Talk:Friedrich Nietzsche

From Wikiquote
Jump to: navigation, search

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


couple of new, longer passages[edit]

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

"Beware of those..."[edit]

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:

From [book X, with link][edit]

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

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

"Related"[edit]

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)}

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

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).

Bogus or Genuine Nietzsche?[edit]

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"

Does anyone have a translation for this?[edit]

“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 (talkcontribs) .
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)

Why The pictures[edit]

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)

Art and intoxication[edit]

"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)

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

...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.

Bolded quotes[edit]

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)

Nietzsche or Kipling?[edit]

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)


The quote it's actually from Kipling. It comes from an interview piece by Arthur Gordon, "Interview with an Immortal", Reader’s Digest, 1935. The 1967 Kipling Society journal reprints it as "Six Hours with Rudyard Kipling". It quotes Kipling as saying Here the link: http://www.johnradcliffe.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/textfiles/KJ162.txt

Noting the translator[edit]

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

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

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

"become who you are"[edit]

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.


Abyss Quote[edit]

"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)

Crossbowman[edit]

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)

Unsourced[edit]

Move to Talk pending sourcing per current practice (Wikiquote:Limits on quotations#Sourced vs. unsourced quotes). Gordonofcartoon 15:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire.
    • From a letter to his sister [at the age of 20].
  • The future influences the present just as much as the past.
  • [Linguistic Danger to Spiritual Freedom.-] Every word is a prejudice. (The Wanderer and his Shadow, sec. 55)
  • The greatest events are not our loudest hours, but rather our most quiet.
  • Ah, women. They make the highs higher and the lows more frequent. (Beyond Good and Evil)
  • A woman may very well form a friendship with a man, but for this to endure, it must be assisted by a little physical antipathy. (Human, all too human, woman and child, aphorism #390)
  • At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. (Thus Spoke Zarathustra)
  • For out of fear and need each religion is born, creeping into existence on the byways of reason.
  • I cannot believe in a God who wants to be praised all the time.
  • In heaven all the interesting people are missing.
    • From the Nachlaß, KSA 13: 11[153]
    • Original context: Die Kirche hat deutsche Kaiser auf Grund ihrer Laster in Bann getan: als ob ein Mönch oder Priester über das mitreden dürfte, was ein Friedrich der Zweite von sich fordern darf. Ein Don Juan wird in die Hölle geschickt: das ist sehr naiv. Hat man bemerkt, daß im Himmel alle interessanten Menschen fehlen?
    • Translated: The Church has excommunicated German emperors because of their vices: As if a monk or a priest had a say in what someone like Friedrich II [the Staufer, 1194-1250] may demand of himself. A Don Juan is sent to hell: that is very naïve. Is it noticed that in Heaven all the interesting people are missing?
  • After the old god has been assassinated, I am ready to rule the world.
  • Swallow your poison, for you need it badly.
  • Blessed are the forgetful, for they get the best of even their blunders. chapter 7 of Beyond good and evil (BGE 7.217) not translated by Kaufmann
  • What is bad? But I have already answered: all that proceeds from weakness, from envy, from revenge.—The anarchist and the Christian have the same ancestry... (~The Antichrist, 57)
  • We have art in order not to die of the truth. ("We possess art lest we perish of the truth." ~Nietzsche's notebook from the Spring-Summer of 1888, 16 [40])
  • Your pride can't hurt me — I have no beliefs!
  • No price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.
  • He who would learn to fly one day must first learn to stand and walk and run and climb and dance; one cannot fly into flying. (Thus Spoke Zarathustra)
  • People demand freedom only when they have no power.
  • He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how.
    • Frankl Man's Search for Meaning uses that quote often.
  • Madness is rare in individuals, but in groups, parties, nations and ages it is the rule.
  • Many are stubborn in pursuit of the path they have chosen, few in pursuit of the goal.
  • The errors of great men are venerable because they are more fruitful than the truths of little men.
  • To predict the behavior of ordinary people in advance, you only have to assume that they will always try to escape a disagreeable situation with the smallest possible expenditure of intelligence.
  • Just now I am having all anti-Semites shot.
    • note to Overbeck (according to this)
  • And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music.
(Comment: the "insane" quote appears in this Google Books result: Rosalie Ham (2011), There Should Be More Dancing, p. 190.) --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

"In all talk there is a grain of contempt."[edit]

"We no longer have sufficiently high esteem for ourselves when we communicate. Our true experiences are not at all garrulous. They could not communicate themselves even if they tried: they lack the right words. We have already gone beyond whatever we have words for. In all talk there is a grain of contempt. Language, it seems, was invented only for what is average, medium, communicable. By speaking the speaker immediately vulgarizes himself. — Out of a morality for deaf-mutes and other philosophers." From Twilight of the Idols, http://www.handprint.com/SC/NIE/GotDamer.html

The quote on the page says it is from "Expeditions of an Untimely Man", but I found it here in Twilight of the Idols. Also, the quote on the page is only a shortened form of this whole aphorism and may lead to a misinterpretation for it is possible he is here mocking the statement "In all talk there is a grain of contempt."

