Talk:Friedrich Nietzsche

From Wikiquote

Jump to: navigation, search

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Friedrich Nietzsche article.


Contents

[edit] couple of new, longer passages

I've simply presented them, do with them as you will. [Username:DWRZ on Wikipedia]

[edit] kalki

Thank you, 68.48.66.114 for locating the source of the "Beware of those in whom the will to punish is strong." quote. I knew that I had read it in Nietzsche's works, but had lost track of where. It is one of my all time favorites by anyone, and was the one statement that prompted me to study many of Nietzsche's writings years ago. I restored the variant that you erased though, because it is the form that I am most familiar with, though I do not yet know which translation it might be from. I will try to find out sometime within the next few days. — Kalki 12:32, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Hello, I've sourced several of the "attributed" quotes and put the ones from "Antichrist" and "Twilight" into new sections. Two were from Zarathustra, I put them there. Another one had already been in Beyond Good and Evil, and one I moved to "Gay Science".

There is still no unity of form. I suggest that the quotes are sorted by book, the books chronologically (if they do not have their own page), and then:

[edit] From [book X, with link]

  • "[Original German]"
    • "[translation]"
    • [Section Title / Number]
    • [optional notes, renderings, misquotes etc.]

--Chef 00:26, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "Related"

Having a fun a bit, but I suppose we are better to remove it. Wikiquote is not a compendium of notable quotations, not a compendium of subway quotes. But I would like to wait one day for getting other editors' opinion. --Aphaia 14:51, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

It's a pretty classic quote, by now. I've seen it in my fortune database, for example. I'm for keeping it, personally. MosheZadka 16:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm also for keeping it, it's nice:) And quite "notable" I think, I saw it in other places too. Not that I think that it's a big deal one way or the other... Aphaia, if you care about info being added that is irrelevant to wikiquote, I think that the place to start is with setting a policy for external links: right now there're articles where the external links don't have anything to do with quotes, i.e. it seems like such links should be only in the wikipedia version of the article. iddo999 16:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
I think it's not really related. We should remove it. (Added by User:24.222.24.100)
In what sense is this "not really related"? It's a quote. It's about Nietzsche. I am afraid I do not see your logic. Could you perhaps explain why you think so? ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 03:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
It doesn't have anything to do with Nietzsche's philosophy. AlexSa 03:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Fortunately, the page is called "Friedrich Nietzsche", not "Nietzsche's philosophy". Since the quote is about FN, I submit that it is relevant. The only argument is whether, as an anonymous quote, it is notable. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 03:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
It just doesn't fit with the rest. It's not even exactly about Nietzsche, more about the idea of god being dead. The other problem is that there's not evidence to show it really happened, or if it was just made up by some religious preacher or something. And also, it's taking the meaning of "God is dead" in a very literal, and naive way. I still think it should be removed. Alex 04:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Wikiquote does not exclude quotes because they misunderstand the philosophy, because they are made up by religious preachers, etc. The quote is notable (because it pops up all over the place). If it is wrong, that is up to the Wikipedia article "Nietzsche's philosophy" to explain (perhaps in a section called "Common misunderstandings of Nietzsche"). Since it mentions Nietzsche by name, it certainly relates to him. Wikiquote only collects quotations -- we do not attempt to refute them. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 04:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
We have precedent for keeping well-known quotes from anonymous sources in public places, like bumper stickers (see Abortion). The quote is also a direct response to a famous Nietzsche quote, so it qualifies as a quote about Nietzsche, which is accepted practice here as long as it's clear that it's not by the person named. And as an atheist, I'm more inclined to agree with Nietzsche than the graffiti artist, but the quote still has value. My only concern is about the section title. It should probably be something like "Quotes about Nietzsche" to follow existing practice. "Related" is too vague and subject to abuse. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

My opinion is near to AlexSa, those quotes have no relevant to the famous quote "Der Gott is tot" at least in its philosophical meaning ... if you have read once this part (iirc it is a fragment of Gala Science), so we can say "they have no relation to Friedrich Nietzsche", that is, "Philosophie Nietzsches". And parodies are surely based on that phrase, it isn't related to "Nietzshe", his existence and thought. Not at all. Too superflurious parodies have no relevance to the original in its meaning. The stress is not here, but successive part "We murdered him. We are the murderers of the God". Though, only a rhetorical aspect was borrowed.

