, in this case the ones that the Nazis claimed to find. Refutation here requires only that one bring to light a "correct" reading; from this it would follow that the Nazis were wrong or desperate in their reading of Nietzsche, and the question of the relationship would be closed."
We can see here that the author is not entering into the 'meaning of the text debate' at all, which is precisely why the ambiguity in interpretation is underlined (which is in keeping with the entire thrust of the article, which focuses on why Nietzsche lends himself to such a wide range of interpretations. But the author immediately indicates:
"Such a 'meaning of the text' approach has met with some success. Indeed, perhaps no opinion in Nietzsche scholarship is more widely accepted than that the Nazis were wrong and/or ignorant in their appropriation of Nietzsche. Credit in the English-speaking world for having demonstrated this, and thus for having again made possible the serious study of Nietzsche, is generally accorded to the late Walter Kaufmann."
and
"Nietzsche is available to a wide range of political appropriations, indeed perhaps to all."
and
"Nietzsche's texts, therefore, are written in such a manner that if one seeks to find out what they "really mean," to appropriate them, one will only project one's own identity onto them."
In any case the author's own argument in this particular essay is less important (given that it introduces more subtlety in interpretation and more ambiguity) than the affirmative statement I quoted at the outset. The point is not whether the author claims a Nazi relationship, the point is that a reputable scholarly publication written to a high standard provides us with a citation that unequivocally states " Indeed, perhaps no opinion in Nietzsche scholarship is more widely accepted than that the Nazis were wrong and/or ignorant in their appropriation of Nietzsche." I did not offer the quote to establish whether the author (Strong) felt an argument could be made for Nietzsche being a 'proto-Nazi'. I offered the quote as a first citation establishing scholarly consensus regarding Nazi misappropriation of Nietzsche. The title of this article is, after all, "Nietzsche's political misappropriation". Given that the author asserts that Nietzsche is "available to a wide range of political appropriations, indeed perhaps to all" how then is it possible to pretend that he or she could make an argument for or against any particular affinity between Nietzsche and Nazism over any other political stance? The quote stands as a solid contemporary citation in support of the assertion that scholarly consensus favors the idea that the Nazis misappropriated Nietzsche. -- Picatrix ( talk) 12:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Users goethean and Picatrix are correct. Some Nazi intellectuals (if I can use the term) claimed Nietzsche as a precursor of Nazism. This appropriation was neither official nor universal even at the time, and was based - as indicated briefly above - not on what Nietzsche himself published but on selective compilations taken largely from his unpublished writings by editors with political agendas. I am not aware of any serious dispute about these facts: an excellent source is the part of Hans Sluga's Heidegger's Crisis devoted to Nietzsche (begins page 42). There may be a minority support for the view that Nietzsche had an authentic influence on Nazism, but that should not be respresented in the lede. User VOBO raises a concern that the position I'm putting forward here violates POV, but I am not sure why. There are plenty more sources; what I don't see here (although the name of Leszek Kolakowski was thrown out) is a reasonably current source to support the language VOBO advocates. Do you have anything? KD Tries Again ( talk) 20:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again
Perhaps it has been your experience that Nietzsche is associated in "the popular mind" (whatever that might be) with the Nazis and with little else. That has not been my experience. In any case editorial decisions should not, of course, be driven by your experience or mine. Yet again, do you have any citations that support your assertion that today Nietzsche is overwhelmingly associated with Nazism in the "popular mind" and with little else? Do you have any citations supporting your assertion that this is a "critical fact", and in what context? I recognized and noted in the discussion above that the claim of influence and the historical fact of the perception of influence were two separate issues. Now you appear to be trying to slide over from the historical fact of the Nazi association into a claim of contemporary relevance based on your highly personal and in any case questionable assessment of the "popular mind". Based on the complete absence of citations to support your assertion that today Nietzsche is associated in the "popular mind" with Nazism, you appear to be supporting your suggestion based on the following chain of reasoning:
1. I think most people think Nietzsche was a Nazi, so I'll say (based on a habit of claiming what scholarly consensus "probably" is, rather than actually providing citations) that this is overwhelmingly the popular association.
