|WikiProject Philosophy||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
Left-wing Corruption of Nietzsche
The corruption of Nietzsche's philosophy in the Wikipedia articles by radical-left activists is insane. What better way to neutralize one's enemy than to appropriate, weaken, soften and distort him? The German Rudiger Safranski, at least, has the balls to speak the truth in a world gone mad with doctrinaire socialistic political correctness:
"According to Nietzsche, nature produces the weak and the strong, the advantaged and disadvantaged. There is no benevolent providence and no equitable distribution of chances to get ahead in life. Before this backdrop, morality can be defined as an attempt to even out the 'injustice' of nature and create counterbalances. The power of natural destinies needs to be broken. In Nietzsche's view, Christianity represented an absolutely brilliant attempt to accomplish this aim ... Nietzsche greatly admired the power of Christianity to set values, but he was not grateful to it, because its consideration for the weak and the morality of evening things out impeded the progress and development of a higher stage of mankind.
Nietzsche could envision this higher stage of mankind only as a culmination of culture in its 'peaks of rapture,' which is to say in successful individuals and achievements. The will to power unleashes the dynamics of culmination, but it is also the will to power that forms a moral alliance on the side of the weak. This alliance works at cross-purposes with the goal of culmination and ultimately, in Nietzsche's view, leads to widespread equalization and degeneration. As a modern version of the 'Christian theory of morality,' this alliance forms the backbone of democracy and socialism. Nietzsche adamantly opposed all such movements. For him, the meaning of world history was not happiness and prosperity of the greatest possible number but individual manifestations of success in life. The culture of political and social democracy was a concern of the 'last people,' whom he disparaged. He threw overboard the state-sponsored ethics of the common welfare because he regarded such ethics as an impediment to the self-configuration of great individuals. If, however, the great personalities were to vanish, the only remaining significance of history would be lost in the process. By defending the residual significance of history, Nietzsche assailed democracy and declared what mattered was 'delaying the complete appeasement of the democratic herd-animal'(11,587; WP 125) ... Nietzsche opted against democratic life organized according to the principle of welfare. For him, a world of that sort would signal the triumph of the human herd animal...
If we are content to regard this highly personal philosophy and these maneuvers of self-configuration with fascination and perhaps even admiration, but are not willing to abandon the idea of democracy and justice, it is likely that Nietzsche would have accused us of feeble compromise, indecisiveness, and epitomizing the ominous 'blinking' of the 'last men.'" Safranski, Rudiger (trans. Shelley Frisch), Nietzsche: A Philosophical Biography, Norton, 2002, pp. 296-298. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 14:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
After Nietzsche quote.
After the quote by Nietzsche it cites Kaufman's edition of "The Will To Power" as (Nietzsche 532-533). Perhaps it should mention that those are the pages of the book, and not the various sections/aphorisms that make up the book. A small inconsequential thing, but I was struggling to find the quote. Since the book index uses the numbered sections, not page numbers. So it would help a certain minority out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 07:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for noticing that, I've made the change. You don't need anyone's permission to edit Wikipedia articles, so if you see something that needs correction in future, go ahead and be bold! Skomorokh 12:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Not a word about Schopenhauer. The fourth book of The World as Will and Representation, Volume I, had a stupendous effect on Nietzsche. He reacted to Schopenhauer's denial of the will–to–live throughout his life, even unto the last day of his sanity. It was Schopenhauer's denial that brought forth Nietzsche's affirmation. It seems to me that very few people are familiar with Schopenhauer's writings, and that includes professional philosophers, including those who have an interest in Nietzsche. Anyone who has read Schopenhauer will recognize the influence of his thoughts on Nietzsche. Since there is no mention of influence, it can be assumed that there has been no reading.Lestrade (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Lestrade
- Lestrade you are right about Schopenhauer's influence but I think it would be more charitable to assume that the author of this short Wiki piece just chose to quickly describe N's affirmation without going into much detail. Could you formulate 2-3 short sentences about Schopenhauer's influence and add them to the entry? 184.108.40.206 (talk) 13:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I took your advice and made an attempt at adding a small section on Nietzsche’s opposition to Schopenhauer. It may not be small enough for many readers. My tentative contribution may puzzle those who are unfamiliar with Schopenhauer’s writings. In order to understand Nietzsche’s affirmation of life as a reaction to Schopenhauer’s denial of the will to live, it may be necessary for a reader to become familiar with both Nietzsche’s and Schopenhauer’s works.Lestrade (talk) 20:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)Lestrade
- After making my contribution, I noticed that it has no relation to the “affirmation” that is referred to in the section entitled “Derridean interpretation.” There is nothing in common between the two sections. According to the quote at the beginning of the article, Nietzsche’s affirmation is related to “not only ourselves but all existence.” It is a psychological outlook, point of view, and subjective way of thinking. The Derridean section, however, seems to be somehow concerned with the mere “structure” of language. As a result, there is a serious schism in the article that may result in confusion to anyone who is trying to learn about Nietzschean affirmation.
- Philosophy, in the last century, has abandoned psychology and busied itself with only objective behaviorial problems. That is because inner mental states are not outwardly manifest or evident unless they result in externally observable behavior. Language is outward behavior that can be observed and studied in public. Psychological outlooks and points of view, on the other hand, are private and unobservable. Nietzsche, however, considered himself to be a philosophical psychologist. (He originally titled Twilight of the Idols as A Psychologist’s Idleness.) He was employed as a professional philologist for a while, but was never really interested in technical linguistics. His works might require a reader to approach them from a pre–20th century way of thinking, that is, from a time when there were no restrictions against psychological investigations. In this way his affirmation can be understood as a yes–saying to life and the world, in contrast to Schopenhauer's no–saying.Lestrade (talk) 20:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)Lestrade
- Thank you for your contribution about Shopenhauer's "nay-saying", Lestrade: very helpful to understand Nietzsche's view. denis 'spir' (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
inverted 2 main sections
Inverted 2 main sections ("contra Shopenhauer" and "Derrida's interpretation") since the latter (which came as 1st section) is in my view anecdotic for the subject of the article and in any case does not help at all in understanding Nietzsche's thought.