Shortly it is related to a quote in a rhetorical sense, but not relevant to its content in my view. Therefore we can't say it is related or relevant to the original author. Parodies don't mentioen to Nietsche. They can't be "related quotes" in the meaning of "quotes on someone".

My proposal is to create a separate page and link it and this page to each other. Perhaps "Gott ist tot" has a link to it with a remark "this phrase is very known and parodied by many people including anonymous". But I strongly oppose to keep it as a section of this page. It is not related to Nietzsche himself at all. --Aphaia 04:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

The quote is "'Nietzsche is dead.' — God". It's clearly meant to refer to Friedrich Nietzsche the 19th-century famous German philosopher, not George Nietzsche of West Hollywood, CA, USA. It's a response to Nietzsche's parallel quote "God is dead". It's a parodying criticism of Nietzsche. How can one possibly claim that it's not about Nietzsche? I feel like we're doing a Clintonesque redefinition of what "about" means. We can argue the appropriateness of non-Nietzsche-originated quotes in a Nietzsche article, we can argue about the appropriateness of graffiti quotes, however well-known, but surely we don't need to start redefining the English language to avoid including quotes we don't like. Am I missing some other motive here? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
I am not sure what is the motivation here. This is a popular, anonymous quote about Nietzsche. Even if it was not a parody of something he said, it would still be relevant here -- many pages have sections of "Quotes about person", with various quotation mentioning the person. Regarding Aphaia's and Alex's opinions that this quote stems from a misunderstanding of Nietzche -- even if so, that does not make the quote less relevant (popular misunderstandings are certainly notable) -- I think philosophical debates do not belong on wikiquote, but if anyone would like to argue the point with me, my lj seems like a more appropriate forum. Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Sorry for my misunderstanding, I forget this section has only one quote. But still I don't think it as "about Nietzsche" quote, and still a palody. It isn't same other critisism, like Leo Torstoy's "Nietzsche is insane". (See his page). My point is still on that "it is not related to Nietzsche". Because there is only one quote, I think it is not a good idea to give it a separate page. Perhaps "derivative" would be better than "related" in my opinion. --Aphaia 08:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't think it's a big deal, but the reasoning behind putting this on the page somehow makes me feel we should put all the jokes about, say, G.W Bush on his related page because they're well known, they're about Bush, and they're anonymous. Alex 01:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
No need to include jokes about GWB, his own words are funny enough:) But as a general principle, if a joke about someone is notable, it might be a good idea to include it. Though I would say that the GWB case is different from the Nietzsche case, because it's a 'current event', i.e. it's not a good idea to decide what is supposed to be notable with regard to someone who gives us new material each day, as opposed to someone like Nietzsche where his entire work is already known, and opinions on him should be quite stable. I agree with MosheZadka and Jeffq that even if this quote about Nietzsche is a result of a total misunderstanding of his writing, it doesn't follow that it shouldn't be included - in fact quite the opposite... As for the title of the section, how about "parody" instead of "related"? iddo999 08:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
I've already exceeded my interest in this article (which I only got involved with in order to resolve a link from Firefly that Jeandré added), so I'll present parting comments. I prefer a general but unambiguous standard like "Quotes about Nietzsche" (or equivalent) to prevent multiple categories of quotes about, not from, Nietzsche. That's independent of whether we decide to keep the quote. (Of course, if the quote goes, the section can be left out unless and until another one is to be added.) Have fun. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Nietzsche isn't dead ("One has to pay dearly for immortality; one has to die several times while one is still alive." "The aphorism in which I am the first master among germans, are the forms of 'eternity'; my ambition is to say in ten sentences what everyone else says in a book - what everyone else does not say in a book."), so it's inaccurate, although, no less (f/p)unny. {Phoenixdolphin 16:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)}

[edit] I am not man, I'm dynamite

I've seen this attributed to Nietzche, but I don't see it here. Did he actually say this?

Yes he said this.

