Welcome to the MedLibrary.org Wikipedia Supplement on Talk:Friedrich Nietzsche/Archive 6 -- Please Click to Return to Front Page

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Sources for future revisions 1.1 Scholarly 1.1.1 Essays 1.2 Philosophical 1.3 Specific Quotations That May Be Useful 1.3.1 Discussion 1.3.2 Various quotations 2 Protected 3 Again with (Anti-)Wagnerism 4 Max Stirner 5 Modernist Liberal Democratic Cowardly Unscholarliness 6 Photo 7 POV 8 Suggested addition 9 Suggested addition - 2nd draft 10 Suggested addition - 3nd draft

Sources for future revisions

Important: Nietzsche was not anti-semetic, in fact, in the small sections he does talk about eugenics, he talks about the important inclusion of the Jews. Nietzsche also saw the state as product of the herd, he craed the breeding of human excellence, which he believed could not be compatible with a social view of equality. How he intended to implement this was never elaborated because Nietzche was not concerned with political matters in large, especially the forming of a political system. Though it is clear he advocated a aristocracy, and he did not believe in equality... though it is also clear Nietzsche believed greatness not to be caused by race, material wealth or the like. He viewed greatness as a happy accident, we sometimes devoted his though on how to achieve a stratified society in which the breeding of excellent human beings was the goal. He calls racial purity a "mendacious race swindle", he calls the idea prevailing at the time of germans being pure blooded as nonsensical , and he (aside from keeping Jewish friends like Paul Ree) alienated himself from Wagner as well as his sister after she married that Anti-semite. He held contempt for the Deutscheland uber-alles movement, as well as social Darwinists like Hurbert SPencer that promoted a 'might makes right' ethic. His overman would never be used outside of his Zarathustra, as it was merely a rhetorical mechanism to attmpt to better man, and then move past him to even better pastures. But, he did not view this in a darwinism manner, he saw Darwinism and natural selection to be advatagous to the herd and at the expense of greatness due to the fact of the great being overwhelmed by the herd. I suggest a more cogent approach to Nietzsches Philoosphy, one that includes a summary of the aims of his books. The list by concept is a good idea, but it is far from complete.

Feel free to expand this list, or add specific quotes that may be useful:

Um, I added several quotes in this section last night. Looks like somebody deleted them. Is that even allowed in the discussion page? Petrejo 16:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'll just add them again. Petrejo 05:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

They were deleted again, and I just added them a third time. Petrejo 23:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't like that your contributions to talk pages have been deleted, but perhaps, instead of getting into a revert war, it would be more useful to consider a different option: Relying on a secondary source that makes a fuller argument than you are capable of doing here without engaging in original research. Picking Nietzsche quotes that support your view of him, while ignoring others (whatever position you take on Nietzsche) is not good scholarship, but referring to someone who makes specific arguments on Nietzsche's views is. -Smahoney 23:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am getting to that, Smahoney; however, I need time to gather the citations you require, and I'm just one person, and clearly the majority here isn't helpful. If I didn't need to worry about my posts being *erased in the discussion page*, that would save some of my time. Please speak to the others, too. My citations should appear sometime this weekend. Petrejo 23:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I've definitely been in your place before, and understand your frustration. What has worked for me in the past is developing, offline, a single section and extensively citing (using secondary sources, and saying, "According to so-and-so, X is the case.") my work. -Smahoney 23:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Smahoney, my secondary sources have been entered here. Please tell me my next step in this Wikipedia dispute resolution procedure. Thanks. Petrejo 14:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Scholarly

• Friedrich Nietzsche and Weimar Classicism by R.H. Stephenson and Paul Bishop
• Nietzsche and Antiquity: His Reaction and Response to the Classical Tradition edited by Paul Bishop
• Nietzsche and Schiller: Untimely Aesthetics by Nicholas Martin
• Selected Letters of Friedrich Nietzsche edited and translated by Christopher Middleton; Hackett, 1941
• The Nietzsche-Wagner Correspondence by Elizabeth Förster-Nietzsche
• The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany: 1890 - 1990 by Steven E. Aschheim, 1992
• Nietzsche and the Feminine ed. Peter J. Burgard, 1994
• Why We Are Not Nietzscheans by Luc Ferry, Alain Renaut, Robert de Loaiza, 1997
• Nietzsche and Jewish Culture by Jacob Golomb, 1997
• Nietzsche & the Jews: Exaltation and Denigration by Siegfried Mandel, 1998
• Zarathustra's Secret by Joachim Koehler, 2002
• I Am Not a Man, I Am Dynamite! Friedrich Nietzsche and the Anarchist Tradition, ed. John Moore, 2004
• Nietzsche, Prophet of Nazism: The Cult of the Superman by Abir Taha, 2005
• Nietzsche on Gender by Frances Nesbitt Oppel, 2005
• I Am Dynamite: A Nietzschean Anthropology of Power by Nigel Rapport; Routledge, 2003
• Nietzsche Humanist by Claude Nicholas Pavur; Marquette University Press, 1998
• Hegel, Nietzsche, and Philosophy: Thinking Freedom by Will Dudley; Cambridge University Press, 2002
• Nietzsche, Biology and Metaphor by Gregory Moore; Cambridge University Press, 2002
• Transforming the Hermeneutic Context: From Nietzsche to Nancy by Gayle L. Ormiston, Alan D. Schrift; State University of New York Press, 1990
• Nietzsche's System by John Richardson; Oxford University Press, 1996
• Nietzsche's Ethics and His War on 'Morality' by Simon May; Clarendon Press, 1999
• Unpublished Letters by Kurt F. Leidecker; Philosophical Library, 1959
• Willing and Nothingness: Schopenhauer as Nietzsche's Educator ed. by Christopher Janaway; Clarendon Press, 1998
• My Sister and I by Oscar Levy, 1951 (This work, usually referred to as fraudulent by scholars, is included in neither the KGW Kritsche Gesamtausgabe Werke nor the KSA Kritsche Studienausgabe (i.e., the Colli/Montinari editions), which, by implication, shows it is not a genuine work by Nietzsche but that of Levy's.)
• Nietzsche, Godfather of Fascism? by Jacob Golomb & Richard Wistrich, 2002
• Habermas, Nietzsche, and Critical Theory by Babette E. Babich; Humanity Books, 2004
• Nietzsche: The Ethics of an Immoralist by Peter Berkowitz; Harvard U. Press, 1995
• Nietzsche & Wagner - A Lesson in Subjugation by Joachim Koehler; Yale U. Press, 1998
• Redeeming Nietzsche by Giles Fraser; Routledge, 2002
• Nietzsche's Life Sentence by Lawrence J. Hatab; Routledge, 2005
• The Nietzsche Disappointment by Nickolas Pappas; Rowman & Littlefield, 2005

Essays

(To be filled when needed.)

Philosophical

• Nietzsche & Philosophy by Gilles Deleuze
• Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist by Walter Kaufmann
• Reason and Existenz by Jaspers
• Nietzsche by Richard Schacht
• Nietzsche's Philosophy of Nature and Cosmology by Alistair Moles

Specific Quotations That May Be Useful

Discussion

If I could insert my two cents:

I think the quotations from Yovel below are indicative of a larger problem, that is, the difference between being anti-religion and anti-Semitic. Many critics fail to divorce his distaste for all religions, which naturally includes Judaism, from the Jewish people. Clearly I've suggested my allegiance but I think this is an important consideration that no quotes illuminate.

I think the quote from Derrida gets to the heart of the matter & is perhaps the best NPOV. That is, while Nietzsche may not have been anti-Semitic it is rather interesting that the only political realization of his views were based in Nazism. It seems to me this is about as much as can be said from a NPOV. While I side with the non-anti-Semitic camp

The real problem with all this is that there are much larger questions to be wrestled with that haven’t been openly discussed. Namely, are authors responsible for results of their work? That is, it is one thing to say Nietzsche was anti-Semitic and blame him for that and quite another thing to blame him for writing something that became a philosophical justification for Nazism.

If we say “yes, he is responsible” then the obvious result is that we have to re-consider every writer, philosopher, etc through this lens that we have created and, what in my mind, amounts to pointing fingers at what anyone has written that resulted in something we deem “inappropriate” or “evil” or “bad” or the opposite for that matter.