"liberalism is the transformation of mankind into cattle"[edit]

Obviously a wrong quote.

Checked in Human, All Too Human, checked Menschliches, Allzumenschliches, too, and I can't find anything even close the this quote (It ain't on german wikiquote either). Also I didn't find it anywhere on the net without Nietzsche named as origin...

I think it should be moved to Misattributed

—This unsigned comment is by 86.103.233.120 (talkcontribs) .
The sourcing which had been provided seems to have been wrong. I did find the remark in the Anthony Ludovici translation of Twilight of the Idols. ~ Kalki 14:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, then it's not Human, All Too Human but Twilight if the Idols... On that one I found Liberalism: in other words, herd-animalization. (German: "Liberalismus: auf deutsch Heerden-Verthierung") This, of course, means quite the same: Liberalism turns man into a herd animal, the opposite of the Übermensch. Some kind of "Urban robot" or "human cattle" if you want it that way.

Therefore, the quote only has to be corrected such as it's source (will do that right now)


"Wenn ich mir eine Art Mensch ausdenke, die allen meinen Instinkten zuwiderläuft, so wird immer ein Deutscher daraus."[edit]

Couldn't find any english version of Ecce Homo on the net, should be somewhere in "The Case Wagner"(?) - "The problem of the musicians"(?), §4, somewhere at the beginning. My translation would be "Whenever I think of a kind of man, that runs contrary to all my insticts, it becomes a german." Does anyone have the english version of the book to confirm it?

Google Books finds the 1992 Penguin Classics edition translated by RJ Hollingdale, who renders it as: "Whenever I picture to myself a type of man that goes against all my instincts it always turns into a German". [3] Gordonofcartoon 23:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Bolding[edit]

The reason I toned down the bolding is because bolding is supposed to be used to make something stand out (not just: "this is a great quote"), but if you use it too much it won't work, and it will just be harder to read when so much is bolded.

Disputed[edit]

I'm a bit new to Wikiquotes. Is the characterization of some of the quotes as "disputed" a stylistic thing, or is it peculiar to this article? The reason why I ask is that I am a Nietzsche scholar and I know of no one who has ever discussed any of those non-quotes, i.e., there is no dispute. If this isn't a standard thing in Wikiquotes I would probably change it because it implies that these remarks are commonly misattributed to Nietzsche, but I don't think that's correct. 96.25.72.119 14:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

We do not have rigorous standards for classifying "Disputed" attributions. Ideally there should be citations to dispute in the literature, as you suggest. Some editors do this merely to indicate very weak attributions that they themselves dispute, using it as a middle ground between the generally "Attributed" and the demonstrably "Misattributed." Unfortunately, the latter approach can lead to retaining bogons from the internet that do not circulate in any venue that can be taken seriously in the first place, and ought not be dignified with a rebuttal. If you are confident that something is not attributed widely enough to be considered quotable, then you could boldly remove it, with a brief explanation. Such is the nature of crowdsourcing. ~ Ningauble 15:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Of the 3 quotes that were in that section, I have sourced one that had no citation at all to the third section of "Why I Am So Wise" of Ecce Homo, as translated in The Anti-Christ, Ecce Homo, Twilight of the Idols, and Other Writings (2005) edited by Aaron Ridley and Judith Norman, p. 77. The other two seem to have published citations, but are very dubious, because they appear so late, and neither as yet has any source of translation or original work to cite. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 15:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

inaccurate or wrong?[edit]

“We often refuse to accept an idea merely because the tone of voice in which it has been expressed is unsympathetic to us.”

