Obviously you haven’t been to Texas. 
When it comes to to strengthen a culture communication is not the most important thing of the language, but Information is the most important Thing of the language, of sciencde etc… Communication is more (but not most) important when it comes to civilisation in order to get the Information, which is neverthelless most important. Elsewise communication is talk, only talk. … Talk, talk, talk …
It did lose parts. Of course. Very much. Look into your dictionary! And I also said: it gained (cp. vocabulary). Though not the quantity, but the quality is important when it comes to culture. When it comes to civilisation - okay -, it seems to be the reverse -, but civilisation is not what a culture startes with. A culture startes as culture ( 
). That what we nowadays call civilisation is perhaps in later or even latest times of a culture more important. A civilisation is not a “motor” for a rising development, but for the organisation of a declining development, of the decadent times.
Amongst others, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, Oswald Spengler argued in a very similar way as I do.
I have alraedy demonstrated, e.g. here, and in this post I there is also demonstrated why it does not work.
If a language has a high closeness - a high density - or a high frequency of related words (lexemes, sememes, morphemes), then it has also a high probabiltiy for being very creative in philosophy / science / technique etc., but if a language has a low closeness - a low density - or a low frequency of related words (lexemes, sememes, morphemes), then it has also a low probability for being very creative in philosophy / science / technique etc…
Each language has its own character because of its forms, its structures, its functions, its „laws“, its rules, its grammar and so on. But language in general has its own character because of its forms, its structures, its functions, its „laws“, its rules, its grammar and so on - just like - for example - mathematics and philosophy. You can hardly explain e.g. mathematical or linguistic forms, structures, functions, „laws“, rules, grammar by using e.g. physics or chemistry; and you can also hardly explain mathematical or linguistic forms, structures, functions, „laws“, rules, grammar by using e.g. psychology or sociology. But you can do it very well, very effectively, very successfully by using mathematics or linguistics.
So you can hardly explain what thoughts or words about by using psychology or sociology.
Nietzsche used thoughts and words in a regular way, although he was “psychically” ill. According to the English language, which can not seperate psyche from mind, this would not be possible ( 
). Though it is possible ( 
). I can guarantee you.
_______________________| Geist |
______________| Psyche ____|
_______| Biological Body ______|
| Anorganic Things ___________|
Above you see four layers as levels. Aristoteles thought of a fifth one, which he called “Hyle”. However. Except the Anorganic Things, each of that levels is relatively free and supported by the level / levels below - according to the positions. The more a level is up the more it is free, but no level is generally free, but relatively free. And the more a level is up the more it depends on the level / levels below. So Anorganic Things “stem” Biological Body, Psyche, and Geist (mind etc.). The Biological Body is more relaively free than the Anorganic Things, the Psyche is more relatively free than the Biological Body, and the Geist is more relatively free than the Psyche. When it comes to that what the levels are by theirselves, they do not depend on on any other level - exception: Anorganic Things, which depend on no level anyway.
So for example the Geist, which means the most relatively free level, does not depend on the other levels when it comes to that what the Geist is by itself.
That is one of the reasons why one can be mentally healthy and pschically ill, but not menatlly ill and psychically healthy. Nietzsche has shown how he was able to be mentally healthy and pschically ill even in very extreme situations. He had the best thoughts when he was ill. 
…
Just to be clear, what I said was that they refer to the same object, which is subtly different from saying they mean same thing. Mind (to me) means these inner subjective intangible experiences I call “thought” and “emotion” (maybe memories, dreams, intuitions as well), whereas soul (to me) means roughly the same thing with a few connotations added–namely, independence from the body (thereby implying the possibility of being freed from the body) and immortality. But these latter connotations aren’t (to me) essential to the definition of the soul–what’s essential (to me) is the soul’s being that which is internal to my very being and existence, which is also the essential aspect of the “mind” (to me). Thus, what they share in common–the soul and the mind–what is essentially the same, must make them the same object. But strictly speaking, the “soul” carries certain connotations that I don’t particularly believe in (i.e. independence from the body and immortality), but as these are not essential to what a “soul” is, I can still maintain that souls, being the same as the “mind” (which I believe exists), also exist, and are one and the same as “minds”.