2. Nazism is bad.
3. Readers should know that Nietzsche was associated with Nazism.
While I won't argue the second point, or the third (as already noted the association is already discussed in the article), you'll forgive me, I hope, if I ask that you provide citations that support the first. I asked you above if you perhaps might be motivated by the desire to ensure that readers were 'warned' about Nietzsche. I note I received no response. Steven Aschheim, certainly a formidable scholar with a very extensive, subtle, and thorough knowledge of Nietzsche's work and its reception, noted:
"precisely because of its immense emotive and symbolic power and its relevance as a governing metaphor of 'evil,' the accusation of or comparison with Nazism and Nazi-like behavior and intentions is employed by virtually all sides of many political and cultural debates as a potent "label," the ultimate critique and form of political outlawing" - Aschheim, In Times Of Crisis (2001) pp 52-53
Aschheim, by the by, seriously examines the various ways in which Nietzsche has been associated with Nazis. I recommended his work to you once already. Here's one example of his thoughts on Nietzsche and Nazis:
"During the Third Reich, then, Nietzsche and Nietzschean categories were fundamental axes around which grasping, defining and critiquing the era revolved. Even when the relationship was adversarial, there was a perceived need to confront its claims, to conduct arguments within its terms. A widespread sense prevailed that, in a profound if inchoate way, Nietzsche's "authentic metaphysical domain" was somehow bound up with the essence of the Nazi project. These hermeneutical questions and the nature of the Nietzsche-Nazi relationship have been the subject of heated and unresolved debate and reflection from the 1930s through our own time. They hold up a mirror to Nietzsche's ongoing role as a peculiarly sensitive symbol and seismometer of our own crucial existential and cultural concerns." – Aschheim, The Nietzsche Legacy In Germany, 1890-1990 (1994) p271
However, this same scholar, and the one that most unflaggingly makes convincing arguments for continuing to associate Nietzsche with Nazism based on more than misappropriation notes:
"[…] We have also examined the role that Nietzschean impulses played within the increasingly fractured, crisis-ridden worlds of German religion and socialism and their multifunctional infusion into a host of currents, marginal as well as central. These included the artistic avant-garde, the Stefan George circle, vegetarians, sexual liberationists, the Youth movements, feminism, Zionism, expressionism, völkisch groups, conservative revolutionaries, and, of course, national socialism." - The Nietzsche Legacy In Germany, 1890-1990, p308
We can see here the same sort of thing we see in Strong's assessment quoted above: "Nietzsche is available to a wide range of political appropriations, indeed perhaps to all."
"The paradigmatic Nietzsche of the 1930s, 1940s, and early 1950s, then, was the Nietzsche regarded as the thinker most crucially and intimately definitive of the Nazi order. […] This perception began to shift in about the mid-1950s and, although there have always been counter-challenges, it has proceeded so apace that, for many younger people educated from about the 1970s on, the identification seems virtually incomprehensible. Not only Nietzsche's de-Nazification–and a corresponding de-Nietzscheanization of Nazism–but also his disassociation from the political right has become close to a fait accompli within English-speaking countries and France. […] the Nietzsche(s) of our own times could only arise, like those of other times, because changed circumstances induced and encouraged him to be read and emphasized in this particular way. Nietzsche has simultaneously influenced but also been appropriately reconstructed to fit what his champions take to be our own age of radical ideological and epistemological indeterminacy. Like other constructions–including my own–all interpretations of Nietzsche are particularly and historically conditioned." - In Times of Crisis, pp 15-20
You will note in this quote that Aschheim specifically states that the association of Nietzsche with Nazism has decreased, and that among the educated today, the Nazi identification might seem "incomprehensible". I have provided citations supporting the assertion that today the scholarly consensus tends towards the idea that Nietzsche was 'missppropriated' and should not be seen as a proto-Nazi ("Indeed, perhaps no opinion in Nietzsche scholarship is more widely accepted than that the Nazis were wrong and/or ignorant in their appropriation of Nietzsche."). I have provided a citation that shows that in English speaking countries and in France, the Nazi association is no longer dominant. I have provided many, many citations (here and in the Influence and Reception article) showing that he appealed to a broad and often contradictory range of social and political movements. I have even given you a champion you could mine for citations (if you felt inclined to share more than your personal opinions) in the form of Aschheim, who's a damned fine scholar. And what citations have you provided?
