::It depends on how you pronounce the "ur" sound. If you are British or old-fashioned New England or Deep South, "ur" approximates German "ö" just fine.
[http://www.bartleby.com/61/wavs/64/G0176400.wav Here] is the audio file that the [http://www.bartleby.com/61/ American Heritage Dictionary] uses.[[User:Goethean|Goethean]] 18:37, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
[http://www.bartleby.com/61/wavs/64/G0176400.wav Here] is the audio file that the [http://www.bartleby.com/61/ American Heritage Dictionary] uses.[[User:Goethean|Goethean]] 18:37, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
You can help expand this article with text translated from the corresponding article in German. Click [show] for important translation instructions.
Machine translation, like DeepL or Google Translate, is a useful starting point for translations, but translators must revise errors as necessary and confirm that the translation is accurate, rather than simply copy-pasting machine-translated text into the English Wikipedia.
Consider adding a topic to this template: there are already 2,133 articles in the main category, and specifying|topic= will aid in categorization.
Do not translate text that appears unreliable or low-quality. If possible, verify the text with references provided in the foreign-language article.
You must provide copyright attribution in the edit summary accompanying your translation by providing an interlanguage link to the source of your translation. A model attribution edit summary is Content in this edit is translated from the existing German Wikipedia article at [[:de:Exact name of the German article]]; see its history for attribution.
You may also add the template {{Translated page|de|Exact name of German article}} to the talk page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
OK, so my attempt (GOEH tuh) isn't much better. I guess there's no English word that uses the "œ" sound. http://www.bartleby.com/61/12.html Take a shot at improving it if you want, just please don't include an "r".Goethean 18:38, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Well, my browser (IE 5.50) won't even render the current pronounciation, so I'm guessing that that's less than ideal.
(to view other characters on the previous page in IE, try clicking "View," "Encoding," and "Western European")
Or, you could get another browser (i.e. Firefox) ;) -- Grunt(talk) 00:38, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)
---
From the Bartleby sound, I would surmise GRR-tuh, only without voicing the R's so much as blowing them. If you think you know how this is pronounced, post something!
I have removed the following, as it is not a Goethe quotation:
Until one is committed, there is hesitancy, the chance to draw back, always ineffectiveness. Concerning all acts of initiative and creation, there is one elementary truth the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then providence moves too. All sorts of things occur to help one that would never otherwise have occurred. A whole stream of events issues from the decision, raising in one's favor all manner of unforeseen incidents, meetings and material assistance which no man could have dreamed would have come his way
---
The truly German pronunciation of "Goethe" is rather difficult to actually describe. "Guhrr-tuh" is a fairly good and commonly accepted approximation of his name's pronunciation. (Anon)
...are awful. There has probably some kind of consensus about this that I'm not aware of (?), but the two ISBN numbers in the first paragraph should really be removed. --stw (Talk) 18:35, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I don't know if there's a consensus, but a common practice (similar to the convention with paper documents) is to move them to a "references" section at the bottom of the article, with internal links made like this:<sup>[[Johann Wolfgang von Goethe#References|1]]</sup>. Securiger 14:57, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I started a list of Goethe's works and moved the ISBN numbers there. The list is far from complete, if anybody feels like improving it: see the german article. --stw (Talk) 18:36, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Removed lk
The following probably does not belong in the article at all. If it does, it should not be at the top of page, even in tiny type, and it should have a context that justifies it.
I removed the hint to Rammsteins Dalai Lama song. There are many more songs or poems that are based on Goethes Erlkönig, Rammstein made only a little and unimportant interpretation of the theme.
Was it Goethe who wrote about Hummel, the hunchback water-carrier? If so, in which story, please? [djsderek@aol.com]
Alternate spelling
Not sure, but is his name spelled Göthe? If so, should we change it throughout the article?
