Talk:Beyond Good and Evil
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Beyond Good and Evil article.|
|WikiProject Books||(Rated Stub-class)|
|WikiProject Philosophy||(Rated Stub-class, High-importance)|
The sentence, "He is possibly one of the easiest philosophers to read, but is most definitely one of the hardest to interpret," seems out of place in an Encyclopedia. It is a very obviously opinionated statement. If this is indeed the general consensus in the philosophical community, then it should be phrased as such. If this is simply the opinion of the author, then it should be removed. Daniel S. Clouser 15:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I've added an outline of the book: given how systematically Nietzsche presents his arguments in Beyond Good and Evil, this should also be a good way for organizing any kind of summary of those arguments in the future -- if anyone feels brave enough to make such an attempt.
--Todeswalzer | Talk 21:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Skomorokh recently tagged this page for containing original research, however, he/she failed to properly explain his/her concerns on this talk page. I've accordingly removed the tag from the article. --Todeswalzer|Talk 15:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Possibly add more under notes? Surely there should be some work by Kaufmann listed that isn't a translation. There is also only a single footnote in the entire article. At the very least, here are some more sources.
Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist, Walter Kaufmann ISBN: 9780691019833
Kaufmann, W. (----) Nietzsche Between Homer and Sartre: Five Treatments of the Orestes Story. Revue Internationale de Philosophie; 18: 50-73.
Kaufmann, W. (1948) Nietzsche's Admiration for Socrates. Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 9, No. 4, (Oct., 1948), pp. 472-491
Maxxx12345 (talk) 13:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Trivia be gone
I have again deleted the pointless trivia. For the record, there is no need to discuss such a deletion before making it. Trivia is, by definition, non notable and has no place on wikipedia. What I have done is to create a page Cultural References to Friedrich Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil and have added all the trivia there, and included a cross reference in the article - the page is non-notable, but it serves the purpose of keeping trivia-junkies happy, and people like me who cannot bear trivia in otherwise perfectly sensible articles are happy too. Everyone wins. ElectricRay 09:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- ElectricRay: As you are surely aware, Wikipedia can only work by consensus, and therefore some members of the WP community may find your unilateral removal of material from this page as offensive. Please do not feel that you can remove trivia sections from articles without discussion just because you personally do not view the material contained therein to be important.
- With regard to the material itself: editors working on a number of different articles have found it prudent to move trivia sections to their own separate page, but only in cases where those sections either distract from the rest of the content of the article or where they are long enough to warrant such a move. (Consider the examples of Sherlock Holmes, A Clockwork Orange, or In the Hall of the Mountain King. This case is hardly comparable.) Because neither the article on the whole nor the trivia section now under discussion are very lengthy, I think that it is reasonable to have it moved back. --Todeswalzer|Talk 21:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't delete the trivia section because it is lengthy, but because it is stupid. Who honestly gives a damn whether Kevin Kline's character in A Fish Called Wanda was reading this book on screen? In what sense is that even remotely useful pertinent or notable information about Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil?
- Another of Wikipedia's founding principle is BE BOLD. I didn't need to ask your permission or get consensus to remove dreck from an otherwise perfectly sensible article. If you're offended, that's your problem - but for heaven's sake don't pretend to speak on behalf of imaginary "members of the Wikipedia Community".
- In any case life is too short to waste on pissing matches like this, so go right ahead and merge the trivia back in, if that's what you want to do, and give yourself a star for your contribution to the undoubted improvement of Wikipedia by having done so. ElectricRay 21:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- IMHO it would be a good thing to broaden the scope of Cultural References to Friedrich Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil and just have an article Cultural references to Friedrich Nietzsche, where the references to metal bands' songs and sightings in films etc could be removed from pages such as God is dead. Because they spring up like weeds in otherwise worthwhile articles. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 22:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- ElectricRay: There's absolutely no reason for you to be even nearly as hostile as you are, and frankly it doesn't make any sense. I don't make and haven't made any pretence to be any kind of authority on Wikipedia, so of course you needn't ask for my "permission" to do anything to an article. However, if another editor doesn't understand or doesn't agree with a recent edit you've made, it is wholly unreasonable for you to post a comment such as the one above stating that you don't need to be accountable to anyone for what you do on Wikipedia and that somehow you are above the rest of us. You are not Wikipedia's appointed censor, and you cannot simply remove material from articles at a whim. As I civily pointed out in my previous comment, a number of other articles make use of similar sections, and many of them are prominent articles on Wikipedia. If the best argument you have for removing the trivia section is that you think "it's stupid", then, well, that just isn't a very good argument.