If we mention his appropriation (whether mis- or not) in the lead paragraph we should also mention his appropriation by other movements in the same sentence (as I myself and RJC have previously suggested). I would weigh in for Anarchism, Zionism, Marxism (post, though there are earlier currents) and Fascism (including, of course, National Socialism). I emphasize, however, that I have yet to see any compelling reason for cramming any of this into the lead paragraph. I would also recommend (again and yet again) that 'we' stop sharing our opinions here and start sharing citations. -- Picatrix ( talk) 16:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
This discussion has been going on for quite some time and I think we're repeating arguments. Has anyone been persuaded that the Nazis should be mentioned in the lede? If this is the position of one editor, after the arguments have been exhausted, then it might be time to move on. RJC Talk Contribs 15:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I am only an amateur Nietzsche reader, but I've noticed that in this article Nietzsche's musical compositions are barely mentioned.
Whilst I do appreciate that his music pales into insignificance next to his philosophy, I think that it would nevertheless be worth mentioning at some point, if only for the biographical value (particularly when one considers the emphasis Nietzsche himself placed upon his music).
Unfortunately, I am not particularly well-versed in this subject. This lecture ( http://www.virtusens.de/walther/n_komp_e.htm) seems reputable, but that's not something I can confirm. Are there any Nietzsche scholars who can validate the aforementioned lecture, and/or give some suggestions as to the incorporation of Nietzsche's music into the article? I'd be happy to have a go at condensing the lecture, although, not being particularly well-versed in the subject, I don't know how well it would turn out. Naviduk ( talk) 17:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm surprised there´s a whole page on his reception and no page whatsoever on criticism on him! He must have detractors and critics, why nothing of that is shown in a heading of its own? Undead Herle King ( talk) 06:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
This, from the end of the second paragraph of the Youth section: "At Schulpforta, Nietzsche received an important introduction to literature, particularly that of the ancient Greeks and Romans, and for the first time experienced a distance from his family life in a small-town Christian environment" seems to be able to be read two ways: it could read "experienced a distance from his family and its small-town Christian environment" or that he "experienced a small-town Christian environment which was distant from his family."
I assume it means away from his Christian family, but I hardly know a thing about the environment of Schulpforta, so I thought someone else could make the change. SSBDelphiki ( talk) 14:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Seems to me that the "Influence from Heraclitus" section could be merged with the following section, which could be renamed "Influences." SSBDelphiki ( talk) 14:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Can we have some evidence please, for all the names which have just been added? -- Snowded TALK 10:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
In order to understand N's break with Wagner, one must read N's The Case of Wagner, as well as Schopenhauer's The World as Will and Representation, Volume I, Book 4. I know that this is an extremely difficult demand to make on anyone. If, however, they are read, it will then be evident that N was rejecting the attitude that the world is an evil place that must be avoided and hated. N took this to be the Christian attitude. If these two writings are not read, then it will not be clear why N broke with Wagner. Lestrade ( talk) 00:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Lestrade
Nietzsche was rejecting far more than what he saw as the Christian, and Buddhist view of the world. He also argues that 'the word 'spirit' in the NT is a mere misunderstanding', and also says we must 'resist our ambition which would found religion', an ambition to answer the question of who redeems mankind. This is before his creation of the Zarathustra figure, which is arguably a religious icon. - ML —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.159.190 ( talk) 13:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Max Oehler's "study" on Nietzsche's ancestry needs to be taken with a grain of salt. First of all Oehler was a Nazi party member, and as curator of the Nietzsche-Archiv he worked as much as possible to popularize his Nazi view of Nietzsche in speeches and essays.
I've also added Nietzsche's own Self-concept, yet to have them both, removed by an editor that seems to the gatekeeper of this article.
Please do discuss here before reverting.