The problem I see with all of this is that we are also implicitly suggesting a philosophical perspective if we say “yes, he is responsible.” That is, we are siding with Hegel on the ideal-material question and saying “Ideas matter!” or “The Nazi regime would’ve never taken hold if it weren’t for Nietzsche!” And I don’t think any contemporary philosopher sees this question as resolved thus I would say we must suspend judgment and seriously curtail any arguments over how to interpret him. Arpayton 18:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Arpayton

I find this point very interesting and at issue with the ideas that would like to presume dominance here. One point though: Nazism is not the only political stance derivable from Nietzsche's thought as Alan D. Schrift pointed out in "Nietzsche for Democracy?" In: Nietzsche-Studien 29 (2000), pp. 220-233 (and later in his "Response to Don Dombowsky"), in which he suggests there are radical possibilities for a kind of democratic reading in Nietzsche that sounds somewhat similar to, in my opinion, Derrida's "democracy to come". I'll try find a quotation or two that is pertinent.Non-vandal 18:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Transferring pure philosophical thought to the political realm is always an interesting endeavor. I know exactly what you mean about democratic possibilities in Nietzsche. However, your comment made me realize I neglected to mention a couple of important points about the politics of Nietzsche. First and foremost, Kaufmann himself repeatedly suggests the "best" or most "appropriate" interpretation of Nietzsche is anti-political. Furthermore and for instance, in "Thus Spoke..." "On the New Idol" can atleast on one level be read as nothing more than an all out attack on the state and all that comes with it - clearly not in line with Nazi doctrine. In fact, to me it suggests more of an anarchistic interpretation of Nietzsche.Arpayton 19:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)arpayton

I must state before all else: the land of idle speculation is one we must avoid. Plus, Kaufmann did not so much as say an anti-political reading is more appropriate but rather an a-political one; this of course should be read with the understanding that this is Kaufmann's reading, which cannot and should not presume dominance among the readings of Nietzsche and this would be absurd anyway. Not only this, it is even faulty to assume Nietzsche sounds "anarchistic" (and this is not even suggested by Kaufmann - at times something else is) on various points as well.Non-vandal 20:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

In response to Arpayton; some scholars have criticized Kaufmann for being mild in his interpretation of Nietzsche, so I'm probably not alone when I perceive great passion in Nietzsche and bourgeois morality in Kaufmann. While Nietzsche was an atheist, his criticism of Christians and Jews goes beyond anything he suggested about Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and Animists, to wit, his open hatred and contempt for Christians, and for the Jews who created Christianity. This goes beyond a distaste for all religion. As for the quote by Derrida, it deserves closer scrutinty because of the enormous hatred that Hitler showed toward both Christianity and Judaism was a mirror of the hatred that Nietzsche wrote -- and it was not expressed towards Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and Animists.

Perhaps it wasn't Nietzsche's fault that Hitler copied him 50 years later to produce mayhem, but perhaps it was after all, since Nietzsche's portrait of Christianity was a straw dog, just as his version of the Judaism that allegedly forged that straw dog was only another straw dog. That wasn't careful or caring scholarship, but wild emotion, Irrationalism, with perhaps a certain ressentiment against the dominant Christianity of his epoch. Nietzsche probably expressed his rage in the full knowledge that he was doing so. So, to that extent, perhaps, any author may be responsible for the results of his work if he deliberately and with intent and forethought chose to express malice and to openly call for malice, and afterwards malice arises from that. Petrejo 23:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that it may be more useful to pick some secondary source to cite. Anything more than that borders on original research. -Smahoney 23:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

All right, Smahoney, I've been citing many secondary sources. Does this begin to satisfy your criteria for dispute resolution? Are we getting closer to a decree? I ask because I noticed that the Nietzsche article is no longer Protected and many changes have been made to it since we've started here. Unfortunately, those changes appear to be more one-sided, Nietzsche-apologetic POV changes. Comments? Petrejo 00:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Smahoney? Are you there? I've done the work that you requested, supplying dozens of quotations from secondary sources. You haven't yet commented on them. Also, you haven't commented on the recent changes to this Wikipedia article on Nietzsche, although the article is ostensibly 'Protected' by your mediation. Are you still there? Petrejo 14:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand my intent here. I didn't want you to gather quotes as a part of a dispute resolution, but in order to do the preparatory work for constructing an article section. And the article's being protected has nothing to do with me. As for your citations, they look fine. The next step would be to write a couple prose paragraphs, using those citations to justify claims in your writing, something I would suggest you do on the talk page. After that, it will be up to other editors to (politely) suggest changes. -Smahoney 18:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Smahoney, if the Protection on this article has nothing to do with you, then whom should I contact? Thanks. Petrejo 09:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest looking through the article's history, or scanning through this page for mention, and contacting whoever protected it. -Smahoney 18:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Petrejo's quotations are not helpful. At all. He has cherrypicked quotations to buttress a point of view that represents the views of an insignificant minority of Nietzsche scholars. As such, it is inappropriate that this POV be represented in the article. — goethean ॐ 19:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that Nietzsche scholars' views are the only important ones here. Certainly, negative receptions of Nietzsche abound in the world of analytic philosophy. Likewise Kantians and Platonists and Christians (not to metion Hegelians!) have specific readings of Nietzsche that are undoubtedly negative. Historically, the Nazis tended to have a positive (to them) reading of Nietzsche, and the association, however right or wrong it may be, between Nietzsche and fascism remains. I think, basically, you're taking the wrong stance here - I'm not for saying, "Nietzsche was a Nazi" or "proto-Nazi" or that this is the correct reading of Nietzsche. What I am trying to do is to support Petrejo in properly creating a section detailing a specific way of reading Nietzsche that has historically been fairly prominent. -Smahoney 19:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, Smahoney. Because, actually, the authors of the current Wikipedia article on Nietzsche have cherrypicked a quotation from Nietzsche that works very hard to distance him from the fascist, Nazi and anti-Semitic connection. Why are they allowed to post their quotation, while I'm not allowed to post mine? Why are my relevant, scholarly quotations erased, erased, erased, dozens of times, week after week, on this single topic? Clearly the current authors have a POV that they wish to Protect, and they've used the Protection feature of Wikipedia entirely in their favor. That kind of POV contribution should be questioned on principle. Let's get some NPOV in this article. Petrejo 09:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Since those quotations are useless, I see no issue with deleting them permanently – and I did such. The blockquote I added below has an implicit recommendation for others to read more if they are to understand this flurry of (misguided) associations of Nietzsche with Nazism in recent scholarship. Cheers, Just passing by 13:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

This quote too is a POV interpretation; saying that the other interpretation is a mistake. Both views, the Nazi and non-Nazi views, need to be in the article to be NPOV. 203.255.233.127 14:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Now, what gave you the idea it wasn't going to be included? This is an encyclopedia after all – of course it is a "POV", but it is a source contesting the rampant Nazi-Nietzsche view and from someone well known and highly regarded in scholarship. No need for redundancy and over-literal quips. Fare it well mate, Just passing by 14:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, Smahoney, as secondary sources are required by Wikipedia guidelines, I'll include these to support my changes. I don't feel my changes needed outside authorities since any objective reader could easily recognize my points illustrated only by Nietzsche's own words. Yet, if that disqualifies my changes as Original Research, then I've little choice but to comply. I can post some tonight, and more as the week progresses. Here we go: --Petrejo 06:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this is how you intended your comments to be taken, but to clarify: Including secondary sources isn't a means to support your changes, they should replace your changes, ideally with some nice prose to connect them. Further, and again, just to clarify, they don't support the conclusion that there is a connection between Nietzsche and fascism, they support the conclusion that some thinkers see such a connection. -Smahoney 20:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, Smahoney, as long as my NPOV contribution is included in some fashion in what is so far a POV article, I'll be satisfied. Petrejo 03:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Nietzsche was clearly an elitist who believed in the right to rule of a 'good and healthy aristocracy,' one that would, if necessary, be ready to sacrifice untold numbers of human beings. He sometimes wrote as if nations primarily existed for the sake of producing 'a few great men,' who could not be expected to show consideration for 'normal humanity.'

– Jacob Golomb, Nietzsche: Godfather of Fascism? 2002, Princeton U. Press, p. 3

Now, if...the only politics calling itself Nietzschean turned out to be a Nazi one, then this is necessarily significant...One can't falsify just anything.

– Jacques Derrida, The Ear of the Other, ibid, p. 47

The use that the Nazis made of Nietzsche did include his treatment of the Jews.

– Menahem Brinker, Nietzsche and the Jews, 2002, ibid, p. 108

...Nietzsche reverted in The AntiChrist to his former 'positive' appreciation of the Jews [sic]. This was in contrast to his pronouncements in, On the Genealogy of Morals, which stressed the impotence of the weak and miserable Jews and their ressentiment as the sole cause of the revolution they had effected on morality.