I guess it’s the same as the concept of “witches”. I don’t really believe in witches (except for our good friend Maia, of course), but supposing some ultra hardcore Christian fundamentalist decided to put Maia on trial for witchcraft, claiming that she was involved in a pactum implicitum with the Devil, I’d say that the “witch” which our Christian fundamentalist friend, in his fanciful imagination, thinks exists really doesn’t, but that doesn’t mean that the object that he’s referring to (i.e. the person Maia which we all know and love) with his use of the word “witch” doesn’t exist. Of course, Maia exists! I believe in the object denoted by the term “witch” in this particular case (and in a sense, Maia is a witch–she practices the way of life of the Wiccan–which could be said to be more essential to what it is to be a watch than, I guess, the occult or being in league with the Devil). So the “witch” which our Christian fundamentalist friend is persecuting exists (we can all see her there), but the “witch” which he thinks exists (the one who signed a pact with the Devil) really doesn’t.
Long story short–there is a difference between semantics and referents.
A person’s native language shapes the way s/he sees the world. At least, that’s what I believe. I’m not sure I want to compare German with English other than to agree that English, particularly US, or American, English is more heavily nuanced than is German, in my opinion.
Language is sound, isn’t it? As Germanic tribes moved and spread throughout Europe, they picked up the sounds of other civilizations. Those sounds took on shifts, not only in pronunciation but, also, in meaning. Ancient Roman and Greek verb tenses were reduced to two–the past and the present. As the world changed, so did its language. The umlaut was dropped when the Germanic tribes went north, and finally occupied England where they met and mingled with the Celts and the Danes–another Germanic tribe.
What does this have to do with the German language as the language of philosophy. Probably nothing at all.
Is Armenius ‘guilty’ of confirmation bias? Has he moved backwards from Nietzsche to German as “the” philosophical language?
Was Nietzsche a ‘panpsychic’? Did he have the ability to ‘predict’ the future of mankind through his philosophy? Could that philosophy only have come from a German?
Perhaps, to answer this, one needs to look at Nietzsche, the man–and apply our collective amateur/semi-professional psychology brains to the mystery of Nietzsche, the man. He was born at a time when Germany was at its pinnacle of modern cultural achievement. Germany, in trying to maintain that achievement, became extremely Nationalistic, which led to WWI and WWII.
His father died early on, so he was raised by women. One of those woman was his sister, Elizabeth, an avowed anti-Semite who ‘edited’ his work for publication after his death. She was his companion and care-taker until his death. Despite both earlier and later editions of his work, he’s mostly known for Elizabeth’s edited version. (My opinion, only.)
How did he die? Was it the final stages of syphilis? If so, there’s no evidence; there’s merely speculation.
His father had died of “brain disease.” Does this mean a massive stroke? Did Nietzsche die of stroke? He collapsed, twice, while comforting an abused horse. Did Nietzsche die because of massive stroke?
He was always “sickly,” yet no one has documented his illnesses and infections throughout his life–at least, not that I can find. Y’all can help me with this. He had migraine headaches and impaired vision in his right eye; he suffered from intestinal disease.
I guess what I’m asking is whether or not Nietzsche was a recognized poet/philosopher in his own time or if it took the publication of his work, as edited and arranged by his sister, Elizabeth, to be so recognized. Just how much of Nietzsche is Nietzsche and how much of Nietzsche is Nietzsche myth?
If only someone long ago invented Poetry and Thesaurus’ long, long ago, we could of avoided this pointless discussion. I blame the Peisistratids. Oh wait… they fucking did, so argument collapsed in on everyone’s head.
Little pieces of history can wrench a discussion on linguistics, and even Nietzsche, out of its pre-conceived socket if only one looks.
And we have this thing called a Right Hemisphere in English. It deals in facts, and they follow not the dictates of language but ontological prerequisites. Language is but a approach to facts, but is hardly exclusively the only means. A hunter doesn’t pursue linguistically.
Its why we have such emphasis on psychology in America, and use anatomical terms to dictate functional from cytoarchitectual regions of the brain.
Besides, Nietzsche during his time intern fluxuated from outright mad to reading and writing. His writing, including poetry, continued after the collapse for some time. It fluctuated.
Hello, Lesbethrose.
I am not from Armenia. I am not Armenius, but Arminius.
You confused the “i” with the “e”. E forgeve you. 
Philosophically - apart from its area aesthetics - it is not merely or primarly sound.