I know my fate. One day my name will be associated with the memory of something tremendous--a crisis without equal on earth, the most profound collision of conscience, a decision that was conjured up against everything that had been believed, demanded, hallowed so far. I am no man, I am dynamite.-- (Ecce Homo, "Why I am a Destiny", 1).

[edit] Bogus or Genuine Nietzsche?

I'd like to see if anyone knows anything about a supposed quotation from Nietzsche. It is as follows: "What else is love but understanding and rejoicing in the fact that another person lives, acts, and experiences otherwise than we do…?" I've seen this on several quotation sites, including the Quotations Page[1], but none of them give a source. None of the pages I've seen that are specifically dedicated to Nietzsche mention this quotation at all. It sounds rather like his aphoristic style, but on the other hand it seems more positive about love than he typically is. Anyone know if this is bogus or not, and if not, where is it from? --turmarion 20:52 19 October 06


It's from Human, All Too Human. Aphorism 75 "Love and Duality". The beginning of it can be viewed on Google Books in the Hollingdale translation, page 229"

[edit] Does anyone have a translation for this?

“Gott ist eine faustgrobe Antwort, eine Undelikatesse gegen uns Denker, im Grunde sogar bloß ein faustgrobes Verbot an uns: ihr sollt nicht denken!” As a native German speaker, I consider this quote from Ecce homo characteristic for Nietzsche’s linguistic wit. — 84.150.210.160 11:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


Um, I'd translate that as (and I'm taking a bit of poetic liberty in my translation) "God is a strongfisted answer, an undelicacy contrary to out sages, to all intents and purposes a forbiddance against ourselves: you should not think!" Is that about in line with how you translate it? If so, I'd agree, it is very characteristic of his wit.

On another note, I'm making a slight edit to the "Große Drache" bit from Also Sprach Zarathustra. "ich will" means "I want", not "I will".

—This unsigned comment is by 70.174.177.80 (talk • contribs) .
The translations we prefer to use are standard published ones, when available. There might be modern translations which can be found using "I want" and added as variants here, but "I will" has been used in translations of this passage for at least a century. ~ Kalki 04:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
By doing that, you're essentially caving in to the fact that the translator spoke poor German and took too many liberties in his translation. As a fluent German speaker, I can tell you "ich will" would never be used to mean "I will"
Comments could be made beneath a published translation, if they are held to be of dubious quality and precision, but this is hardly the case of a single incompetent translator using "I will" for ich will but of many published translators doing it since the 19th century. ~ Kalki 01:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
As a non-native German philosophy researcher, I support Kalki's argument. In general a bad translation of significant terms may prevail - but mission of Wikiquote is not to argue or change such a custom outsides of academia, rather to collect what people think the majority at that time. You may find a comment from reliable sources which support your argument and are welcome to add such a comment to its remark, but arguments which has never been supported by a printed material has no place here on Wikiquote when the opposite side prevail on printed and widely spreading arguments. --Aphaia 07:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I really had been puzzled as to why this was being called a poor translation, as it seemed clear enough to me, but looking at the objections again, I think the assessment of it as an error derives from being over-constrained with the use of the English word "will" — using it only in the sense of "I will do it" — rather in the sense which here applies, which indicates the presence of "will" in relation to desires and determination as in the statement "I will it to be so." ~ Kalki 17:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Please note my comment is not to aim to this particular case. I just point out another ring for the struggles of fittest terminology. --Aphaia 13:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why The pictures

Most of these pictures are inappropriate and distracting, they should be reduced in number.