– Menahem Brinker, Nietzsche and the Jews, 2002, ibid, p. 109

• In the metonymy of casual associations ruling political readings of Friedrich Nietzsche, it is not uncommon to connect Nietzsche and Nazism, finding and holding Nietzsche responsible for the sentimental education of no one more execrable than Adolf Hitler and perhaps every other dictator, at least in theory. Thus, the editors of a recent collection on the intersection of ideas and politics do not hesitate to title their essays around Nietzsche's influence and in just this sense, proposing him as the "godfather of fascism." Indeed, Nietzsche is the incendiary figure in the trajectory of the core irrationalism traced decades ago by Georg Lukács from F. W. J. Schelling's transcendental idealism to its all-too-real world devastation in World War II.

  In part, such readings work because they associate Nietzsche's conception of the will to power with the drive to or for power as such. This is a desire for power, expressed as power to be imposed upon others. And such an imperial will is, in turn, associated with war. Such readings have extraordinarily common currency not only in the popular mind but also in scholarly readings of Nietzsche. Nevertheless, such interpretations mistake Nietzsche's conception of the will to power.[Last two sentences, emphasis added]

  (Babette E. Babich, Introduction to Habermas, Nietzsche, and the Future of Critical Theory, Irrationality, The Will to Power, and War, p. 13 f.)

Although the recent book by Jacob Golomb and Robert Wistrich, Nietzsche, Godfather of Fascism? (2002) is largely an apologetic for Nietzsche that attempts to clear him of most charges, still, it retains an objectivity and NPOV that is sufficiently modern and may serve as an example to this Wikipedia article. (Nor am I by any means through; I've much more to cite in the days to come.) Here are some quotations from their book: --Petrejo 04:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Various quotations

Nietzsche's attack on ancient priestly Judaism is as fierce and uncompromising as his assault on anti-Semitism.

– YirmiYahu Yovel, Nietzsche Contra Wagner, ibid, p. 134

...The Jewish priests, pictured as early Christians, have created the 'slave morality' that official Christianity then propagated throughout the world. Whereas the anti-Semite accuses the Jews of having killed Christ, Nietzsche accuses them of having begotten him.

– YirmiYahu Yovel, Nietzsche Contra Wagner, ibid, p. 135

...Ancient Judaism...is grounded in ressentiment and is responsible for the corruption of Europe through Christianity.

– YirmiYahu Yovel, Nietzsche Contra Wagner, ibid, p. 135

[There was] something elusive in Nietzsche's fragmented, diffuse and lyrical oeuvre -- experimental in method, aphoristic in style and anti-systematic in nature -- that laid itself open to such uses and abuses, to multiple and opposed interpretations, not to say misappropriations; so much so, that it often seems difficult to ascertain who the 'real' Nietzsche was or if such a person actually existed.

– Robert S. Wistrich , Between the Cross and the Swastika: a Nietzschean Perspective, ibid, p. 145

Nietzsche's complex relationship with Wagner which began in 1868, when at the age of 24 he first came under the maestro's spell in Tribschen, is clearly critical to any assessment of his attitude to Jews, Judaism, Germanism and Christianity.

– Robert S. Wistrich , Between the Cross and the Swastika: a Nietzschean Perspective, ibid, p. 149

The young Nietzsche had initially been bowled over by the 'fabulously lively and fiery' Wagner. Not only was the composer witty, entertaining and a musical genius, but also a father figure to venerate and to fear. No doubt when he aped the anti-Jewish slurs of the Wagners (Cosima was at times even more virulent than her husband), he may have genuinely believed the 'Jewish press' had been persecuting his much idolized mentor.

– Robert S. Wistrich , Between the Cross and the Swastika: a Nietzschean Perspective, ibid, p. 149

Although he was strongly opposed to anti-Semitism, Nietzsche nonetheless blamed the Jews for the 'denaturalization of natural values' implemented by Christianity. The Jews had 'made humanity into something so false that, still today, a Christian can feel anti-Semitic without understanding himself as the last stage of Judaism.'

– Robert S. Wistrich , Between the Cross and the Swastika: a Nietzschean Perspective, ibid, p. 154

The Jewish priests had spread spurious ideas of a 'moral world order,' sin guilt, punishment, repentance, pity, and the love of neighbor. According to this debasing Judeo-Christianity, the wretched, the poor, the lowly, the humble, the meek, the sick, and the weak are those who truly deserve salvation -- not the strong, the healthy, the brave and the beautiful.

– Robert S. Wistrich , Between the Cross and the Swastika: a Nietzschean Perspective, ibid, p. 154

According to Nietzsche...'Jewish hatred' was the trunk of that tree of vengefulness that had created new ideals and values, beginning with Christian love, which was not the antithesis of its parent, but rather its fulfillment.

– Robert S. Wistrich , Between the Cross and the Swastika: a Nietzschean Perspective, ibid, p. 155

Who were the members of the Holy Quartet? Jesus of Nazareth, the fisherman Peter, the rug weaver Paul, and Mary, the mother of Jesus -- all of them Jews!

– Robert S. Wistrich , Between the Cross and the Swastika: a Nietzschean Perspective, ibid, p. 155

It is also true that the Nietzschean image of Judeo-Christianity as 'the vampire of the Roman Empire' was a stereotype that found more than an echo in the Christophobia of leading Nazis like Hitler, Bormann, Rosenberg, Ley and Himmler.

– Robert S. Wistrich , Between the Cross and the Swastika: a Nietzschean Perspective, ibid, p. 163

For instance, on July 11-12, 1941...Hitler called the coming of Christianity 'the heaviest blow that had ever struck humanity...' Like Bolshevism, Christianity had been invented by the Jews -- so he asserted -- to subvert and destroy the foundations of culture... Hitler, like Nietzsche, was obsessed with the Apostle Paul, whom he crassly described as 'the first man to take advantage of using a religion as a means of propaganda.'

– Robert S. Wistrich , Between the Cross and the Swastika: a Nietzschean Perspective, ibid, p. 163

For Hitler, this wicked Judeo-Christian monotheistic creed was part of a conspiracy to undermine the natural order, where the strong must always prevail over the weak and power alone can guarantee right.

– Robert S. Wistrich , Between the Cross and the Swastika: a Nietzschean Perspective, ibid, p. 163

When Hitler further denounced Judeo-Christian morality as antithetical to the life-force and the instinct for self-preservation, or when he praised the healthy pagan values of classical antiquity, he seemed to come uncomfortably close to echoing Nietzsche without ever quoting him.

– Robert S. Wistrich , Between the Cross and the Swastika: a Nietzschean Perspective, ibid, p. 163

More quotations from, Nietzsche, Godfather of Fascism? (2002) which is a series of essays, largely apologetic for Nietzsche, that retain a sense of objectivity and NPOV. (I am perhaps 40% done.) --Petrejo 05:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a historical fact that Nietzsche was widely admired by 20th century fascists. Mussolini was an avid fan of Nietzsche's teachings...Hitler, too, was eager to associate his regime with Nietzsche's name and reputation.

– Nietzsche's Imperial Aspirations, Daniel W. Conway, ibid, p. 173

Although his enmity for the anti-Semites occasionally eclipsed his suspicions of the Jews, his Judeophobia was deeper and more complex.

– Nietzsche's Imperial Aspirations, Daniel W. Conway, ibid, p. 175

The most illuminating evidence of Nietzsche's imperial aspirations is found in the context of his lavish praise for the Roman Empire...The regarded the Roman Empire not merely as the zenith of European culture on a grand scale, but also as the source of European renewals to come...In this light, his overtures toward the Jews take on a distinctly sinister cast.

– Nietzsche's Imperial Aspirations, Daniel W. Conway, ibid, p. 182

It is no coincidence that Nietzsche admired Pontius Pilate above all other imperial figures (except Julius Caesar)...Pilate refused to lower his hyperopic gaze to consider seriously the local struggles of the Jews. He was unsentimental, 'nobly scornful,' indifferent, and loyal only to the Roman Empire.'

– Nietzsche's Imperial Aspirations, Daniel W. Conway, ibid, p. 183

In fact it was not Pilate who targeted the Jews for indifference and noble scorn, but Nietzsche. He regarded the Jews as the most potent enemies of the Roman Empire...His homage to Pilate thus involves a bit of creative ventriloquy and more than a bit of indirect self-congratulation.

– Nietzsche's Imperial Aspirations, Daniel W. Conway, ibid, p. 183

Here it becomes clear that Nietzsche's claims to an enlightened cosmopolitanism were often exaggerated. In many respects, in fact, his understanding of the Jews differed little from those of the anti-Semites whom he meant to oppose...He described the Jews as asocial wanderers, cheaters in the grand game of cultural advancement, falsifiers of nature, resentful spoilers of empire, cunning necromancers...and so on.