According to this topic here my main argument refers not to a national language, although in the 19th and in the first third of the 20th century the German language was declared to be, regarded, recognised, accepted as the language of philosophy and science. But I don’t actually want to insist of this fact, but I want to evidence that language has its own system, is a system by itself - similar to philosophy or mathematics for example -, and therefor I used some examples of national languages (Ancient Greek, German). If we accept such systems and accept that „mind“ is not „psyche“, then we can also accept that someone doesn’t necessarily have to be both mentally ill or sick and psychically ill or sick, but can be e.g. merely psychically ill or sick without being mentally ill or sick.
This is an interesting question which should be answered without any reservation, without any taboos, which have been increasing so much …
And here is the first evidence for the taboos I mentioned. The neighbouring nations have always been very much more natinalistic than Germany. If you had used other words, than I would not say that here in some sense „Nürnberg is judging“. Anyway. History is not physics! Do you really know what caused WWI and WWII? I don’t think so.
And if not so?
What one can say is that it was neither ONLY this nor ONLY that. That is why I try to answer the question of this topic here whether Nietzsche was a panpsychic or even a panpsychotic. I think, he had the ability or competence, especially the competence of language, to put his own life with all its pain into a poetry and philosophy („life-philosophy“, Lebensphilosophie), and maybe also into myth, but he did it firstly with a healthy psyche and a healthy mind (Geist), secondly with an ill / sick/ diseased psyche and a healthy mind, and thirdly with an ill / sick/ diseased psyche and an ill / sick/ diseased mind. Thus: Not his psyche, but his mind was the last entity leading him to his collapse.
i think a case can be made to nihilize the some of the above, Liz/ Arminus. I think between very wide and pervasive consciousness, and what is recognized as unhealthy/consciousness/mind, there exists and indeterminable grey area. The profundity of the transvaluation, was an immense, and poorly understood event in the history of thought, Nietzsche must at least had some inkling of this. In Nietzche , to categorically declare boundaries as far as what went wrong with him versus the effects his philosophy, may be the wrong approach. Illness, according to Susan Sontag, is, at the very least, a metaphor, and beyond evaluation, of merit or demerit. Morality has been overcome in terms of either or, good or bad, so let’s not suppose, it had no reverse input into his own psychology. Super/supra natural energies broke through for him transcending the boundaries, and it may have been too much for anyone other than an overman to actually deal with it. I think the reverse was true, he did not translate his ideas into poetic form, but his mystical foundation could be best described in that form.
- Grammar refers not only to linguistic systems, but also to mathematical systems, and to semiotic systems.
- Grammar also refers to a language as a whole system, and to its history, to the contacts with other languages, to etymology / derivation.
- Grammar refers to texts, sentences (=> syntax), referemes, representemes, sememes, words, lexemes, morphemes, phonemes, graphemes, and other forms, structures, and functions of language.
So words belong as well to a grammar as other language forms, structuers and functions.
So words lead to tendencies in thinking, different thoughts, and so on - not only because words belong to the grammar of a language, a linguistic system, but also because of their history, their etymology / derivation. If you have many related words, words of the same language, then you know their linguistical relaitionship, including their logical realtionship, very well. You can work with them very well and effectively. Foreign words must be translated, even then when they have belonged to your own language for many centuries. This foreign words have no or only little relationship to the words of your own language. And this has consequences, and not only linguistic consequences, but also logical consequences, thus philosophical consequences.
I am not saying that languages with many foreign words are generally not convenient for thinking, different thoughts, and so on, but languages with many foreign words are less convenient for thinking, different thoughts, and so on. This disadvantage can be compensated by borrowing more and more foreign words, but it can never be changed into an advantage. So “pure” languages have an advantage compared with “mixed” languages. But remember before you think I would like to rail against the English language: In some cases - for example in the case of sememes and in the case of some syntactic structures and functions - the Englsih language is not so “mixed” as it is in the other cases. So in some cases the English language is the most Germanic language of all Germanic languages and in other cases it is the less Germanic language of all Germanic languages.
Linguistic forms, structures, functions influence thinking, thoughts, definitions, concepts, and so on. So linguistic influences philosophy, science, and so on. This influence is often underestimated, but you only have to remember or to think of a child who is asking in order to get knowledge. Speaking and thinking or information / language and science / philosophy are very closed to each other, work very closely with each other, so that one can say that they influence each other in two directions.