Thanks Likeminas ( talk) 16:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Can this be doulbe check, becuase I been talking with alot people and none heard he claim to be polish descent before ? As you can tell i did not destory anything and one can put it back. It just alot people I ask claim they never heard of it before.(Danny Boy 17:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC))
Now that we know that Nobel–Prize winner Herta Müller is from a Romanian town called Nitzkydorf or Niţchidorf, we might suspect that Nietzsche's name is Romanian, not Polish or German. He looks Romanian. Lestrade ( talk) 00:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)Lestrade
Nieczy is a Polish surname, pronounced in a similar fashion to the German rendering of it which is Nietsche. I'm amazed by comments which attempt to deny Nietsche's Polish roots. Anyone familiar with German history realizes that it would indeed be difficult to identify a German who did not have Polish ancestry. The Prussians are descended from Poles who have embraced a dialect of the Batavian (Deutsch) language as a result of the influence of the Catholic Church whose priests derived from the Low Countries. As the influence of the Church spread eastward across the Rhine, the Dutch or Deutsch dialects spread with it. Wherever the priests proselytized and crusaded as they moved across Germany they created administrative enclaves and encouraged and insisted on the adoption of their language. The numerous German cities with Polish or Slavonic names, Berlin ( "the Barges"), Leipzig (the Linden Tree), Dresden (the Flat Lands), Naumberg (Nubgrad), Rostock, Lubeck, Kiel, Chelmnitz ( they probably grew hops there)bear witness to the origins of the culture and people who identify themselves as Germans today. The Irish, Scots and Welsh are Celts who have largely abandoned, for whatever reason, their highly structured, ancestral Celtic languages for the simpler English and the Germans are largely Poles, Czechs, Sorbs and Wends who have, for somewhat different reasons abandoned their highly structured Slavonic languages for the simpler Deutsch. The characterization of Nietsche's association with his conspicuously Polish roots as "fictive" is naive and disingenuous. 205.232.233.166 ( talk) Frank Templar, A German who,like Nietsche, KNOWS his nation's origins.
Nietzsche is commonly classified as a “ German” philosopher by professionals and non-specialists alike. [1] The modern unified nation-state called Germany did not yet exist at the time of his birth, but the German Confederation of states did, and Nietzsche was a citizen of one of these, Prussia – for a time. When he accepted his post at Basel, Nietzsche applied for the annulment of his Prussian citizenship. [2] The official response confirming the revocation of his citizenship came in a document dated April 17, 1869. [3] Thus, officially he became stateless.
Nietzsche's feelings about his national identity were clearly complex. In Ecce Homo, he writes:
Even by virtue of my descent, I am granted an eye beyond all merely local, merely nationally conditioned perspectives; it is not difficult for me to be a "good European." On the other hand, I am perhaps more German than present-day Germans, mere citizens of the German Reich, could possibly be—I, the last anti-political German. And yet my ancestors were Polish noblemen: I have many racial instincts in my body from that source—who knows? [...] When I consider how often I am addressed as a Pole when I travel, even by Poles themselves, and how rarely I am taken for a German, it might seem that I have been merely externally sprinkled with what is German. [4]
A later revision of the same passage was discovered in 1969 among the papers of Peter Gast. [5] In it Nietzsche is even more adamant about his Polish Identity. “I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood.” [6] On yet another occasion Nietzsche stated “Germany is a great nation only because its people have so much Polish blood in their veins... I am proud of my Polish descent.” [7]
A later revision of the same passage was discovered in 1969 among the papers of Peter Gast. [8] In it Nietzsche is even more adamant about his Polish Identity. “I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood.” [9] On yet another occasion Nietzsche stated “Germany is a great nation only because its people have so much Polish blood in their veins... I am proud of my Polish descent.” [10]
I have to clear up this misunderstanding: Nietzsche had no Polish ancestors. I've found an article (unfortunately in Hungarian) where contemporary philosophers talk about his fictive ancestors whom he created for himself. [11] I'll try to find an English article.
Can you contact me somehow user RJC? Thanks -> -- Skychildandsonofthesun ( talk) 05:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC) (new-ish to wiki-editing so not sure how to contact you, thanks)
{{
cite book}}
: |edition=
has extra text (
help)
It's obvious that the German name–ending "sche" is a variation of the Slavic ending "ski." It occurs in many Germanized Slavic names. Lestrade ( talk) 01:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)Lestrade
The question of whether Nietzsche was Polish has come up again. This has been discussed multiple times in the talk archive (e.g., here, which also points to discussions on the German Wikipedia). Quoting everyone who says that Nietzsche was Polish seems to give undue weight to that view; quoting Nietzsche to that end also gives undue weight and constitutes original research (we can quote primary sources only for uncontroversial biographical facts). As such, I have reverted some edits that attempted to substantiate the fact that Nietzsche was Polish and cast doubt upon contrary evidence. RJC Talk Contribs 16:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
(un-indented)Let me start off by saying this is the English Wikipedia, so I’ll stick to it regardless of the ongoing or past discussion that might have taken place in the German, Polish, Spanish or any other language Wikipedia for that matter. So if you wish to present information in another language (to be used as reliable source) please do so by pointing to the original source and its proper translation as required by the English Wikipedia.