Dear Goethean, I am sorry to tell you that the umlauted "ö" is transcribed as "oe." In German books, the name is spelled "Göthe." I own such a book and will scan a page for you if you so desire. 205.188.117.7015:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)HansWurst[reply]
I am aware of the ö -> oe transliteration. I have German books by Goethe, and none of them give it an umlaut. I am interested in seeing your text. Be sure that the context makes clear that they are referring to Johann Wolfgang. — goetheanॐ15:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that I owned the book, but actually I had seen it in a college library. I no longer have access to the library, so I can't prove my claim. I saw it on the title page of Schopenhauer's "Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung." He quoted Göthe's words: "Ob nicht Natur zuletzt sich doch ergründe?" (If Nature hasn't finally fathomed itself?) It is from his letter to State Minister von Voigt. His name was printed with the umlauted ö. I guess you'll just have to take my word. Best wishes.Lestrade21:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)HansWurst[reply]
The German wikipipedia says "auch Göthe" which roughly translated means 'also Göthe'
Goethe is the correct spelling. You might find other spellings by people (in earlier times), who have only heard his name or decided to write it differently (there was no "right" spelling at the time anyways, although names are normally consistant); those are not alternate, but misspellings. I'm german and have studied Germanistik and never came across "Göthe".
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (pronounced ['gø tə]) (August 28, 1749 – March 22, 1832) was a German writer, politician, humanist, scientist, and philosopher.
I'm considering removing the word "politician" from the above sentence. Objections? --goethean ॐ
He adminstered one of the German states, you shouldn't have changed the article if you don't know the subject. 145.94.41.95
I've returned the word for now, I'll do more research on his career and add it to the article in the near future. --145.94.41.95 14:16, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've found the following for example:
In 1775, Goethe was invited to visit Charles Augustus, duke of Saxe-Weimar, at whose court he was to spend the rest of his life. For ten years Goethe was chief minister of state at Weimar. He later retained only the directorship of the state theater and the scientific institutions.[1]
I think ten years as the chief minister of Weimar qualifies him as a politician! --145.94.41.95 15:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I rm-ed the "poliitician" assertion, if only because it does not belong at that point in the list.
It also doesn't belong in the article unsupported and unexplained within the article: the language to do so needs to be worked out on talk, then "politician" can go in at the end of the list.
The ext lk the IP supplied is to bartleby.Com; the text should be examined, and perhaps will justify research to determine whether the position had anything to do with politics or was simply the civic equivalent of an honorary degree from Universität Weimar. (Who else had that role, and what else are they remembered for?) Also whether the text is a notorious parody that is kept available just to show JWG was well enuf known to write parodies about.
I can document that the position for the Duke of Weimar was a real job with responsibilities. I removed it because I considered it a bureaucratic rather than a political position. But I guess that public administrator is a type of politician. --goethean ॐ 16:42, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I see that you know your subject after all! why didn't you add the information to the article? I apologise for the remark above, no offence intended --145.94.41.95 16:49, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Too late — offense taken. I guess I overlook his mundane activities for his lasting achievements. I wonder if "public administrator" or "bureaucrat" would be more precise. To me, "politician" connotes someone who runs for office. --goethean ॐ 17:24, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The position Goethe had was not "honorary".
The text above is from The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001. which is hosted on bartleby.com --145.94.41.95 16:46, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The detail of most import to take into account that was either unconscionably obscured or haply overlooked is Goethe's public service in Weimar was that of a cabinet minister, it thereby follows the term "politician" hardly suits in order to depict what his work involved during his civic services. As such, "cabinet minister of Weimar" is more appropriate—and the article will be changed accordingly.--Glyphonhart04:40, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Was he a Romantic or not?
Schlegel's theory of Romanticism is based off of Goethe's themes and a lot of his themes are traditionally Romantic, but I know I've read that he did not like Romanticism and this is partly clear in Faust part 2. It seems that he's aiming for a synthesis of Romanticism and Classicism. He's usually thrown in as one of the Romantics so I'm wondering if this is a mistake.
His early Sturm und Drang ("Storm and Stress") period is proto-Romantic, but his work after 1780 is Classicist and sometimes explicitly anti-Romantic. The Romantic School named itself in opposition to Goethe's Classicism. --goethean ॐ 19:51, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Now, in lieu of the obvious ambiguity of "romanticism," it is nevertheless important to convey the deep differences Goethe, who expressed ascerbic views that refused romanticism as unacceptable, had to those that called themselves romantics (e.g., Novalis, Tieck, Schelling, Arnim, Brentano, etc.) in opposition to classicism. Notwithstanding all that, the synthesis of which you speak is in actuality Goethe's all-embracing universalism, so to say, which quite emphatically redeems all in the world--and such is Faust's redemption. Much support of this can be derived from Walter Kaufmann's From Shakespeare to Existentialism, an alacrious collection of essays that tears asunder various misconceptions and augments the offal into a perspective that is truly insightful.--Glyphonhart 9 July 2005 03:52 (UTC)
Most famous line in German poetry?