  • I think they're used for people who are just fast looking over the page, to catch attention. Although I'd say that the pictures of Nietzsche when he's dehabilitated aren't very flattering. Of course one could say they make him more human, but could it be enough with one of them?
  • Personally I don't mind to remove those images. Some images, like an Greek amphitheater or portraits of people around him may be useful, but I don't think his thought need to be largely illustrated. He may even be opposed to such an romantic approach. --Aphaia 10:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Shouldn't wikipedia be for the people? And people might not have it so easy in taking in his quotes. And didn't he want to speak to the people? Any good newspaper article, no matter how boring, has an illustration. Might my fontalized [2] quotes be better? One could make them 1-bit (just straight black and white), that might not distract so much. Oh and [Thus Spake Zarathustra] has been illustrated already.
I am not sure I agree with you here. There are many good articles unillustrated in magazines and newspapers. You may find many artilces without any illustrations or photos in New York Times ... and for scholastic materials, even illustration is rarely found. Illustration is only justified if they are relevant to the topics I think. And in regard with NPOV, we are better to have an image which relevance is in dispute, I think.--Aphaia 04:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Awww. How cute, that you disagree. You're wrong. The pictures work beautifully, and it's a miracle that a stringent uselessness such as yourself hasn't recklessly removed them thus far. The beauty synchronizes perfectly to the synonymous beauty of the quote. If one here is grossly inappropriate, then maybe spend, or should I say waste, your time complaining about it here and getting it removed. As it is, they work winningly.

24.177.120.179 08:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Art and intoxication

"For art to exist, for any sort of aesthetic activity to exist, a certain physiological precondition is indispensable: intoxication."

This is widely attributed to Nietzsche, but it's not on Wikiquote and there doesn't seem to be any real information on it. If someone could find the original German text or put it into some context, that would be great. 72.154.101.223 10:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

D'oh. An article on JSTOR indicates that it's from Twilight of the Idols. 72.154.101.223 10:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How about 7 quotes per book...

...with the rest on separate pages, with a predisposition for short quotes? And maybe 1 quote max per part (of the book)? {Phoenixdolphin 09:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)}

I have no clue of your proposal. Why do we need such (mechanical) restrictions? --Aphaia 10:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok 1 quote per part might be a little dumb, but Thus Spake Zarathustra has already been broken up (and some others), so I'm wondering why not the others should be as well. And why? Because most people won't read so much.

[edit] Bolded quotes

Practically every quote on this page is bolded, which defeats the purpose of bolding and also makes the page very difficult to read! --98.223.210.154 05:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No. The boldness synchronizes perfectly, as it is, (congratulations to whomever spent time on it) with what should be understood as the more important sections of quote here.

24.177.120.179 09:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the bolding. ImperfectlyInformed 00:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nietzsche or Kipling?

No price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.

This is a portion of a quote which has been attributed to both authors. Does it actually derive from either one? If it's Nietzsche, surely it must be found in Der Wille zur Macht, but I can't find it there. --76.202.226.195 21:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a Kipling quotation falsely attributed to Nietzsche. Though the N attribution is present in many published texts, I can't find any references to a specific N work, nor can I find it in N.207.151.242.20 05:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Noting the translator

All these quotes need to have their translators noted. This is quite serious. ImperfectlyInformed 00:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Hope is the worst of evils, for it prolongs the torments of man."

This is an interesting quote but I don't know the source. 24.118.48.49 03:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "become who you are"

There are of course many segments of Nietzsche where the original German is somewhat vague. Having read over one particular quote "Du sollst der werden, der du bist" several times both with my own knowledge of German and with the aid of several German dictionaries and grammar guides originally meant to curb my scepticism, I have concluded that the translation "You shalt become the person you are" is not optimum. I have therefore altered it to "You should become the one you are".

I am absolutely certain the removal of "the person" is proper; I have been debating switching "shalt" and "should", however, since I feel the former contains more of the quality of a conscience than the latter and captures better the spirit of the quote, but the latter is a much more accurate translation of the German without considering the context.


[edit] Abyss Quote

"If you stare into the Abyss long enough the Abyss stares back at you." <-- Is this him? Why is it nowhere to be found on the wiki? -- Earthsprite

That's from Twilight of the Idols, aphorism 8. 70.186.172.214 13:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
It's listed on the page for Beyond Good and Evil, as Aphorism 146 from that work. The translation given on that page is: "He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you." 69.115.194.45 16:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Crossbowman

Down with the quote that starts "Whereas a man of action," there's a picture of a crossbowman. Why? I hesitate to remove it outright since there might be some reason it fits there, but can anyone confirm that there is? If not, we ought to take it out since it doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense where it is.--72.130.131.28 05:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Friedrich_Nietzsche"