– Nietzsche's Imperial Aspirations, Daniel W. Conway, ibid, p. 186

As evidence of the 'priestly' inheritance of modern Jews, Nietzsche cites their otherwise inexplicable weakness of will: they could master Europe, but they choose not to do so. They want to assimilate, but they cling to their exclusionary customs. They long to cease their wandering, but they remain nomadic. They wish to prevail 'under favorable conditions,' but they are accustomed to prevail 'even better' 'under the worst conditions.'

– Nietzsche's Imperial Aspirations, Daniel W. Conway, ibid, p. 187

Nietzsche fits into National Socialist needs both in what he damned and what he praised. He damned democracy, pacifism, individualism, Christianity, humanitarianism, both as abstract ideals and as, in some vague way, actual descriptions of modern European society. He praised authority, racial purity, the warrior spirit and practice, the stern life, the great health, and urged his fellow citizens a complete break with their old bad habits and ideas.

– Nietzsche, Crane Brinton, ibid, p. 216

But if Nietzsche was going to be purged of his fascistoid image, there had to be some explanation for how he had been recruited so readily for such nefarious purposes...Scholars...were aided enormously in their efforts by being able to point to the existence of a person closely connected with Nietzsche and his writings, a person who came to exercise a domineering influence over his works and reception, and who had also tampered with the manuscripts, fabricated evidence about Nietzsche and his life, and defied the accepted traditions and voices of the scholarly community. This person was Nietzsche's sister, Elisabeth Foerster-Nietzsche.

– The Elisabeth Legend, Robert C. Holub, ibid, p. 217

Elisabeth Foerster-Nietzsche was a perfect target for postwar scholars wishing to explain away Nietzsche's unfortunate reception. It is therefore not surprising that the chief postwar rehabilitators frequently attack her in their publications.

– The Elisabeth Legend, Robert C. Holub, ibid, p. 218

In the United States and throughout the English-speaking world, Walter Kaufmann was the rehabilitator who played the most important role...He complains at length about Elisabeth's editorial practices...And he is most outraged at the publication of The Will To Power as Nietzsche's magnum opus, although in a strange turnabout he himself published an English edition of the same work in 1967.

– The Elisabeth Legend, Robert C. Holub, ibid, p. 219

The Elisabeth legend has become so widespread and powerful that it is hardly ever questioned...Examples of the propagation of unfounded charges against Elisabeth abound...Nietzsche has been consistently extricated from his Nazi entanglements by regarding Elisabeth as the chief architect of his fascistic reputation. The legend that currently circulates is as spurious as the one that the postwar scholars destroyed, and as false as the Nietzsche legend that Elisabeth propagated.

– The Elisabeth Legend, Robert C. Holub, ibid, pp. 220-221

But Elisabeth, for all her good and bad qualities, did not bias her brother's work in a way that made him acceptable to fascism. She did not distort his thought on issues essential to National Socialism, and she cannot be held responsible -- certainly not to the degree that she has been held responsible since the fifties -- for the fact that Nietzsche was widely identified with the Nazi political regime.

– The Elisabeth Legend, Robert C. Holub, ibid, p. 221

quotes go into wikiquote and are linked in that manner--Buridan 12:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

These are not quotations by Nietzsche, they are quotations for the improvement of the article, so they don't belong at Wikiquote. In any case, here's another interesting point made by Babich. Just passing by 02:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• A student of the art of language, Nietzsche achieved not only a theoretical but also and remarkably for it is this accession that remains rare a practical mastery of the art of written composition or style.

  In fact, this mastery does not necessarily make Nietzsche easier to read. However, it does mean that much more is going on in his texts than is manifest at a first encounter or even after many such encounters. In part this has to do with Nietzsche, in part this has to do with his audience.

  (Babette E. Babich; "Nietzsche's göttliche Eidechsen: 'Divine Lizards,' Greene Lyons, and Music." in Christa Davis Acampora and Ralph Acampora, eds., A Nietzschean Bestiary. (Lanham, Md: Rowman and Littlefield, 2004). Pp. 204-268. Linked here.)

No matter how wonderful Nietzsche's style, Justpassingby, style alone does not qualify anyone for the title of Philosopher. His wonderful style is not questioned by anyone, rather, it's the obvious content that's questioned -- and the question deepens everytime you erase direct quotations from Nietzsche in order to prevent objective readers from reading his actual texts. Petrejo 03:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes, we've already read this POV of yours, so it is no longer worth mentioning or vaunting with brow and beating chest. It doesn't float, mate, so just try to up the ante, it won't get you far at all. I'm sure that person who called me a "coward", no less due to a similar POV as your own, was in fact yourself (which was kindly removed by another user) -- you might want to grow up before doing anything serious in scholarship or philosophy in general (and yes, I ignore WP:AGF on this: who else could have wrote such an imbecilic remark?). And what that anonymous individual called "cowardice" was extreme care and good taste, which is a very unfamiliar notion to many a popularly-minded individual. Just passing by 04:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You're way off base, Justpassingby, since I have no idea who called you a coward. You asked me to be civil with you, and I agreed -- and I expect you to be civil with me as well. Petrejo 00:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

"Way off base" as perhaps concerns that anonymous individual but not when noting my point: as Babich pointed out in that quotation, one cannot simply hope to understand Nietzsche through single pieces of quotations of his work or notes -- and so you see the relevance behind my "extreme care and good taste" when it comes to an evaluation of Nietzsche's thought. And I never "asked [you] to be civil", it goes without saying. Whatever the matter, I would also like to note Nietzsche's idea of race is not at all biologistic (the Nazis however made it such), and so Dr. Aschheim's conflation of Nietzsche with Nazism is patently absurd; a lot of the scholarship supports this, so don't take Dr. Aschheim's thought too seriously. Indeed, your additions of Jung to the fray aren't all too enlightening since Jung was not a philosopher -- but a psychologist (who is also known for such bizarre, putative psychologising of dead people), so it is clearly unlikely he would have been able to seive such differences. Heidegger among Nietzsche scholarship is known, like Deleuze, as an idiosyncratic reader of Nietzsche, and was quite possibly more influenced by the Nazis than Nietzsche, so whatever such "influence" Nietzsche had is dubious at best. See you chaps later, Just passing by 23:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's a final volley of quotations from, Nietzsche, Godfather of Fascism? (2002) and its largely apologetic essays for Nietzsche that yet offer a dimension of objectivity and NPOV. (I presume consent to edit my typos; I'm about 50% done now.) --Petrejo 03:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Elisabeth did not slant her depiction of Nietzsche toward anti-Semitism because she knew that he was virulently opposed to it. With regard to his view on Jews and anti-Semites there is absolutely no evidence that she attempted to falsify the record.

– The Elisabeth Legend , Robert C. Holub, ibid, p. 226

In the book, Wagner and Nietzsche at the Time of Their Friendship (1915) Elisabeth...again argues that Nietzsche's anti-Jewish statements were meant to please Wagner: "In his letters there are attacks on the Jews that were an expression of Wagner's views, not his own."

– The Elisabeth Legend , Robert C. Holub, ibid, p. 226

Above all, Elisabeth was not an anti-Semite, despite her marriage to Foerster...She claims that she temporarily adopted anti-Semitic positions out of respect for her husband...but she adds that anti-Semitism 'was always unpleasant' for her and that she 'did not have the slightest reason' to be an anti-Semite.

– The Elisabeth Legend , Robert C. Holub, ibid, pp. 228-229

But Nietzsche also wrote about war and cruelty in an extremely positive and troubling fashion, praising the warrior ethos and promulgating a European hegemony over the entire earth. Finally, Nietzsche was against all movements of his time that promoted equality in the social, political or economic realm. He railed against democracy, parliamentary systems, the feminist movement, and socialism. He incessantly lauded hierarchy and declared himself, if necessary, in favor of slavery...Some of his views...were quite susceptible to exploitation by the 3rd Reich.

– The Elisabeth Legend , Robert C. Holub, ibid, pp. 228-229

It is time we ceased scapegoating Elisabeth for the Nazi version of Nietzsche and understand this unfortunate chapter in his reception as an effort to which Nietzsche himself and a host of his perhaps unwanted disciples made the most seminal contributions.

– The Elisabeth Legend , Robert C. Holub, ibid, p. 231

Walter Kaufmann and some other anti-Nazi intellectuals have...denied that there is any connection between Nietzsche and the Nazis. Their view has prevailed in the educated public, certainly in the United States, where many who followed Kaufmann's example neglected to notice Nietzsche's passion and ferocity, or turned to those aspects of his work in which the question of fascism plays no role at all. Nietzsche has in fact been de-Nazified...Nietzsche was not that unrelated to Hitler and Nazism, contrary to what the Kaufmann school has implied.