The article presents this line as "the most famous line in German poetry":
Kennst du das Land, wo die Zitronen blühn?
Can someone, please, include a reference for the claim that this should be the most famous line in German poetry? What about "Wer reitet so spät durch Nacht und Wind?" or "Edel sei der Mensch, hilfreich und gut", "Über allen Gipfeln ist Ruh" or many other such IMHO more famous lines?--345Kai03:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone provide a translation for it in English? siafu 00:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Those deutschers are always dreaming about the tropics. The most famous song in Nazi Germany was Zarah Leander's "La Habanera," that is "Woman of Havana (Cuba)." 205.188.117.7015:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)LittleJoeyGoebbels[reply]
A Nonfiction is indeed Fiction for Goethe.
I've recently noted that Goethe's Out of my Life is listed as nonfiction, and in the article itself, by clicking the link aforementioned, adequately shows that it is no such thing and in fact is another work of fiction by Goethe. Therefore, I've decided to move it to the Fiction section in the main Goethe article. If there are any qualms with this, perhaps we can thereby ignite a discussion and meanwhile get the full idea of the book, too.--Glyphonhart 2 July 2005 14:41 (UTC)
Goethe versus Romanticism.
Thus it states in the article: "Goethe was one of the paramount figures of German literature and European Romanticism." Now this is through and through a factitious account of a man that even but now continues as this whole issue evinces. Throughout his other works, volumnes of which were written, he stands in opposition to those that named themselves the romantics against him. At the very least, however, he did not endorse such a poetical view and it is therefore more appropriate to attribute a name that he would not have rejected. As that would have it, he is a classicist. The article may undergo further changes to date due to this spurious addition. I'll keep it beneath a magnifying glass for some time.--Glyphonhart 2 July 2005 15:05 (UTC)
Another quirky sentence: "As a philosopher and writer he is one of the key figures in the transition from the Enlightenment to Romanticism." I will conduct some research to see wherein lies the validity of such a statement. For he is not a romanticist and he was no philosopher, but he influenced many. (Note: for the mean time, I have deleted it from the main article.)--Glyphonhart 2 July 2005 15:16 (UTC)
The statement has been revised to: "Many of his writings, most of which are philosophical and sententious in nature, spurred on the development of many philosophers, such as Georg Hegel, Friedrich Nietzsche, and others."--Glyphonhart 9 July 2005 03:56 (UTC)
As my recent, extensive capitulations express, there is an essential revision that deserves a statement: Goethe is a philosopher as his Scientific Studies show, therefore, I have enacted the appropriate measures to demonstrate this and provided a restatement with regard to his "formative impulse".--Glyphonhart
For Goethe, contradictory qualitative states quintessentially inheres as a feature of all manifest reality.
IMHO This phrase is sheer brilliance, uniquely capsulizing the essence of Goethe's genius, and should be reinstated ASAP.
The sentence itself requires too much explanatory exposition for its instauration, however, those that care to take the energy necessary to do so can readily find support for it. Goethean's assessment is most apt and appropriate. Note: the original has "inhere" as the verb "inheres", and I have altered the above quotation to follow suite.
It seems to me the word sententious is used incorrectly in the article, where tendentious should be used instead. I will change it unless there any tendentious objections.
Objection: your assumption is unfounded. It has been changed to "aphoristic" to make its meaning more apparent for parsing.
Goethe's Intelligence
I have heard from numerous people that Goethe was one of the most intelligent people to have ever lived. I was looking it up and found this aswell on many websites, although I do not know if they are reliable or not. Can anyone confirm or deny his immense level of intelligence and if it can be confirmed it should be added to the article.