- Squiddy: I think your suggestion is reasonable enough, and it may be a good idea to float it over at some of the more well-developed articles discussing Nietzsche and his works. --Todeswalzer|Talk 12:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Dude, I am an editor, just like you. Editors are allowed to edit. Deleting stuff I think is inappropriate is called "editing", not censoring. I never said I was above anyone, and I never said I wasn't accountable to anyone. I deleted the trivia because it is not notable, suitable, or interesting material in the context of an article about this book. I made that point repeatedly. Except where the removal is vandalism - and here it simply was not, I am afraid I can "remove material from articles at a whim". You can reinsert it, also at a whim, if you disagree. That is your prerogative, as an Editor. I would remark that you have so far failed to give any basis for including this information. Be that as it may, I don't "do" edit wars, so if you reinstate it, I'll leave it. Go for your life. But bear in mind, by doing so, you are sponsoring the addition of needless trivia to the Encyclopaedia. Capisce? ElectricRay 16:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- If you would just settle down for a minute and listen to what I'm saying, my only point is that you should not be removing entire sections of an article -- especially when it's as short as this one -- without at least condescending to explain to the rest of the editors involved in the page your rationale for doing so. That's why Wikipedia has talk pages. Capisce? --Todeswalzer|Talk 16:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I'm settled, honey. It isn't a question of length, or whether it's a whole section, a sentence or a phrase. All of the content I removed was, as I have condescended to explain, at least four times now, trivia. It was needless, meaningless rubbish adding no substantive content to the topic of the article. It fails to meet Wikipedia's standards for notability, relevance, or interest. Are you disputing this? You don't seem to have be addressing that question: you seem simply to have taken umbrage that I have deleted a whole section. Get over it. Just because the article is short, doesn't mean it should be padded out with sections filled with dreck. Especially because it is short it shouldn't be padded out with dreck. Imagine if the section said "Nietzsche's favourite chocolates" - would you have objected to me deleting that? Why would "pop culture references to the book" - of which there are assured to be thousands, none more or less interesting than the ones actually cited - be any different? ElectricRay 21:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:BeyondGoodandEvil.jpg
Image:BeyondGoodandEvil.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 03:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Beyond good and evil is well know for one quote: He who fights monsters, should watch that he himself does not become the monster. As you gaze into an abyss the abyss gazes into you.
Now I know that isn't the full version but the full quote should be included in the first part of the article, just throwing it out there, not a pro' so i guess its up to you guys.
Punctuation goes inside of quotation marks, not outside (see Quotation_mark#Punctuation). I found this excruciatingly distracting when attempting to read this article. There are people who disagree, and call the presentation used here,
"logical." Corrected: "logical". My opinion: punctuation is convention. Unconventional usage distracts from the message. Dclo (talk) 03:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- So what do you do with parentheses? "(Put them in quotation marks like this?)", even if the brackets weren't in the original? What about dashes? What about if you're clarifying something someone stated, and would like to know why a person thinks that something is "distracting?" (Really? I thought you sounded more sure of yourself than that.)
- In any case, I would hardly call the use of British practises -- when writing in English, that is, the language that originated from the British -- to be "unconventional". I'm sorry if you find the non-American standard to be "excruciatingly distracting", but Wikipedia's guidelines clearly indicate that "No variety is more correct than the others", so long as it is consistent thoughout the article. (Oh, I've also taken the liberty of correcting, in the colour red, your above illogical, though pardonable, punctuation offence -- you know, for consistency.) --Todeswalzer|Talk 02:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Nietzsche & women
Nietzsche's introduction begins: "If truth were a woman; what then?" This book is known for having supposedly "chauvinistic" aphorisms on women
("If you go to woman, don't forget your whip"). Now, I was wondering if the first sentence of the introduction means that N. is setting up "woman" to be used as an analogy for "truth" - he'd be suggesting that man's relation to truth is very similar to 19th-century man's relation to woman. It seems abstruse enough to be something Nietzsche would do - hide his true meaning behind an analogy.
