Talk:Friedrich Nietzsche

Nietzsche pronounciation

German transcription of Nietzsche is [ni:tʃə], no sound [s] between t and ʃ. If you do not believe, read http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digraph_(Linguistik), section "Trigraph, Tetragraph… " RJC, who told you s was correct?! --195.91.232.161 (talk) 00:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Zickzack. See Talk:Friedrich Nietzsche/Archive 16#IPA again. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 22:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Zickzack, where do you come from? Just curious, in what village people pronounce tzsch like [tsʃ]... Have you ever tried to pronouns it like that? ;)) Nothing personal, but seriously, [tʃ] is the most widespread. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schuetze (talk • contribs) 18:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I happen to come from a major city where, according to statistics, the language is closest to Standard High German. You may have heard of that "village". And yes, I can hear the difference between [tʃ] and [tsʃ] as well as pronounce it with ease. Arguing numbers will lead us nowhere, because the majority of German speakers speaks a South German dialect with a restricted number of sibilants. E.g. they do not even have a [z]. -- Zz (talk) 11:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Will to Power

Re: Will to Power, the article says:

He transformed the idea of matter as centers of force into matter as centers of will to power.

Is this what is meant:

He transformed the idea that matter is/are centers of force into one of matter as centers of will to power  ?

In other words, one view existed prior to Nietzsche (A - matter as centers of force) and he proposed another one (B - matter as centers of will to power). If so, how is this a transformation of an idea? Another possibility would be that Nietzsche first proposed A, but later put forward B; that change in his own work might be a transformation of a sort. Otherwise, there isn't a "transformation" unless Nietzsche transformed something: matter itself, or the scientific view of matter, or the accepted view of matter among philosophers. Nietzsche "proposed" or did something similar, but did not transform.

The meaning or definition of "Will to Power" is never given. The article tells us WtP is a) an important part of N's philosophical outlook; b) provides a way to understand human behavior; c) may apply to many other areas - not just understanding human behavior (if so, shouldn't it be "wider application"); d1) is more powerful than pressure for survival/adaptation, d2) except in certain limited situations; e) was later applied to all living things by N; and f) later still to inorganic matter. But what is the "Will to Power"? I realize there's a cross-reference to the main article on WtP, but as a reader I would want some idea of what WtP is right away. From the main WtP article I get that WtP is what N believes to be "the main driving force in man." If so, saying this would be big help to the reader. Perhaps can even give a simple (simplistic?) definition of WtP (a striving for power) and let the reader know it is just a partial definition.

Re: N wanting to dispense with the atomistic view, should there be a cross reference to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomism or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behaviorism#Molar_versus_molecular_behaviorism Ileanadu (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Essay on Nietzsche

Nietzsche's nationality has come up so often that I made an essay for my own use on the matter. It lists some of the evidence put forward. It also points to all the previous discussions. It is a user essay; RJC/Nietzsche was a German. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 20:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Freud and Jung

Please don't delete Freud or Jung off of the 'influenced' section. They are two of the biggest names in all of psychology and are both listed as philosophers. Even though their primary field wasn't philosophy doesn't mean they shouldn't be listed. It's the equivalent of not having Einstein on Spinoza's 'influenced' section because Einstein was notably a physicist, or not putting Darwin as influencing Dennett, or taking Goethe off of Nietzsche's influences, etc. Leave them be. --96.253.50.139 (talk) 19:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

User:RJC made the decision, and I don't think that he cares what anyone thinks about it. He certainly doesn't listen to me when I complain about it. Personally, I think it's an asinine policy. — goethean ॐ 19:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

RJC didn't do the revert, I did. And its not his policy either but was reached by consensus many moons ago. Maybe next time you'll do some checking before you start blathering abusive nonsense. Btw, you'll notice I didn't revert yet. I'm waiting to see if perhaps the prevailing winds might have changed since then. Cheers. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you point me to the thread where this was decided? — goethean ॐ 00:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I reverted this edit, not this one. And for the record, my position was that only those people who warrant an independent mention in the article should be in the infobox Talk:Friedrich Nietzsche/Archive 12#Recent Clean-up. The fact that this means only philosophers was hashed out in edit summaries, if I recall, resulting in this discussion, which presumed the consensus, and this one, which debated it. You'll note that I wasn't in favor of eliminating Jung or Freud there, either. In fact, re-reading my comments, I have no idea where Gothean got the idea that this is my idee fixe and mine alone, or that I refused to engage him on the subject. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 01:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's the original discussion that reached a consensus.[1] ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 01:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, three people agreed to it. Sounds like it should definitely be enshrined forever and strictly enforced. — goethean ॐ 13:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we'd get much response at the village pump ;-). Any consensus that forms will be small, considering the number of highly active editors we have on the page at any one time. Shall we have the discussion again? I think we need some guideline as to what gets included. At the very least, people who want to list Hitler, Anton LaVey, and At the Gates should see a notice suggesting that those issues have been debated and we came to a conclusion, and to please not edit war over the influenced list again. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 14:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I am fine with setting limits, and I'm fine with a relatively static list. Requiring a reference to a reliable source is fine; requiring that the figure be mentioned (and sourced) in the article (or a sub-article?) is also fine with me. These are all reasonable requirements which I will help to enforce. I don't really have strong feelings about including LaVey (who I'm not really familiar with) or even Hitler, so your preference on that is perfectly fine with me. But the article should list the most important figures regardless of the genre in which academia has categorized their writings. — goethean ॐ 15:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a paragraph on Nietzsche's influence at Influence_and_reception_of_Friedrich_Nietzsche#Early_20th-century_thinkers, but is is unsourced and in some cases, inaccurate (Wittgenstein?). — goethean ॐ 15:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you read the thread but missed the pivotal point entirely. I repeat: There exists both a section and an entire article devoted to this subject. Nobody placed any limits there. What we're talking about here is merely a list in an infobox which by definition needs to be brief. Philosophers were chosen because it is a philosophers infobox. That sounded reasonable to me then and still does now.