The image of G. at the beginning of the article is too idealized. Goethe had a longer nose and less chin. There is a bust of him in Paris's Museum d'Orsay that was done from life and it doesn't look like a movie star. Goethe always appreciated truth.152.163.101.1113:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)HansWurst[reply]
"Until one is committed"
who did write the "Until one is committed" passage, and how do you know that Goethe did not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by71.36.54.92 (talk • contribs) .
Someone replaced a huge portion of this article with the above. I've restored it to what appeared to be its original version. I hope I didn't miss any important changes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by159.91.115.53 (talk • contribs) .
"His poetry would be set by almost every major German composer from Mozart to Mahler, and his influence would spread to French drama and opera as well."
Goethe wrote many criticisms of Isaac Newton's color theory, but none successfully challenged its validity. Within his own lifetime, most scientists and many of Goethe's friends considered his criticisms of Newton incorrect. Goethe's voluminous output on color theory, in hindsight, has been regarded as his weakest work [2].
This is very confusing. Both the link cited and the article Theory of Colours are considerably more sympathetic to Goethe's Theory of Colours. In fact, the latter states: "Mitchell Feigenbaum was convinced that 'Goethe had been right about colour!" Can we update the Goethe article to agree with this? Or does somebody want to debate against that position? --JianLi01:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From the theory of colours article: "This basic difference between Goethe and the Newtonians has caused almost all of modern physics to reject Goethe's theory as unscientific." Hardly very sympathetic. Rmhermen02:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well in any case, the body of information on this subject in Wikipedia is self-contradictory. What do you make of the Mitchell Feigenbaum quote. I don't have an opinion either way, but I just want to make sure that all of our info is consistent, and, more importantly, true JianLi23:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
re-arrangement
Shouldn't the 2 paragraphs following: The following list of key works may give a sense of the scope of the impact his work had on his and our time. be under the "works" section rather than "historical importance"? — goetheanॐ15:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Goethe and the East
There is no mention of Goethe's fascination with the East, Orientalism, especially with Islam. Goethe knew much arabic, persian and turkish and used to read the poetry and literature of these oriental languages. He often wrote about Mahomet, the Koran and Islam and even wrote poetry in the style of the Urdu diwan (West-Ostlicher Diwan). Is there a reason for this omission? --Tanzeel00:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the article is all disorganized now. I put section headers over some of the sections that were too long, and it appears that we have 2 sections on Goethe's importance. They need to be merged. And we have two sections on his works. They also need to be merged. I would be amenable to moving the info on Goethe's works to a new article. — goetheanॐ19:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest moving Key works as a subsection of Works and similarly Influence under Historical importance, though this may ultimately lead to the dissolution of the subheadings but that can be settled later. I agree that Goethe's list of literature should be created (not to mention expanded).--Igni19:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dashes and the like
I've noticed a rebound between en-dash and em-dash recently. My reasoning with the first alteration was not only due to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes) but also in line with the article's predominant manifestation, which follows the em-dash preference. Could we come to a general concensus along these lines so the article can have overall consistency (all that I'm really after), since "correctness" is not genuinely applicable?
I'm sorry that I made a big deal out of it. I assumed that the WP manual of style would have a guideline for the use of dashes, but it looks like I assumed wrong. It looks like several styles can be used so whichever is fine with me. — goetheanॐ22:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Goethe biography
Hi, I would like to add an external link to the World of Biography entry
probably the most famous portal of biography to this article. Does anybody have any objections?