Now it seems to me that you are claiming two things here: 1)That Nietzsche’s self-concept of his own ancestry should not be included because “Nietzsche's own words fall under WP:PRIMARY”
Well, I can only hope you’ve read WP:Primary because it clearly states that; “A primary source may only be used to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge.”
My edits don’t claim he WAS Polish. They only describe how Nietzsche felt about his ancestry. I’ve added no interpretation or synthesis to it. So I don’t really see how they can possibly violate that Wiki rule. If anything, I’d argue that by not including his own statements on his own ancestry would amount to a violation of WP:NPOV.
(See the debate on the ancestry/race debate on the Barrack Obama article for a nice example.)
You also for some reason continue to think that WP:BLP applies to this article.
Here's what I found this on that policy:
This policy does not apply to edits about the deceased, but material about the deceased may have implications for their living relatives and friends, particularly in the case of the recently deceased, so anything questionable should be removed promptly.
In other words, that policy should not be quoted again. It just doesn't apply, despite poor Messianic analogies.
As for Oehler's reliability, I haven’t not removed it from the article. In fact -I think it should definitely stay- but just not as a “matter of fact” as it was previously presented.
Oehler was associated with the Nazis in an era where the concept of the “Ubermensch” was a hot seller; thus, finding Nietzsche to be entirely German on his “study” was not a big surprise, if you asked me.
Now, I’m not saying that his claims are entirely incorrect, but they should not be presented as “facts” unless other reliable sources agree with it, and more importantly they should be presented within its proper historical context. So far, I’ve seen nothing on his studies but a single (offline) source on it. If it is so widely accepted by scholars, one would expect more sources on it, don’t you agree?
Likeminas ( talk) 19:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
(un-indented) I don’t know how you come up with that non-sense of me trying to appear as a “Nietzsche expert”. I've never said or even implied to be one. But leaving snobbish stuff aside, I hope you can forgive my ignorance for not knowing German and requesting that you present English material in the English Wikipedia as it is normally required… Anyways, I digress.
Please notice, that nowhere I ask for the removal of the material that claims Nietzsche was pure German, I don’t even disagree with the inclusion of the so-called “study” done by the Nazi sympathizers. I just don’t personally agree with all that material being presented as fact.
Like I said before, removing almost all descriptions of Nietzsche’s own self-perception gives undue weight to one side of the issue.
And by the way; trying to equate WP:BLP with WP:SPS seems just like a desperate attempt. WP:SPS 1) is not self-serving; the guy is dead, he’s got nothing to gain from such claims, especially when “most scholars” have refuted them, right? 2)Which third parties? Please name them. 3), 4), 5) comply very nicely with article.
So, in view that the current version of the article has an unbalanced POV and omits relevant information on the subject, I will tag it accordingly. Likeminas ( talk) 14:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Polish orientalist, Ignacy Pietraszewski(1796-1869), was a philosophy professor at Berlin University, expert on Zoroastrianism and the Avesta, i.e. the sacred language of Zoroastrianism. In his "Das slavische Eigentum seit dreitausend Jahren, oder nicht Zendavesta, aber Zendaschta, das heisst das lebenbringende Buch des Zoroaster" ("Slavic Heritage of Three Thousand Years, but not Zendavesta only Zendaschta, Being the Lifegiving Book of Zoroaster," 1857 (?)), he claimed the Polish language is closely related to the Avestan language, i.e. the sacred (Iranian) language of Zoroastrianism (in the Avestan language Zoroaster is called Zarathustra). For his views Pietraszewski lost his job at Berlin University (due to Polonophobic sentiment?). It seems highly lkely that Pietraszewski's works had a strong influence on Nietzsche, but, characteristically, this subject does not seem to have been ever investigated by so-called experts on Nietzsche (due to their Polonophobia, or anti-Polish racist attitude?). To the author of the entry on Nietzsche: I hope you don't remove also this post of mine. You already took off my post pertaining to Nietzche's Polish extraction - a post containing no abuse of any one, only pertinent points and questions. Are you a Polonophobe, i.e. anti-Polish racist, by the way? I understand you're American, aren't you? Of what origin? The modern anti-Polish racism comes almost exclusively from the USA.