– A Godfather Too: Nazism as a Nietzschean Experiment , Kurt Rudolph Fischer, ibid, p. 294

...One may concede that Nietzsche was a godfather or forerunner of Nazism as he is of so much else in this century without having to maintain that he would have been an Nazi, had he lived in the Third rather than in the Second Reich...As Crane Brinton once put it, 'Nietzsche was half a Nazi and half an anti-Nazi.

– A Godfather Too: Nazism as a Nietzschean Experiment , Kurt Rudolph Fischer, ibid, p. 295

Walter Kaufmann's readings of Nietzsche are invariably 'gentle.'

– A Godfather Too: Nazism as a Nietzschean Experiment , Kurt Rudolph Fischer, ibid, p. 297

There are more identities and similarities of content in the writings of Nietzsche and in the writings, speeches and conversations and particularly in the actions of Hitler...Many of these definite parallels have been catalogued by E. Sandovoss in, Hitler and Nietzsche.

– A Godfather Too: Nazism as a Nietzschean Experiment , Kurt Rudolph Fischer, ibid, p. 297

I will now present an initial salvo of several quotations from Dr. Steven E. Aschheim's The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990 (U.C. Press, Berkeley, 1992). Dr. Aschheim's scholarship is new but is becoming widely known. He surveys a hundred years of history to present a factual account of Nietzsche's role in the German reactionary experience. (I am perhaps 75% through.) Petrejo 22:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

In the new legal order of the Third Reich, medical practitioners of child euthanasia -- such as Dr. Werner Catel -- rested on Nietzsche as justification for their work.

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 243

Breeding and selection in the service of higher development, Kurt Kassler reminded his readers, permeated all of Nietzsche's writings, and was linked to his deep concern with decadence, degeneration and decline. Nietzsche...led the struggle against the deteriorization of European blood.

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 244

Kassler did not deny the difficulties but argued that Nietzsche was nevertheless useful in articulating the outlines of a race society.

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 244

If Nietzsche had no closed racial system in the current sense, wrote another Nazi commentator, he was still a powerful pioneer of race culture. It was Nietzsche who had rediscovered biology for philosophy.

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 244

His promoters highlighted Nietzsche's re-assertion of instinct, his discovery of the body, and above all his naturalistic trans-valuation in which the biological ethic replaced the moral one.

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 244

Nietzsche's comments on the Jews were particularly relevant. He was hailed for performing a service to the history of the world with his insight into the history of Israel as 'the de-naturalization of natural values.' Nazism was clearly the counter-movement leading to drive to re-naturalization.

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 244

...In his own way, Nietzsche was the most acute anti-Semite that ever was: he was the most radical discoverer of the unholy role that Judaism played in the spiritual history of Europe. His demonstration that Christianity was the ultimate Jewish blood poisoning made the Jews the most fateful people of world history.

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 245

Through this road Nietzsche was brought to the race problem, opening the door to racial hygiene in an attempt to break the degeneration of a thousand years.

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 245

Nazified Nietzscheanism...was diffused along the broad spectra of Nazi society. After appropriate editing, Nietzsche's works were published and distributed at a dizzy pace. They were integrated into the general school system...

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 245

If Nietzsche figured centrally as an inspirational force in World War I, then by World War II he was officially enshrined in the state's war-exalting ideology. Steven Aschheim, 1992

– The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 246

Under National socialism, German youth, as one writer put it, was putting the Nietzschean conception of war as healthy liberator into practice. Both Nietzsche's thought and deed had living mythical import for the destiny of the German present.

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 246

As the tide went against Germany...Nietzsche was increasingly called upon in the apocalyptic 'struggle against the pernicious forces of bolshevism and world Jewry. With defeat looming, his injunction to 'Love your destiny' -- to be prepared for sacrifice -- became a leitmotif.

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 246

National socialism, Alfred Rosenberg proclaimed, stood before the rest of the world in exactly the way Nietzsche had confronted the forces of his own time. Two forces, the destructive Bolshevik Jewish and the rejuvenative National socialist European -- were locked in mortal combat, the stakes a massive experiment around nature and life.

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 246

In response to Klaus Mann's imprecations against Nazi "barbarism"...Gottfried Benn handily invoked Nietzsche who had posed the problem, "Where are the barbarians of the 20th century?" and preceded it with the dictum, 'A dominating race can grow up only out of terrible and violent beginnings.

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 247

As a propagandist for the SS, Marc Augier reflected: "One felt as if one had arrived at the outermost periphery of the Nietzschean thought world and its creative passion...A victory of the SS...would have given birth to a world that...would have been totally novel and probably truly great...In this Hildesheimer cloister...Nietzsche's trans-valuation of all values was being prepared."

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 248

As Marcel Deat put it: "Nietzsche's idea of the selection of 'good Europeans' is now being realized on the battlefield, by the LFV and the Waffen SS. An aristocracy, a knighthood is being created by the war which will be the hard, pure nucleus of the Europe of the future."

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 248

After The Birth of Tragedy, Nietzsche's...goal became ever more clear -- not pacifism and world-citizenship, but 'great war' and, above all, the war for the leadership of Europe and the challenge to the German Volk to create it anew.

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 248

Those most closely associated with the Nazification of Nietzsche were fully aware of the...need for some kind of interpretation...because the 'real' Nietzschean message had either been previously misunderstood or willfully distorted by Nietzsche's earlier, literary and nihilist -- usually Jewish -- devotees.

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 249

One only had to consult the Genealogy of Morals to see that Nietzsche talked in historical categories such as species, races, nations and classes.

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 250

Nietzsche only dismissed that anti-Semitism which was limited to the confessional, economic and social domains, overlooking the biological dimension...Nietzsche became a crucial source for that radicalized drive designated by Uriel Tal as 'anti-Christian anti-Semitism.'

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 251

...Radical distinctions between Greco-Jewish logocentric and Greco-Germanic biocentric principles -- abounded in the Third Reich...Irrationalist, tragi-Dionysian Nietzschean culture counter-acted traditional conceptions of Western morality and rationalist Enlightenment and Marxist notions of progress.

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 252

All right, I'll now present a second volley of quotations from Steven Aschheim that offers a penetrating survey of the influence of Friedrich Nietzsche upon three of the most famous German writers of the Nazi period, namely, Karl Jaspers, Carl G. Jung, and Martin Heidegger. (I am perhaps 90% through.) Petrejo 23:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The Neo-Kantians...were fully aware of Nietzsche's axial role in the political and philosophical reality of the Third Reich. The debate had to be conducted in Nietzsche's terms. The great minds of the time -- Jaspers, Jung and Heidegger -- all chose Nietzsche for sustained analysis.

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 256

Karl Jasper's patently non-Nazi Nietzsche of 1936 [made an] impassioned plea for a non-ideological Nietzsche...Walter Kaufmann criticized Jaspers for his purely epistemological Nietzsche shorn of any positive vision or system.

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, pp. 256-267

The looming background of Nazism helps to explain the marathon 1934-1939 Zurich seminar C.G. Jung held on Zarathustra. Nietzsche was, if anything, proof of the existence (and vitality) of the Jungian collective unconscious.

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, pp. 258-259

...Jung consistently regarded Nazism as a kind of Nietzschean project. Were not the SS schools at Ordensburgen...projects in molding Nietzsche's new nobility?

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 250

Nietzsche's conception of life as amor fati, self-sacrifice, Jung argued, "is the attitude now prevailing in Germany; it is the inner meaning of National Socialism...When you hear the really serious people talk, you realize that Nietzsche simply anticipated that style."

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 260

Jung argued..."One can say that it is all pathological, or that it is a divine or a demonical madness, but that is exactly the madness Nietzsche means. So Nietzsche is in a way the great prophet of what is actually happening in Germany."

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 260

Heidegger's explicit turn to Nietzsche coincided with his attraction to the anti-democratic, radical-right thought of the Weimar Republic in 1929...If some major Heidegger scholars are to be believed, these kinds of political and ideological motifs "entered into the heart of Heidegger's philosophy itself."

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 263

Throughout the 1930's and 1940's, Heidegger's categories and thematics...depended on the Nietzschean frame. Heidegger inherited Nietzsche's conviction that the history of philosophy had come to an end and that a new era was emerging.

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 263

Heidegger's initial solution for the overcoming of nihilism -- through a heroic, existential, self-affirmative will -- was unexceptionally Nietzschean.

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 263

As Karl Loewith had already noted in 1939, the perception of decline and impending European catastrophe with its concomitant "will to rupture, revolution and awakening" was not an idiosyncratic Heideggerian whim, but part and parcel of the post-1914 radical-right stock-in-trade."

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 264

In his famous 1933 rectorate speech, "The Self-Assertion of the German University," the great transformation of German being was linked to the creative possibilities of the nihilistic movement -- "if what the passionate seeker of God and the last German philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche, said is true: God is dead."

