Talk:Friedrich Nietzsche

• Archive 1
• Archive 2

Copyright infringement?

The sentences: "In Ecce Homo, Nietzsche stressed his Polish ancestry repeatedly--which became very uncomfortable for the Nazis. A retired major named Max Oehler, who was a relative of Nietzsche's, wrote even a work to prove that Nietzsche was racially pure from the Nazi perspective called "Nietzsches angebliche polnische Herkunft" ("Nietzsche's alleged Polish descent"))." are a possible copyright infringement. It seems that they are taken from the website http://www.pejmanesque.com/archives/008028.html --Klingsor 17:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll rewrite the passage so it conforms to Wiki's copyright standards --Marinus 23:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Well done! --Klingsor 11:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I also appreciate Marinus' rewriting of the passage regarding the alleged Polish ancestry. There has been a discussion about this in the German article talk page some time ago, where I also quoted passages from Janz' biography which underline the point.

Moreover, in Nietzsche-Studien No. 31 (2002), Richard Frank Krummel and Evelyn Krummel published a document called "Nietzsches Vorfahren" from the estate of Hans von Müller. Müller was a genealogist who had researched Nietzsche's ancestry already in the late 1890s. I must thoroughly suggest that anyone who is interested in Nietzsche's ancestry read this text, which summarizes not only the known history of the Nietzsches, but also the short debate about it - in which Elisabeth would support (!) the myth of a Polish ancestry by some crude inventions and frauds just of the kind very common to her (I must admit: I had to laugh reading the text, e.g. the 1716-1706 changing - read it, it is good!)

To exclude a misunderstanding: I do know that Max Oehler - as you can read in the German talk page, I had my own doubts concerning his researches - was a devoted Nazi and that the Nazis were highly interested in "proving" that Nietzsche was of so-called "pure German blood". Still, in this case they were lucky because as far as his family history can be traced back (which is about 1650), he was of German ancestry. Of course it cannot be excluded that some time before that, there were non-German ancestors (keeping aside that the farther you go back in time, it becomes unclear what to call "German" or "non-German" in mid-Europe); and it should be noted that not even Max Oehler excluded this (however, everyone discussing this possibility has suggested Sorbian rather than Polish background). The thing is that the family legend or myth presented by Nietzsche (in KSA 9, 21[2], some letters, Ecce Homo and implicitly in BGE, 264 - Müller presents all the texts) and his sister (in quite different versions, also to be found in Müller's text) is disproven. Therefore, I deleted the parts of the text recently added which claimed a big sensation, and still did not even get it right: his sister wrote "Nietzky" and later "Nicki" (reason for this change also to be found at Müller, also funny), never "Nietzschy". As I have said already, I think that Marinus' text sums up the whole thing very well.--Chef aka Pangloss 23:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

will to power

I think will to power the book and the whole account and concept needs to be moved back onto its own wiki entry. thoughts? --Buridan 03:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I will agree and was about to suggest the same. John T. Reuter 22:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I made the change. Moved all of the book info to the book page and left the concept under concepts. Also, added a note about the book at the end of the concept section. All information still exists, but I think it's better arranged now. John T. Reuter 22:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree re: moving this to a new section. The contents of the Will to Power are often quoted as if they represent the core of Nietzsche's philosophy. In fact the book, as the section you removed makes clear, is largely the result of Nietzsche's sister's revisionism.

We would be doing a disservice if we allowed the misapprehension that this was largely Nietzsche's own work to persist by removing this information.

However, if this section instead of, say, the Place in contemporary ethical theory section, absolutely has to be removed then a summary of the key points of that section should be kept, along with a direct link, in the article to the subpage where a more detailed explication can be found. noosphere 03:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

there should instead be a direct link to each of his major works, each with its own clarifications. shouldn't there? that is the basis of my suggestion. that book and its related concepts need to be thoroughly explained and linked to, but not on the main page. The article is too long anyway, so this is one way to solve that. move the concepts off and into the individual books. --Buridan 04:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I understand the need to keep articles trimmed of unnecessary excess. However, as I've noted above, I think this is quite important information without which it's easy to get misled about the core of Nietzsche's philosophy. So, at the very least, there should be a prominently placed, brief explication of the issues regarding the authenticity and origin of the WTP, with a link to the main article on the book clearly placed in the WTP section (not buried in the "See also" section).

Also, I do not object in the least to improving the main WTP article, nor to linking to articles on Nietzsche's other books. But my main concern at the moment is for this article to provide a clear statement about the nature of the authorship and authenticity of the WTP. To just have the article launch in to the ideas in the WTP without a disclaimer (as it does now, since the information was removed) gives the impression that these are Nietzsche's unadulterated ideas, which is highly misleading. noosphere 05:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the disclaimer is necessary. I had it at the bottom of the section and I've rewritten it to now go at the top. The section needs further rewriting for flow (largely because of my move and slapped on intro) and also to more fully convey the variety of opinions concerning the will to power.

I think it is problematic to completely move the key concepts sections (although they should definately be shortened) because many of the ideas are covered in several (if not all) of Nietzsche's books, so it would be difficult to determine where exactly to farm them out to. John T. Reuter 07:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Eternal Recurrance and other Key Concept Sections

Fixed lots of typos and combined what was previously written in the section with parts of the entry that can be found at Eternal Return (eternal recurrence is directed to this article) in the Nietzsche section.

This edit helped decrease the article size, put forward a better written section (I think) and corrected typos (particularly the repeated misspelling of Nietzsche's name - there are probably more I missed).

I suspect that this section can be further reduced in size by moving some of the information to the Nietzsche section of the Eternal Return article.

Also, I took out a significant portion concerning the Will to Power. As we've discussed here in editting the section on that topic, it seems irresponsible to cite the book without noting its controversial nature. Also, I think I managed to preserve most of the core content that caused the book to be invoked.

Over the next few days (or hours depending on my will to power) I'm going to try to tackle reducing the other sections and outsourcing to other articles whatever can be reasonably outsourced. Help, suggestions and critiques are, of course, welcome. John T. Reuter 01:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The Will to Power

Shortened it as part of plan to reduce article described above. All information that was removed is still availible on The Will to Power article page. John T. Reuter 03:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Nihlism and the death of God

Shortened section as part of plan to reduce article described above. Removed quote from Will to Power as per earlier discussion here. All core ideas preserved, most content preserved. John T. Reuter 19:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Political views and Influence

Shortened poltiical views by cutting and moving some things to the Nietzsche's Influence and Reception. I'm going to try to start shortening them as well as the key concepts (also, I should start mucking around in the Gender views section soon). Content has been mostly preserved. John T. Reuter 22:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)