Has anyone seen any scholarship that discusses this? I don't remember if I got this idea from reading Kaufmann or Danto, or somewhere else. And, if there is some scholarship addressing this, would it be a good idea to write a section on it? I'd write the section if someone knows of the scholarship. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, part of the problem would be that there is no scholarly consensus on what Nietzsche means here, whether that meaning is sustained throughout the book, etc. It is the sort of thing that every scholar would have to address, however. (Incidentally, the bit about the whip is from Thus Spoke Zarathustra). RJC Talk Contribs 15:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Funny, I don't think I've even read that one. Oh well - all the other aphorisms on women, then. I was reading in the general Nietzsche article that some scholars have, indeed, tried to address this issue, so maybe I'll just leave it. That info will probably slowly migrate over into this article as time passes, anyway. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
N.'s metaphor was fully explained by N. and does not require scholarly interpretation. Dogmatists have been too forceful in their claim that they have found truth, but truth has evaded them. This is compared with a clumsy man's forceful approach to a woman, who is repelled by his manner.Lestrade (talk) 14:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)Lestrade
Very funny but ...
The lead contains the following sentence which sounds rather like a comedy line ...
|“||It takes up and expands on the ideas of his previous work, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, replacing that work's sunny and life-affirming character with a highly critical, polemical approach.||”|
... Is describing Thus Spoke Zarathustra as "sunny and life-affirming" accurate? If it is, it certainly doesn't appear written in an encyclopaedic style. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 10:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
The link in the third paragraph to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_and_evil is absurd. Nietzsche almost(?) certainly was referring to the dominant Christian Morality and not to the nonsense on that page. Heck, it doesn't even mention Christianity on that page. Sigh. I suppose I should be over there complaining except that I don't care about what wikipedia says about "good and evil". But, I do care about Nietzsche. Yes yes, the page does talk about the Greeks but that's still not what's up with this book. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 08:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Fine. Just go and delete the link. Be bold! Just make sure that you include an explanation for your change in your edit summary so that we all know why you made the change. Best regards and good editing! --PLUMBAGO 08:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
How to remove a tautology?
It is in the following sentence: A weak thirst for possession implies a weak will to power and ignorance of it because it does not produce a drive for self knowledge. This sentece says in other words "not knowledge because isn't possible knowledge" or more precisely "the same thing, which I don't know should provide me with means for knowledge." It appears tautological. Has anybody any suggestion how to remove this tautoloy? Chomsky (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
The fact that "the same thing, which I don't know should provide me with means for knowledge" is a property of self knowledge. The aforesaid sentence may appear tautological because the subject of knowledge is wrongly the will to power. It can be changed to "self" and tautological sound disapears. Chomsky (talk) 17:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Wow, that entire discussion is bad. It is misleading, unreadable, and concludes with original research:
- In one of the central aphorisms (§194) in Beyond Good and Evil and the chapter of "Natural History of Morals" he describes the unrefined and refined types of possession. Nietzsche points that you can see the differences among men based on what they count as really having. Only the man with the strongest thirst for possession is capable of refined possession because it is based on knowledge and self knowledge and therefore has a stronger will to power. A weak thirst for possession implies a weak will to power and ignorance of it because it does not produce a drive for self knowledge. 'Modern' morality (transformed slave morality) finds its psychological origins in a "kind of slavery" of unrefined parental possession.
- How about we move this to the end of the section, after the idea of "ladders" has already been broached, and say something like:
- Nietzsche argues that noble and base are distinguished by more than what they value as "good." Even where there is agreement over what is good, what men consider a sufficient sign of possessing what is good differs (§194). Nietzsche describes love as the desire to possess a woman. The most unrefined form of the desire is also the most readily identifiable as a desire to possess another: control over the woman's body. A subtler desire to possess her wants her soul, as well, and thus wants her to be willing to sacrifice herself for her lover. Nietzsche describes this as a more complete possession. A still more refined desire to possess her prompts a concern that she might be willing to sacrifice what she desires for a mistaken image of her lover. This leads some lovers to want their women to know them deep down so that their sacrifice really is a sacrifice for them. A similar rank-ordering applies to statesmen, the less refined not caring whether they attain power by fraud, the more refined not taking pleasure in the people's love unless they love the statesman for who he really is. In both cases, the more spiritualized form of the desire to possess also demands one possess what is good more completely.
- RJC TalkContribs 17:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Please, do it yourself, though I am not sure, if it is a transcription of the original Nietzsche's ideas in §194, but it doesn't already sound tautologicaly. Thank you. Chomsky (talk) 09:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I must admit, that your transcription of the Nietzsche's original text is very good. It made possible for me to understand even the text in my mother tongue. But I don't understand to your instruction above this transcription and therefore I can't incorporate
it this transcription into the article. Forgive me. Thank you. Chomsky (talk) 09:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)