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 265

Heidegger's linguistic tonalities and suggested resolutions reverberated with (a suitably nationalized) Nietzsche.

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 265

Heidegger proclaimed in his 1936 lectures..."Mussolini and Hitler have learned from Nietzsche, each in an essentially different way."

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 266

The Overman, Heidegger told his students, "lives because the new mankind wills the Being of beings as will to power." Heidegger's analysis of the Overman as the new embodiment of the will to power expressed in "domination of the earth" was stated, after all, within a meta-discourse tailored to the prevailing political reality.

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, pp. 267-268

The Overman, Heidegger emphasized, belonged to the "grand style" of human breeding and social organization in which the "sole meaning of the one who as legislator first posits the conditions of domination over the earth consists precisely in not being defined by such conditions."

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 268

Heidegger initially greeted the Nietzschean trans-valuations of values as the proper philosophical answer to the nihilist predicament and the activist will to power of the Nazi revolution as the appropriate political counter-movement to nihilism.

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 250

As George Steiner has suggested, Heidegger's refusal to come to terms with the Holocaust stemmed from his refusal to derive ethical principles from the 'thinking of Being.' Heideggerian thought..."neither contains nor implies any ethics." This too...must be regarded as part of Heidegger's radicalization of the Nietzschean enterprise, a project who stated task was, after all, to think in terms of categories beyond good and evil.

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 250

On the occasion of our USA Independence Day holiday, I take pride in expressing my own freedom of thought and celebrating the freedom of the press by helping to expose the fascist side of this darling of the postmodern literary set, Herr Friedrich Nietzsche. (As always I presume the privilege to edit any typos here as necessary.) This is my final salvo of quotations to help writers decide how to transform this painfully POV Wikipedia article into a careful, NPOV expression of the whole truth. Petrejo 05:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

D. Gawronsky...wrote in 1935: Friedrich Nietzsche is held to be the pioneer, the ideological founder of the Third Reich. With no other thinker does National Socialist ideology feel so closely related, so internally linked as with Nietzsche. The leading spirits of the Third Reich call upon him incessantly.

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 272

In 1929 Kurt Tucholsky wrote: "Some illiterate Nazis who want to be considered part of the Hitler intelligentsia...claim Nietzsche for their own. Who cannot claim him for their own? Tell me what you need and I will supply you with a Nietzsche citation...for Germany and against Germany; for peace and against peace; for literature and against literature -- whatever you want. What I possess to a high degree is a mistrust against false heroes and I hold Nietzsche to be a secret weakling. He heroizes like one masturbates."

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 274

In 1935 Hans Gunther wrote in his, The Case of Nietzsche, that "the German ruling class was essentially backward: Nietzsche's thought was an ideational expression of that condition. Nietzsche's brutal thought reflected Germany's economic and political retardation."

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 275

Georg Lukacs wrote, "Nietzsche's retreat into the sphere of myth, his substitution of interpretation for knowledge, and his denial of the existence of an objective external world, knowledge of which could point the way to human redemption, were nothing but reflections of a class situation and not inherently worthy philosophical truths."

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 277

Anti-socialist irrationalism for Lukacs was an international phenomenon of the imperialist period. Given the delayed development of German capitalism it was most developed there and exemplified by "Nietzsche, who became the paradigm in content and methodology of irrationalist philosophical reaction from the USA to Tsarist Russia, and whose influence could not and cannot be rivaled by a single other reactionary ideologist."

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 278

Lukacs wrote: "This mythical form furthered Nietzsche's influence not only because it was to become the increasingly dominant mode of philosophical expression in the imperialist age. It also enabled him to pose imperialism's cultural, ethical and other problems in such a general way that he could always remain the reactionary bourgeoisie's leading philosopher, whatever the variations in the situation and the reactionary tactics adopted to match them.

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 279

Lukacs viewed Nazism as virtually indistinguishable from its Nietzschean philosophical reflection and expression. Nietzsche's call for the transvaluation of all values, his cry to unleash the instincts, his belief in barbarity as a savior were all examples.

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 280

Thomas Mann wrote in 1943: "Intellectual-spiritual fascism, throwing off of humane principles, recourse to violence, blood-lust, irrationalism, cruelty, Dionysiac denial of truth and justice, self-abandonment to the instincts and unrestrained 'Life' which in fact is death...this fascism is a devil-given departure...which leads through adventures of drunkenly intense subjective feeling and super-greatness to mental collapse and spiritual death, and soon to physical death.

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p.281

Maurice Samuel's 1940 studies in anti-Semitism -- the core and centre of Nazism-Fascism as a revolutionary ideal -- identified the anti-Christian nature of revolutionary Nazi anti-Semitism and insisted upon Nietzsche's central shaping role."

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 282

Otto Flake ironically argued that it was not good enough to categorize Nietzsche as 'endlessly ambiguous.' Nietzsche's predisposition towards ambiguity had simply reinforced a fateful German tendency to be imprecise and indecisive. This ideological tendency was a component of the German problem. For four centuries the whole nation had increasingly lacked concrete thinking -- Nietzsche was the culmination.

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 298

Alfred von Martin wrote in 1948: "Nietzsche's radicalized doctrine of the will to power and his atheism had destroyed not only God but the idea of humanness. While other radical critics of religion like Feuerbach and David Friedrich Strauss had left altruism intact, nothing was forbidden to Nietzsche's Overman."

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 298

Nietzsche, concluded von Martin, believed that nihilism could be overcome and that re-barbarization was curative. Yet what had begun as the great 'Yes,' the dream of an elevated life, had ended up in complete demonism.

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 299

The hermeneutical question concerning 'the real Nietzsche' since 1945 has been indissolubly linked to his relationship with Nazism. The issue is still with us. The dominant postwar images -- embodied in the opposed representations of Georg Lukacs and Walter Kaufmann -- have either condemned Nietzsche as centrally complicit in the Nazi evil or lauded him for being unblemished and opposed to all Nazism's intentions and actions.

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 315

Walter Kaufmann's 'gentle,' sterilized portrait so ignored or de-natured the power-political dimensions of Nietzsche, Walter Sokel has suggested, that readers must have felt baffled that anyone could possibly have attempted to make the Nietzsche-Nazi connection.

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 316

Martin Jay wrote in 1988: "The potential for the specific distortions that do occur can be understood as latent in the original text. Thus, while it may be questionable to saddle Marx with responsibility for the Gulag Archipelago or blame Nietzsche for Auschwitz, it is nevertheless true that their writing could be misread as justifications for these horrors in a way that, say, those of John Stuart Mill or Alexis de Toqueville could not."

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 316

The explosive and experimental Nietzsche corpus contained myriad possibilities that profoundly affected almost every vital area of twentieth-century postliberal consciousness and political culture including, quite patently, Nazism.

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 318

An exceptionally wide range of contemporary critics, philosophers, and historians continue to sense a profound affinity, positing in various ways and at different levels of complexity the complicity of Nietzschean impulses within Nazism.

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 320

Continuing through the present time no other philosophical figure has been more repeatedly invoked in historical explanation, none has served as a more fruitful springboard for speculative metahistorical notions of Nazism and its central murderous drives.

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 320

J.P. Stern's Hitler ...carefully spells out the differences and qualifications, yet in the final analysis his Hitler is best comprehended as a man animated by a concentrated and politicized ideology of the will derived from and in (parodistic) symmetry with Nietzsche.

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 321

Karl Dietrich Bracher's view of Nazism as a revolutionary and perverted reversal of ordinary moral values designed to serve an ideological system of terror and extermination is conceived in similarly affiliative Nietzschean terms: "Hitler himself, with his ideological fixation and his sense of mission as savior of a world doomed by racist decline, was the prototype of such a transvaluation, taking literally Nietzsche's vision of "a reassessment of values and transcending bourgeois morality."

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 321

In drafts for a sequel to Zarathustra and on the basis of his definition of the new Enlightenment's credo that "nothing is true, everything is permitted," Nietzsche went even further: "The consequences of your doctrine must wreak fearful havoc: but countless are destined to perish from them. We are submitting truth to an experiment! Maybe mankind will perish in the process! So be it!"

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 323

Ernst Nolte wrote in 1963: "Nietzsche's real enemy is obviously the concept of realization; it is at this that he aims such terms as ressentiment, decadence, and total degeneration. From a philosophical standpoint there is only one unassailable counter-concept: that of the wholly non-decadent man, the "beast of prey, the magnificent, roaming blond beast lusting for booty and victory," the magnificent animality of "the pack of blond beasts of prey."

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 324

Ernst Nolte wrote: "Nietzsche is not in a banal sense the spiritual father of fascism; but he was the first to give voice to that spiritual focal point towards which all fascism must gravitate; the assault on practical and theoretical transcendence, for the sake of a more beautiful form of life."