please do not add this to the article, and please read the incident report before giving the go-ahead. This is spam and not link-worthy under WP:EL; the articles contain many distortions, lack citations, and contain nothing that wouldn't fit directly in the wiki article. a link to worldofbiography has been placed on over 70 talk pages by User:Jameswatt. thanks. --He:ah?20:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Goethe's Religion
I dont think Goethe's religious views should be included in the very first paragraph of the article unless they played a overwhelming role in his life which, from my ownhumble knowledge of him, they did not. I suggest the reference to his religious beliefs be removed from the article, and placed under a seperate heading in his biography Lehi06:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Calling oneself a "non-Christian" in a place and time in which the state religion was Lutheranism was radical...radically modern, you could say. This actually anticipated Nietzsche's vehement anti-Christianity (Nietzsche admired Goethe immensely) and actually anticipated (or epitomized) the secularization of European thought in the late nineteenth and early twentieth cenuties. I don't feel strongly one way or another about it, but the case can certainly be made to leave it in. — goetheanॐ15:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Converse to your expectations, his disinclination toward the Christian following is cardinal to a particular degree, the elements are: his views in aesthetics and upon creative activity (more comprehensively stated, the whole of his thought); namely, the circumstances underlying his journey to Italy are one instance—and are most definitively significant. In short, more on this will be addressed in the article in order to exhume the nature of his anti-Christian views at a later date. Aware though I am, this is, to be sure, typically unbroached and rarely rendered it and that towards which will consequently enrich the article's value should nevertheless be addressed. In consideration of your last, self-contradictory statement, however, I agree with the latter position, that is to say, more should be expressed within the body of the article (as I already remarked), but for the mean time his anti-Christian views will not be waived due to standing substative and methodological procedures and as my reasoning would have it retained as it is for further emendations. Of course, those sciential to provide a betterment of Goethe's anti-Christian views for representation are welcome to do so.—ignisscripta—20:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. I apologize for my last statements poor wording.
2. I am not implying that the references to his religious beliefs be removed, I just think that they don't belong in the introductory paragraph. A seperate section in his biography would be more suiting, and would provide more detail to the reader.
3. By Goethes time, there was already signifigant secularization spread throughout Europe due to the enlightenment, and while Goethe's reasons for his disinclination towards christianity might have been unique, the overall stance of secularism was certainly nothing new.:Lehi23:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The relative novelty of such a view is not an applicable criterion for the determination of inclusion or removal, if that is what your are implying with your last statement, nor, though it may not be your aim to say, does such a historical evaluation in any way denigrate a view's formal value, in light it has existed since time immemorial and so forth. The singular nature of his non-Christian perspective is of importance and is the motive for its insertion. Moreover, making a new section for it exclusively, insofar as I view it, is not requisite, but rather, further integration of it into the preexisting article is warranted, as such permitting a clearer conveyance of its particular qualities in conflux with the representation of his aesthetico-philosophical thought. In due time, if no one else does beforehand, I will move it into the body of the article along these delineated parameters; in sum, I agree with you (partly on #2) but have not gone about it in this manner as yet.—ignisscripta—01:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize but I am afraid that I don't understand your argument.the referance to the novelty of the view was a response to the statement made by goethean. Usually for there to be a reference to someones religion in the introductory paragraph, the belief was/is of overwhelming signifigance to his work, usually to the extent that it is what made him famous in the first place. Yet this is hardly the case with Goethe.
One further point to be made is that all of the descriptions of Goethe in the first paragraph are descriptions of his accomplishments. Since ones beliefs are usually seperate from ones acomplishments, I believe that because of this, the referance should be moved further down in the article.Lehi
Goethe: a Rosicrucian ?
These men who contributed to humanity's progress WERE ROSICRUCIANS:
Goethe, polyglot and poet (Source: www.rosicrucian-order.com/principal.htm)
Was Isaac Newton really a rose-cross brother? Who can help?
The simple answer is: No. Although, Goethe did some Rosicrucian studies, the result of which is the alchemical notions within Faust and elsewhere, this does not validate the claim, but I can see why it would be made—Goethe's is good for exposure… among other things. In short, I would not count on the validity of others being subsumed in this denomination as stated at the website, at least not in Goethe's case. — ignisscripta17:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just nominated this nice article at WP:V0.5N, but I notice that the "Life" section is rather brief for such a major figure. Could someone knowledgable on Goethe expand this section a bit? Thanks, Walkerma04:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the way to do this is to integrate the "key works" and "life" sections, since so much of his life had to with creating his major works. — goetheanॐ14:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a great deal of information within the German-language article that would significantly improve this article if it were translated, but most unfortunately it seems much time will have passed before such a recrudescence is possible. — ignisscripta20:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eroticism