BTW you need to dial back your attitude a few notches. Whence this hostility? Sounds like it's you against the dreaded Nietzsche editors conspiracy. Alas as in all things Nietzsche, and as it were under a curse, the editor shape-shifts into Sisyphus. Just when he finally gets the stone to the top... well you know the rest. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 15:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

How many edits have been reverted under the aegis of this pseudo-policy, and on the basis of the pseudo-consensus that was linked above? At the top of this thread, we have someone pleading that Freud and Jung not be removed from the page. I have argued against this policy every time that I have seen it brought up. I'm not sure how that plays into your understanding of consensus.

Philosophers were chosen because it is a philosophers infobox.

An arbitrary and ahistorical choice, which never had consensus. — goethean ॐ 16:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Come on, you're kidding, right? Did you really miss the point a second time after I clearly laid it out for you in grade school English? No one's trying to "remove Freud & Jung from the page" as you say. There is an applicable section on influences and the poor "pleading" anon can put them there—providing, of course, he uses cited explanations.

And you are wrong about consensus—it was reached and unanimously I might add, which is not a requisite. I'd point you to the page but it appears that in your case, words penetrate only so far. Maybe a diagram is in order.

The proposal regarding Infobox, Section and Separate article

Infobox	Section	Separate article
Philosophers only	Anyone explained & cited.	Anyone explained & cited.

Widen your perspective. Think outside the infobox. Rise up to the encylopedic. Dare I ask? Are we on the same page now? Listen, I'm not fixed in stone about this but at least I'd like to think that I'm having an actual discussion in which words are spoken, heard and absorbed into the brain.

Yikes! did I say that? Look I'm sorry but there is something in your attitude that just raises hell with me. What little patience I started with is completely gone. Maybe someone else needs to take over here. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 21:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I get it. It's like when boys build a treehouse and make a sign that says "NO GIRLS ALLOWED". However, Dostoevsky, Burckhardt, Wagner, and Goethe are all listed in the infobox. I don't think that they're currently considered philosophers by most academics. Since that's the silly pseudo-policy that you are insisting on, you'd better go excise the offending names. — goethean ॐ 21:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

For my part I think this exchange is a little ridiculous (not that anyone asked me). I've seen Goethean editing here for ages. I've seen Alcmaeonid and RJC as well. I think all these editors want this to be a high quality article. So why don't we just stop the sniping and get on to the 'policy'. As I recall (I participated in the discussion back when, but I don't have time to dig through it again now) the idea was that we needed to put some limits on the influenced list because we were getting additions like LaVey and Hitler, not to mention Kahlil Gibran and death metal bands. The goal of the exercise was to find a way to limit the names included in the influenced section in a reasonable way, with the goal of keeping that content from spiraling off into lists of highly questionable value. There can be no doubt that many other people were influenced by Nietzsche, and given that he was first received as a 'literary' figure, and was only accorded 'philosopher' status rather late, the vast range of those for whom a cited claim of influence could reasonably made is further exaggerated. The assumptions that guided the choice to frame a 'policy' for inclusion were basically: 1. A list of those influenced by Nietzsche could easily run to many pages, this sort of list would not be appropriate for an infobox; 2. Because Nietzsche is today primarily considered to be a philosopher, limiting the infobox list to those who are considered philosophers would make the list more manageable. At the time we (meaning those who participated in the discussion instead of just bitching about it later) decided to loosely limit the list to philosophers while maintaining a few names that deserved mention outside of the philosopher category. RJC *did not* "make the decision" and should not be singled out as a target for complaints. Fer crying out loud all the folks going back and forth now have long exposure to one another working on this article. If we need to revisit the so-called policy, let's do so, in a civil manner (and I make no claims to having been always civil - for the record). The point is let's get through this quickly without name calling and we'll all be able to get back to work on more productive things. My own position is that opening up the list to just anyone is going to land us back in death metal land. That said, Jung and Freud probably warrant inclusion. --Picatrix (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

In order to move the discussion along, I propose adding the following text as a comment where the former comment stood:

PLEASE READ! The consensus regarding the names to be added to the infobox as influences and those influenced by Nietzsche is that they must named in the body of the article itself, or the spin-off article "Influence and reception of Friedrich Nietzsche," and supported by verifiable reliable sources. Persons who are mentioned in order to contest the assertion that they were influenced by Nietzsche should not be included (e.g., Hitler). If there is a dispute about the propriety of naming a person in the articles, they should not be added to the infobox until after that dispute has been resolved.

This at least has the merit of getting fancruft and cult leaders out of the infobox. It does not exclude Jung and Freud as a matter of principle, although their mention in Influence and reception of Friedrich Nietzsche#Nietzsche and psychoanalysis does cast his influence upon them into doubt. I think that section would have to be fleshed out with more than "Jung offered a seminar on Nietzsche" and "Freud admired Nietzsche, but might not have studied him until late in life" before they rose to the level described above. Surely a biographer has said Nietzsche decisively influenced one or the other of them (I feel certain that I've read something to that effect regarding Jung, at least). This proposal also focuses editing on the articles, discouraging editors from correcting an omission just in the infobox. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 17:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. You might want to mention that we want secondary sources, not primary sources. — goethean ॐ 17:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

4.249.63.11

needs editing

"The 1868 riding accident" is not referenced anywhere above in the article so "the" is out of place. It is not cited to any reference either. In fact swathes of this article are not cited to any reference. Need to fix that. (talk) 22:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)