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 324

The Nazi exterminations were thus best understood by Nolte as the most desperate (and essentially Nietzschean) "assault ever made upon the human being and the transcendence within him." Although Nolte himself did not demonstrate the connections, we have already seen that this closely resembled how various Nietzschean Nazi sources defined their own project as the creation of an immanent, renaturalized and anti-transcendental society.

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 325

Ernst Nolte quoted from Ecce Homo: "Let us look ahead a century and assume the case that my attempt to assassinate two millennia of anti-nature and human disfiguration has succeeded. That new party of life which would take the greatest of all tasks into its hands, the higher breeding of humanity, including the merciless extermination of everything degenerating and parasitic, would make possible again that excess of life on earth from which the Dionysian state will grow again."

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 326

The list of Nietzsche's anti-life opponents -- Christian priests, vulgar Enlighteners, democrats, socialists, the degenerate masses -- is so great, Nolte now argues, that it dwarfs the Nazi 'implementation.' If Nietzsche's 'extermination' is understood literally, the result must be a mass murder, in comparison with which the later real 'Final Solution' of the National Socialists assumes almost microscopic proportions.

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 326

Nietzsche is thus ensconced in Nolte's dubious reduction of Nazism and its atrocities to a reaction to an earlier Marxist version of the same thinking, and in which the Holocaust is an anticipatory act of German self-defense against the perception of Jewish genocidal intentions.

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 327

In Britain and the United States the perception of Nietzsche as the major force behind the creation of a radicalized, novel, and uniquely murderous form of anti-Semitism has had to contend with Walter Kaufmann's interpretive hegemony and thus only recently has found its historians. The fashionable notion that Nietzsche was not anti-Jewish but anti-Christian, they argue, ignores the fact that what Nietzsche most bitterly detested in Christianity was its Jewish origins.

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 327

These writers stress that Nietzsche is the decisive force in the fateful switch from a limited Christian anti-Semitism to an unlimited, secular anti-Christian brand, which concretely paved the way towards Nazism and the Holocaust. Hitler, Conor Cruise O'Brien writes, learned from Nietzsche "that the traditional Christian limit on anti-Semitism was itself part of a Jewish trick. When the values that the Jews had revered were restored, there would be no limits and no Jews."

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 328

This Nietzsche, George Lichtheim argued, provided a section of the intellectual elite with the necessary Worldview -- including its most radical form of anti-Christian anti-Semitism culminating in the Holocaust.

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 329

For Lichtheim, Nietzsche's radical atheism had nothing to do with the Feuerbachian tradition that sought to replace theism with humanism. This anti-humanist atheism, moreover, "did away with the old naive and self-contradictory Christian anti-Semitism by indicting the Jews collectively as the original inspirers of that poisonous infection known as belief in Christ."

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 329

All this was wholly consistent with Hitler's long-term aims: "It is not too much to say," Lichtheim argued, "that but for Nietzsche the SS -- Hilter's shock troops and the core of the whole movement -- would have lacked the inspiration which enabled them to carry out their programme of mass murder in Eastern Europe."

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 329

Nietzsche will retain a central place in such accounts. There are many reasons for this, but above all he will remain relevant as a key to explaining National Socialism's attraction to the outmost limits, its arrival at a grotesque novum of human experience. Naggingly, the thematic resemblances represent themselves.

– Steven Aschheim, 1992 , The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, p. 330

EvilPicklesI am not sure where this goes I'm quite the newbie, I just do not feel like reading all this already, something somewhere said start this with 3 tilda keys, so I did. I noticed that someone has vandalised the page, if you read the 2nd to 9th pages, the information about his position at the university is quite inconsistent and contradictory, please someone fix it. PS: arpayton you made a good point, what you said in your first post was quite helpful to me. ^_^

Protected

Article is now protected. Please discuss and reach some kind of consensus. When you are ready to resume editing, you can place a request for unprotection at WP:RFPP. Have a nice weekend. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

"Quotations wars" are nor uncommon. One side adding a quote, the other adding another for "balance" and so forth. A neverending and zero-sum game. My view is that it is better to leave quotations in Wikiquote, and making this article NPOV by referring to what other reputable sources have said about Nietzsche's work. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Jossi, as one who disputed the NPOV of this article and so initiated the Protected status, I was expecting some kind of consensus that included myself before the Protected status was lifted. I was not informed (not in this page nor in any other medium) that the Protected status was lifted, yet there have been many changes to this article since the Protection was first placed. How is that possible? Please direct me to the Wikipedia policy that allows the lifting of Protection without a resolution or any consensus obtained. Thanks. Petrejo 04:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The trouble is that one user is adding quotes from 'the will to power', a work which was compiled by his sister, and is believed to distort nietzsche's views. Personally, I'm not fond of using quotations. If people want to read his works, they can do so--we have links for that. No need for quotations on a page this long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dume7 (talk • contribs)

Excellent and definitive points.Amerindianarts 15:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I've already expressed my views in "A word of caution" but I am inclined toward the deletion of all quotations, for they are not essential, in order that we move ahead with the article which, contrary to the other party's assumption, is my aim. — ^ignis _scripta 16:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, Petrejo is not trying to add 'a quote', he is trying to add a raft of quotes, all of which are carefully picked to make a POV anti-Nietzsche case. This has no place in an encyclopedia. We should see it for the POV, original research that it is and not think that because he is quoting that he is reporting. mgekelly 17:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I added various numbers of quotes, including a single quote in one section and another quote in another section. Those single quotes alone were enough to draw the ire of the POV advocates. Why? Because Nietzsche really and truly said those things, and they are relevant, and they argue eloquently for the my point. So they were ripped out with great haste and prejudice. Petrejo 03:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

These are my sentiments precisely. More to say, Petrejo's selections from the outset are construed to a faulty personal viewpoint, and this I have explicitly stated in my posts above. — ^ignis _scripta 17:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

You have claimed that my view is faulty, and insisted that it is POV, but you haven't demonstrated it, Igni. Petrejo 03:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

::I'm fed up with this, frankly. Petrejo is a POV vandal who hides his POV behind the act of quoting. He is unwilling to reach a consensus, because there is nothing to reach a consensus on. No-one has any objection to adding material about criticisms of Nietzsche, but that is not what Petrejo wants - he wants to add his criticisms of Nietzsche, albeit in the form of 'neutral' quotation, which cannot be allowed on Wikipedia. Once this protection nonsense is ended, I suggest we start issuing vandalism warnings and appealing for administrator intervention if he keeps doing it. mgekelly 18:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, havign looked at WP:-(, I don't think we can class this as vandalism. We should clearly go through dispute resolution. mgekelly 18:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that or WP policy is swiss cheese. (I'll abide by the former meanwhile.) — ^ignis _scripta 19:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

NB: it is astonishing how one falsely overassertive user, who also seems to be doing the same at Martin Heidegger, can impel (e.g., through "moral obligation") such havoc at one article—I lose any potential respect for this system's functional integrity and the competencies of its enforcers—when the situation is not difficult to put an end to in any way. All of my posts (here and here; and by others', too) suggest this, but alas, no serious action has been undertaken to halt this absurdity which has now led to the protection of the article. Surely, past situations at other articles' may resemble this case, but a judge is required to view a problem as unique in every feature hidden within its idiosyncrasy.

Be that as it may, I will be more available for the article's, currently dubious, development next week, perhaps by then this ailment would be overcome. — ^ignis _scripta 20:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

If you refer to me, Igni, my views are neither false nor overassertive. They are balancing to a Nietzsche-advocate POV. As far as Martin Heidegger is concerned, that is related because Heidegger (a former Nazi) was an avid Nietzsche-advocate. Although most Encyclopedias falsely repeat that Heidegger built his system upon Husserl's system, the facts are these: (a) Heidegger was a Nazi; (b) Husserl was Jewish; (c) the Party replaced Husserl with Heidegger; (d) Husserl always complained that Heidegger didn't understand his work. This is relevant to Nietzsche studies insofar as writers in the Nazi period -- especially Heidegger and also Hitler himself -- refer to Nietzsche directly as a support for their ideology. That's not vandalism to point out the facts -- even though most Encyclopedias since 1945 have white-washed the facts and continue to do so. (Tom Rockmore is only one of many scholars who press this point, and it deserves to be viewed in the NPOV Wikipedia.) Nietzsche-advocates are too quick and hasty to absolve Nietzsche of any affiliation with that sorry period, so the charges have hardly had a hearing. The POV that persists in *most* Encyclopedias about Nietzsche (and Heidegger) should *certainly* be balanced by a fair NPOV. Petrejo 17:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Although most Encyclopedias falsely repeat that Heidegger built his system upon Husserl's system, the facts are these

If you replaced "most Encyclopedias" with "the vast majority of contemporary Heidegger scholarship", this clause would still be accurate. In other words, your quarrel is with the relevant reliable sources, and your contribution here constitutes original research. — goethean ॐ 20:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Not true -- my quarrel is with tradition, and with petrified opinions. Scholars often repeat each other uncritically. Why do Encyclopedias change from time to time? Because their 'reliable' sources can indeed prove to be unreliable. Still, the changes in Knowledge discovered by younger scholars come into view only slowly and with struggle. This is the case with Nietzsche and Heidegger studies. The future will shed more light on them than the 20th century ever dreamed. Petrejo 03:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

And boy O boy is it not what you would expect. Ignor-ANT.