I love those who do not know how to live for today[edit]

This ("I love those who do not know how to live for today") is commonly attributed to Nietzsche but I am unable to find any source. Suspect it may be some condensation of a larger phrase (like the above-mentioned "beware those in whom the urge to punish is strong"). Can anyone help? Gryphoness 09:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

  • I boogled on "live for today" and found this from Twilight of the Idols: "The West in its entirety has lost the sort of instincts that give rise to institutions, that give rise to a future: it might well be that nothing rubs its 'modern spirit' the wrong way more than this. People live for today, people live very fast, - people live very irresponsibly: and this is precisely what people call 'freedom'."
    • Thanks. After a bit more digging, I'm pretty sure it's a variant/modification of this passage from the prologue to Zarathustra: "Man is a rope stretched between the beast and the superhuman - a rope over an abyss. A dangerous crossing, a dangerous wayfaring, a dangerous looking back, a dangerous trembling and halting. What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not a goal: what is lovable in man is that he is an going-across and a down-going. I love those that do not know how to live except as down-goers, for they are the men going across." This "I love those..." is repeated many times throughout the rest of the passage, but this is the closest it gets, and I think that switching that "except as down-goers, for..." into "for today" is a pretty substantial deviation from the original intent. If anyone thinks otherwise I would love to get their thoughts. It may be related to a later statement in the same passage, "I love him who justifies the men of the future, and redeems the men of the past: for he is willing to perish by the men of the present." -- but again it's hard to get the "for today" variant expressly out of that. Gryphoness 09:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

"Overcome for me, you higher men, the little virtues, the little prudence, the sand-grain sized considerations, the detritus of swarming ants, the pitiful contentedness, the “happiness of the greatest number.”!

And despair rather than surrender. And truly, I love you for not knowing how to live today, you higher men! For this you live—best!" Thus Spoke Zarathustra: edited by Adrian Del Caro and Robert Pippin. pg. 233

All truly great thoughts are conceived by walking[edit]

Does anyone know the source of this quote? I've tried to google in parts and in german, with no results.

It comes from Twilight of the Idols (Maxims and Arrows 34). However it seems to be from a rather obscure translation or a corruption of the more common translations. "Only thoughts that are won by walking have value" (R. J Hollingdale trans.), "Only thoughts that are reached by walking have value" (Walter Kaufmann trans.), "Only thoughts won by walking are valuable" (Thomas Common trans.)

There is a translation by Judith Norman and another by Richard Polt. Perhaps it comes from one of those. Or perhaps from a commentator.

One might say "only quotes that are properly referenced have any value." This is not because we need to check for accuracy (how accurate can a German to English translation be anyway?), rather we need to find the context of the quote to get something from it.

Is this actually Nietzsche?[edit]

I've seen "The most instructive experiences are those of everyday life" all over the place but can't find what book or essay it's from? Is this actually Nietzsche or is it bogus? If it is him where is it from/what is the context?

Can someone please give me a poetic trancelation[edit]

In German (the original quotation ) those who were seen dancing ,thought to be insane by the ones who could not hear the music Nitcheze —This unsigned comment is by 86.180.155.224 (talkcontribs) .

In German it would be: "Und die, die tanzten, wurden für verrückt erklärt von denen, die die Musik nicht hören konnten." Nietzsche never said that, though. ~ DanielTom (talk) 10:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Ecce Homo, What doesn't kill him...[edit]

Someone claims there is a popular paraphrase of that, but the fact is that Nietzsche wrote much earlier in one of his books (I forget which), "From life's school of war: that which does not kill me, makes me stronger." So it's not a paraphrase that people often quote, it simply originates in a different book than Ecce Homo. Mctps (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The book you're referring to is Twilight of the Idols (1888). "Out of life's school of war: What does not destroy me, makes me stronger" is the #8 aphorism of its first chapter "Maxims and Arrows" (Spriiche und Pfeile). ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Images stripped out for Google Day[edit]

Today the Google doodle points at dear old Frederich - In light of that I thought it would be good if for just one day his quotation page looked professional, and so I've stripped out every one of the ridiculous "illustrative images" that doubtless will be back to mar the page in time, but just for today let it be possible to read the page - WHICH IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO DO WITH THE IMAGES IN PLACE!

I want to be very clear here - this is not a harmless pecadilo: the profusion of images makes the mobile version of this site entirely unreadable, and completely defeats the purpose of this site.