I see in the speculative "Eroticism" that our homosexual editors are doing what they do in all communications media, namely, trying to present pederasty as acceptable behavior. If they succeed, then future generations will believe that sex with another person of the same gender is completely normal, as a matter of fact, a civil right. This, in contrast to its real nature, which is similar to criminal and unnatural sexual molestation. I vote that the "Eroticism" section be deleted since it is not based on objective fact and merely serves to further a criminal and unnatural purpose.Lestrade23:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]
09090909090: Well, call anyone "homosexual" all you like, but the section clearly does not "present pederasty as acceptable behavior." Where do children come up in it? Are you joking me? Who's homosexual agenda could this be? Do you know the writers are homosexual? Give me a break. Let's see if it's pushing an agenda: "when [Pruy's book] formalized the possibility of Goethe's homosexuality, tentatively deduced from Goethe's writings". If you actually read that with some level of thought, it obviously shows that "Goethe's homosexuality" is really an impossible conception. There's NO PROOF. This part I have an issue with: "even though his homosexuality is purely speculative and polemical it partly shows what homosexuality in his works seems to embody to various people". I would rephrase it as: "even though Pruy's work is purely speculative and polemical, since there are no verifiable indications of Goethe ever being a homosexual." And I think the authors would agree. So I'll change it.23:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised that User:Lestrade, a well-educated editor, objects to the eroticism section. Please provide us with a secondary source that presents your belief that the description of Goethe's eroticism as presented in the article is inaccurate. (Alternatively, you can simply familiarize yourself with Goethe's Roman Elegies and Venetian Epigrams.) I am ignoring your odd contention that the article should be censored in line with your personal moral values. — goetheanॐ15:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For another example of similar agenda pushing, see the Roger Penrose article. An anonymous reader wrote: "I heard of him being gay. Is that true?" When I responded to this childish insinuation, my reply was deleted by User:Blainster.Lestrade13:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]
I wouldn't go as far as calling him a philosopher, whilst he did read some philosophical works like Plato, Aristotle and did confirm to some ideas of Spinoza, he did not write any serious work on philosophy. At least as far as I know of. Anybody having more information on Goethe and philosophy?
If not, we should not exaggerate his personality by describing him as a philosopher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.58.41.163 (talk • contribs)
Because "polymath" is the most accurate term. He is famous for being a poet, but his most famous work is a drama and he considered his scientific achievements to be his greatest accomplishment. And Nietzsche said that his "conversations" book was the most important book of the nineteenth century. Was he primarily a poet, a scientist, a dramatist, or a state minister? I wasn't the one who put the term "polymath" in the article, but I think it's the best term to use. If you have a better term, let's discuss it. — goetheanॐ18:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't. My reaction was based on the fact that in 30-odd years as a journalist (and I use the term 'odd' advisedly), I never encountered the word 'polymath.' I guess I wasn't moving in the right circles!
If this is an encyclopedia we're writing, it would seem that a good basic principle would be using a vocabularly that's in general English usage, at least in the introductory sections of articles.
From what you say, 'polymath' indeed appears to be accurate. Unfortunately, unless I'm mistaken, it won't be understood by most readers.
I'm certainly no authority on Goethe, but I do have a general education in Western culture (Ich habe nun, ach! Philosophie, Juresterei und Medizin, und leider auch, Theologie, durchaus studiert....). And it does seem to me that Goethe is best known as a poet and dramatist, with "Faust" being his best-known work.
PS: As you probably know, the German article describes Goethe as a Dichter, Theaterleiter, Naturwissenschaftler, Kunsttheoretiker und Staatsmann, and says he is der bekannteste Vertreter der Weimarer Klassik. But being "the most widely known represetative of Weimar Classicism" isn't going to mean much to most English speakers, either.
The German article in the same introductory paragraph notes: Als Verfasser von Gedichten, Dramen und Prosa-Werken gilt er als bedeutendster deutscher Dichter und als herausragende Persönlichkeit der Weltliteratur. How about starting the English article something like this:
"... is generally regarded as the most famous of German poets and dramatists, but he was also a novelist, humanist, scientist, theorist (rather a vague term), painter, and for ten years chief minister of state for the Duchy of Weimar." How does that grab you?
Readers can simply click on the word "polymath" if they don't know what it means. It's a perfectly useful and appropriate English-language word. Americans generally use the term "Renaissance man" for the concept. But this might be misleading since Goethe did not live during the Renaissance. — goetheanॐ16:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova16:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's up with the "Goatse" vandalism? At first I thought I was seeing things, then like a fool I started correcting the vandalism incident by incident, before finally seeing the history page and realizing it's some anonymous user.