I'm looking at this very heated discussion and would like to add a few things real quick. Calling Nietzsche a mysogenist for his time period is not a telling criticism. Most of the notable scholars of that time period were mysogonists, including Hegel if you read is Phenomenology of the Spirit and his interpretation of the family dynamic in Antigone. Quoting Nietzshe on a scholarly level requires that you have read previous parts of his works. For example, if you read Geneology of the Morals without understanding that he is justifying the current morality his day as a slave morality that stifles creativity, and see him more as someone who advocates relativism, you have not done your homework and you will hopelessly misunderstand him. Nietzsche can be deceptively easy to read, the problem is that there are levels of meaning only people that have read all his works thoroughly can unravel. I will say nothing to the double meanings he loves to use in the German. As a non native German speaker I still struggle with them. StarShadow 02:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, this is a very nice note, and I agree. It doesn't even constitute a criticism when one looks at historical context unless one takes it into account much more broadly. Yes, as for the lack of understanding some would like to obscure, reading all of Nietzsche's work is the minimum requisite even to begin thinking about him. Not only that but trying to judge him based on, for example, Hegel's scales, is far from being insightful and even worth noting.Non-vandal 06:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The Hegel quotation is worth noting -- it disqualifies Nietzsche from the History of Philosophy. Let Nietzsche be heard in the Literature Department, where he rightfully belongs. Nietzsche's emotional problems over his mother (and her religion) and his sister erupt into outbursts of hatred against Women here and there. If one can find milder quotations here and there, then also post the heated quotations -- don't be so POV. Petrejo 04:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Mmmm... troll bait. Why don't you make more dead end accounts at the Heidegger talk page? I'm sure you'll find a suitable audience there.Non-vandal 09:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Heidegger? Heidegger worshippers are just as dizzy over Nietzsche as over their other quasi-Nazi hero. They've never been receptive to a dialectical critique of their hero. Anyway, I do criticize them, yet the NPOV mission calls here more loudly than there. Petrejo 06:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's untrue. Just to cite an example I know personally, the professor Marco Aurélio Werle, who translated many of Hegel's works to Portuguese, has just recently finished his course on Hegel and Heidegger. Not only did he, an explicit hegelian, treated Heidegger's thought with respect, but also demonstrated how many of Heidegger's concepts were also present in Hegel. Furthermore, even if Heidegger and Nietzsche could be characterized as nazists (I disagree with this characterization, but let's admit it for the sake of the argument), that does not readily invalidates their oeuvre and, more importantly, does not mean they are not philosophers. Even if Heidegger and Nietzsche were nazists, it is still a fact that Foucault, Deleuze, Sartre, Camus, to stay just in the French scenario, were all heavily influenced by the two of them and, moreover, considered them to be philosophers. Heck, even Bertrand Russell included Nietzsche in his History of Western Philosophy, despite being extremely critical of his ideas.

You say Nietzsche is not a philosopher, because he did not develop a system. Yet, he wrote about epistemology, metaphysics, ethics and aesthetics; as far as I know, these subjects all pertain to philosophy. The question of a system is irrelevant - systematically or not, Nietzsche clearly wrote about philosophical topics and held philosophical views. It's not even the case of a writer who briefly touched those subjects - his oeuvre is composed entirely of philosophical writings! If he is not a philosopher... then what the heck is he? Your assertion that he should be studied in the Literature departments is in the least ridiculous: aside from the Zarathustra, he did not write any other piece of fiction. How is it the Literature department to study an author who did not write literature and who did not deal (primarily) with literary criticism?

Finally, you claim that Nietzsche was a proto-nazist because of Hitler's appropriation of him. This is scarcely convincing; by the same "logic", Husserl would be a proto-heideggerian, since Heidegger used some things from his system. Fact is, the Nazist use of Nietzsche reveals nothing about the (supposed) political affiliations of the German thinker. Nevertheless, it is an issue that should be dealt. Personally, I think that Nietzsche's despise for militarism, nationalism, anti-semitism and statism are more than enough to demonstrate how he is not a Nazi. In spite of this, the Nietzsche-nazi controversy is a serious issue that must be dealt accordingly; not by mutilating his quotes, but both addressing the original text in context and also the current scholarship (which I believe to be rather unanimous in the veridict).

Well, I hope we manage to reach a consensus here... Daniel Nagase 04:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Daniel Nagase, thanks for your calm response to my criticisms. Actually, my characterization remains true, despite your professor who attempts to reconcile Hegel and Heidegger. I've read both writers thoroughly and I can say without hesitation that such a reconciliation is untenable. Heidegger wrote four extended essays about Hegel, each one more superficial than the last, and each attempted to belittle Hegel. That's not a polemical statement, but an observation of naked fact.

Further, there is no question of whether Heidegger (who was a stellar advocate of Nietzsche) was a Nazi -- he was a Party member, and he went about his leadership of his University wearing a swastika and shouting 'Heil Hitler!' even in his speeches to his students. (This is a matter of historical record.) Here is the world famous writer who advocated Nietzsche to a new generation.

Furthermore, if Heidegger (and by proxy Nietzsche) are closely associated with the Nazi era, it would not invalidate their work if they were *material* scientists, e.g. if ideology had nothing to do with their product. If they were philologists, or even architects or composers, the ideology of hatred and chauvanism may have played no part in their work. However, they claimed a stake in Philosophy -- the realm of ideas and ethics. So it is tautologically impossible for their ideology to have had no effect upon their product.

Furthermore, simply because most famous writers and ideologists of the 20th century have used Nietzsche and Heidegger as supports for their own writings, that proves nothing at all. Indeed, it may tell us how weak 20th century 'philosophy' really was, and may give us many insights into its weaknesses.

Also, the fact that Bertrand Russell included Nietzsche in his History of Western Philosophy, doesn't impress me because Bertrand Russell was a mathematician and a formal logician who didn't wander too far from his speciality. He was hardly in a position to be Philosophy's Historian, in my view. Russell excelled in formal logic, but he never extended that to a Science of Nature or to a Science of Ethics, i.e. he had no System. (His famous agnosticism was nothing but an evasion of that great and classical challenge.)

Also, I do say that Nietzsche is not a philosopher, but not merely because he had no system. My reasoning goes deeper than that, and I've explained why in these discussion pages. (It's not just that he had no system -- he didn't even refer to somebody else's system. He divorced himself from Philosophy proper when he said that "the will to a system is a lack of integrity." That may sound like a clever quip, but it's ultimately shallow.)

Also, any talented journalist can *mention* the philosophical topics of epistemology, metaphysics, ethics and aesthetics, but that does not make them philosophers. More is required. Much more. Nor is it enough simply to 'hold a philosophical view.' Millions do, but they aren't philosophers. Philosophers are identified by the *contribution* they make to the status of the formal Philosophy of their century.

I say Nietzsche isn't a Philosopher because all he offered were his *opinions*. Nor did he bother to prove any of them -- that was beneath him. He felt free (as any talented journalist does) to express his opinions even if they involved insults, chauvanism and hatred. That, Daniel, isn't Philosophy. It's journalism. It's not Philosophy. I stand by that.

You say that Nietzsche's work is 'composed entirely of philosophical writings.' That's simply incorrect. He published *no* formal review of Kant (as he should have), nor of Hegel, nor even of Spinoza, Descartes, Leibniz nor the key figures of his day. He may have dropped their names here and there -- but that's not enough. He knew the Greek philosophers (as any Philologist must), but that was not enough in 1850. Far more was needed. He just didn't have the specific talent needed.

One critic of mine cited one of Nietzsche's quips and insults about Kant. Sadly, it showed how little Nietzsche grasped about Kant's work, as Nietzsche charged Kant with metaphysics and with reifying the thing-in-itself. Yet Kant was the first critic of metaphysics, and the first to show the world the error of reifying the thing-in-itself!

So, what was Nietzsche? He was a journalist. He was a Philologist. He was a poet. He was an anti-Christ. He