(note:retroactively eddited for tone)

Jmackaerospace (talk) 03:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Buber's views of Nietzsche[edit]

I'd like to discuss the removal of Buber's views of Nietzsche from the "Quotes About Nietzsche" section. Buber is specifically criticizing Nietzsche's doctrine, and is only incidentally discussing greatness. What was the motivation for removing the quote? Thanks for your reply ~ User:peter1c

I agree that the Martin Buber quote should be restored here, and will presently do that, but that it also belongs on the Greatness page, and have restored it there as well. ~ Kalki·· 17:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm the one who removed it. My reasoning was that, frex, Richard Dawkins invented the concept of memes, but that doesn't mean every quote about memes (that doesn't refer to Dawkins) belongs in Richard Dawkins#Quotes about Dawkins, simply because they're about "his idea". But if Kalki thinks otherwise, perhaps I made the wrong call. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 19:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
In the case of Nietzsche and the concept of "The Will to Power" — these are so closely identified historically as to be nearly inseparable, and agree with the idea that even a critique of the concept that doesn't mention his name specifically is addressing Nietzsche as well as various historical trends which diverged from his inspired thoughts and ideas. ~ Kalki·· 19:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC) + tweak

“No more fiction for us: we calculate; but that we may calculate, we had to make fiction first.”[edit]

I have been trying to determine the original source of this statement. It is attributed to "Nietzsche" in a chapter epigram in Tobias Dantzig’s Number, the Language of Science (fourth edition, Doubleday, NY, 1954) p 141. It has become popular on quotation web sites, usually without attribution. I cannot find any credible primary source in Nietzsche's publications. Dantzig did not provide any citations for his other epigrams, but as a respected academic probably would not have invented them. He was probably a reader of German and may have provided his own translation from an original text.

I queried Ian Ellis (Today in Science History) about this, and here's what he said: "I notice that in new edition of Gaither's Dictionary of Scientific Quotations C. C. Gaither, A. E. Cavazos-Gaither (which diligently gives attributions) the authors must have been stumped: they cite the same 1954 book that you did, Tobias Dantzig’s Number, the Language of Science, Chap 8, p. 139. Of course quote this is a translation. Pity the original German isn't available to search for on Google. I've taken a quick stab using Google books and the JSTOR journal database, and come up empty-handed."

If anyone can help to solve this puzzle, please do.Atester (talk)

You are correct, this quote originated with this attribution in Dantizig's Number, the Language of Science, which reads:
"No more fiction for us: we calculate; but that we may calculate, we had to make fiction first."—Nietzsche
The question is, where did Dantizig get this idea from? What is Nietzsche's original quotation? I think the answer might be in the following passage, taken from his Will to Power
"Gegen das physikalische Atom. – Um die Welt zu begreifen, müssen wir sie berechnen können; um sie berechnen zu können, müssen wir constante Ursachen haben; weil wir in der Wirklichkeit keine solchen constanten Ursachen finden, erdichten wir uns welche – die Atome. Dies ist die Herkunft der Atomistik." [in German ]
Here Nietzsche is saying, that for us to be able to understand the world, we must be able to calculate it, and this is only possible if there are "permanent causes"—but since in reality "permanent causes" do not exist, we must invent them, or imagine them. Now, this seems to me to be identical, at least in spirit, to the quote attributed to Nietzsche by Dantizig. A more professional translation of Nietzsche's afore-cited words can be found here:
Against the physical atom.—In order to understand the world, we must be able to reckon it up; in order to be able to reckon it up, we must be aware of constant causes; but since we find no such constant causes in reality, we invent them for ourselves and call them atoms. [trans. Ludovici (1910)]
The "fiction" referred to in the first quotation (attribution by Dantizig) thus seems to be, in the original, the concept of the "atom", though the principle be universal. (Did I solve the puzzle?) ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but it certainly seems you've found the original source. Dantzig appears to have taken poetic license to make this paradox clear and memorable. I'm satisfied that the original language is as you suggest and will add this to the main page, unless there are objections. Thank you - this has been bugging me for years! Atester (talk)

Mathematics ...[edit]

"Mathematics would certainly have not come into existence if one had known from the beginning that there was in nature no exactly straight line, no actual circle, no absolute magnitude.", did Nietzsche actually say this, i cant seem to find any sources online.

As quoted in The Puzzle Instinct : The Meaning of Puzzles in Human Life‎ (2004) by Marcel Danesi, p. 71 from Human All-Too-Human, but i cant find the original nietzsche source....if someone can get back to me id appreciate that! —This unsigned comment is by Swahili (talkcontribs) .

It is from Nietzsche's Human All-Too-Human, I., 11—
... Mathematik, welche gewiss nicht entstanden wäre, wenn man von Anfang an gewusst hätte, dass es in der Natur keine exact gerade Linie, keinen wirklichen Kreis, kein absolutes Grössenmaass gebe.
Helen Zimmern's translation: "Mathematics [...] would certainly not have arisen if it had been known from the beginning that in Nature there are no exactly straight lines, no real circle, no absolute standard of size." See here. Cheers, DanielTom (talk) 18:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC)