Talk:Thomas Common

Untitled

Okay I will provide a source for the addition that Thomas Common was from a place known as "Corstorphine, Scotland". It is mentioned in the following 1917 work that Thomas Common was from this area:

I copied the text from a Google cache. [1] I don't know how much longer the forum post or cache thereof will remain online. Apart from the snippet regarding the astounding Mr Common, it could be interesting reading about Nietzsche.

I have deleted the above mentioned page, as the text has been copied to s:Index:Nietzsche the thinker.djvu. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

---

For the edification of "DBaba"

DBaba recently reverted an edit that noted Kaufmann's vitriolic disdain of Nietszsche. Reverting the edit, DBaba said: "To suggest Kaufmann regarded N as "a poor philosopher" is utterly preposterous."

I have in front of me, DBaba, a copy of Kaufmann's translation of Thus Spoke Zarathustra, and in the introduction Kaufmann says "Nietzsche's writing...is occasionally downright bad", he expresses his desire for Nietzsche to have "spared us some of the melodrama in 'Zarathustra'", he says "'Zarathustra' still cries out to be blue-pencilled'", he criticises it by referring to "what the book loses artistically and philosophically by never having been critically edited by its author", and he accuses Nietzsche of "painfully adolescent emotions" and "immaturity". In short, the introduction is laced with numerous denigrations of Nietzsche and his work, not to mention attacks against Thomas Common.

Finally, consider Kaufmann's book "Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist" in which he writes: "Nietzsche is far superior to Kant and Hegel as a stylist; but it also seems that as a philosopher he represents a very sharp decline." There is obvious evidence that confirms that Kaufmann had a very low opinion of Nietzsche.

As such, and in order to grant sufficient perspective on Kaufmann's equal disdain of the excellent Thomas Commont translation, the statements regarding Kaufmann's disdain of Nietzsche will have to remain in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.37.239 (talk) 07:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see you reference these texts so directly. Still, encouraging people to read the Thomas Common translation is just patently ridiculous; the actual Also Sprach Zarathustra from which Common translated was a bastardized version, and the ("baddest") flaws of Common's own translative technique are glaring. Kaufmann is far too cavalier with his opinions on Nietzsche, in my opinion, but you're still perverting the actual message of the Kaufmann introduction you're quoting. The final words of that intro are

Zarathustra is not only a mine of ideas, but also a major work of literature and a personal triumph.

Did you not highlight those words because they don't adhere to your thesis? Maybe we can find a happy medium, and offer Kaufmann's most damning words to contextualize his translation. What I find most offensive about Kaufmann's intro is his insistence on bringing N's identity into the text; to suggest his later mental illness or that he "is shy, about five-foot-eight but a little stooped" certainly furrows my brow to Kaufmann.

But you've done this on your own, suggested that K finds N to be a poor philosopher. What can you quote to add to this entry, without drawing your own conclusions? (And without breaking up sentences from Philosopher Psychologist Antichrist to fit the quote you're seeking.) DBaba (talk) 03:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No sentences were broken up that I know of, and I find that even if Kaufmann did have some positive comments, on the whole he was still patronising and belittling Nietzsche in his introduction. The general rhetorical technique that it uses is to harshly criticise Nietzsche, and only then follow with limited praise. Thus he trivialises the praiseworthy aspects of the text and leaves the reader with harsh criticisms unequivocally imposed thereon.

I have seen this claimed that Common worked from a corrupt text, yet I have seen no evidence thereof. Indeed, from the comparisons I have made between the Common text and the later translations, it seems that Common delivered a quite accurate rendition. All you have provided so far to support your claim is this Kaufmann note about the use of the word "baddest", with it being in contravention of one of Nietzsche's other works in which he provided a detailed definition and discussion of that word. Yet it seems that Common's use of that word still conveyed Nietzsche's intended meaning, and indeed it transcended the spirit of gravity as Nietzsche would have desired. For it seems that Nietzsche would have even thrown all his other works into the river just for the glory of TSZ, glory that Thomas Common has succesfully conveyed.

It would be useful if you could substantiate these claims of errors in Common's translation, for at present it appears that his translation is accurate and indeed worthy of being recommended to readers. Project Gutenberg has a great freely available etext version of his translation, which constantly appears on their periodical "most downloaded" lists. I think it's exciting that such a great translation of a great work has achieved such popularity. God is dead; now do we desire the Superman to live. Let this be our final will at the great noontide! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.37.239 (talk) 14:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow....DeBaba is completely right here....while Kaufmann didn't praise Nietzsche 100% all the time, acknowledging shortcomings is far from the impression "unsigned" gives him in this article. NO and I repeat NO serious Nietzsche scholar would think Kaufmann thought Nietzsche was a "poor philosopher." I don't want to spend time debating about the obvious, but i flipped open my copy of Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist and right away came to this quote "Nietzsche's conception of power may represent one of the few great philosophic ideas of all time"...continued on (this is his preface to the first edition) "Nietzsche's greatest value may well lie in the fact that he embodied the true philosophic spirit of 'searching into myself and other men'" previously in the preface "Nietzsche is here assigned a place in the grand tradition of Western thoguht and envisaged against the background of Socrates and Plato" from the second edition preface "I still do not agree with him, but more than ever he seems to me one of the most interesting thinkers of all time. Few, if any, since Plato can match the breadth, depth, and passion of his mind" "how about this "I love Nietzsche's books" from the third preface. As for the place where Kaufmann writes that he is a poor philosopher, this is the best example of poor scholarship ever. Kaufmann is explaining what "it seems" and than says that the argument that he is a not even a philosopher or a poor philosopher is "hardly cogent" and continues on to liken him to Socrates. One must ask after reading your edits what sort of agenda you have here??? why would you make this up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.26.97.96 (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)