If language isn’t sound, then what is it?
Who declared the German language to be the language of philosophy and science. You’ve given us no references. At the time, much of the advances in both philosophy and science came from German speaking people–so, of course, they were disseminated in the German language or it’s derivatives. Earlier, scientific thought and philosophy was only disseminated in Latin, the known language that transcended the national languages of the writers. If, as you say, language is a system, wouldn’t the way a person viewed her/his world also be a ‘system’ that mirrored her/his language structure?
It’s also one you haven’t answered.
I never said other countries weren’t extremely Nationalistic. I never mentioned other countries at all. The judgements at Nuremberg were for crimes committed by leaders within the NAZI party against people, no matter what their nationality, during the prelude to and the duration of WWII. I don’t understand how they could be thought of as anything else. Nor do I understand what any of that has to do with Nietzsche, who was died before WWI.
I think the question of how Nietzsche died–or from what–is important to an understanding of the man. Death due to tertiary syphilis can be romanticized much more readily than can death due to hereditary ‘brain disease’ or brain tumors not brought about by an outside agency.
I do not doubt that Nietzsche was a poet. I don’t doubt his use of his language as his way of expressing his thoughts, poetically. I believe every poet expresses pain in her/his own language. I also believe every poet exhibits her/his philosophy in her/his writing and in whatever language is the most familiar.
All I’ve questioned are your responses to Gib, who wrote the OP. Was Nietzsche a panpsychic?
I interpreted that to mean, “Did Nietzsche have the ability to predict the future of the human race?”
I don’t believe he did, any more than I believe any poet/philosopher does.
On the other hand, I believe anyone who tries to communicate thought must do so in his native language. (I’ve dropped ‘her/his’ because I think I’ve shown my point.) If medieval scientists wrote in Latin despite their native languages, it’s because Latin was the language of science at the time. (Copernicus was Polish; Galileo was Italian. They both wrote about the same thing in Latin.)
Furthermore, if anyone tries to communicate thought, he must be very careful of his word choices. Any language has it’s own identity for its speakers. This means the structure of the language means one thing to a speaker of that language. If it’s translated into another language, the translated language means something to the speaker of the translated language. You showed that yourself when you said,
As a poet, Nietzsche used his words, in the German language, in a way that, perhaps, only another German would understand–if poetry can be completely understood by the reader as exactly what the poet meant by his words.
You’ve also said:
Nietzsche was physically ill throughout his entire life. His mental health is, perhaps, questionable. Did he or did he not claim to be a descendent of Polish aristocracy? Was that belief an indication of anything other than, as is true of so many people, he wanted to be thought of as something he wasn’t? Just how did he present any mental illness? Also, many people are the picture of good health while also suffering from mental illness
Nietzsche would probably have presented mental illness if he had been in the final stages of syphilis. Tertiary syphilis can present as dementia in the sufferer. Brain tumors present differently, depending on where the lesions are in the brain. Nietzsche died in 1900, before any medical tests had been perfected to make a sure diagnosis. Do any eye-witness accounts say anything about his mental and/or physical condition at the time of his death–other than his sister.
My thing is–and I admit it’s my thing–any interpretation of Nietzsche’s words depends on the interpreter. This is true for any of us who dares to put thoughts into writing.
It is a set of forms used to convey concepts. The forms can be of anything; sound, letters, symbols, light strobes, semaphore. hand gesters,…
I love you, too, James. Do whales, dolphins, dogs, cats use a language that isn’t first of all sound? Or don’t you believe mammals all have their own languages?
Computers use language that is not sound. Birds visually communicate with potential mates by dancing or displaying. Body language is usually visual, or tactile.
Language is a structured form of communication; the common abstraction to language is (itself an abstraction) the manipulation of symbols.
But I think that the assonant component of human language is often overlooked. It’s only in the last millennium that reading has generally been a silent activity, at least in the West: that St Ambrose could read without reading aloud was thought worthy of wonder. Too much dry philosophy may tend to lead us away from the value of the spoken word, and the milieu in which most language develops and evolves.
You have misundestood me because I said that language is MORE THAN sound, NOT MERELY or NOT PRIMARILY sound. Proof:
…
Why „us“? (Rhetoric?)
Okay, the most Americans have forgotten it (they had their reasons), but German has been the language of science till 1945, and in some cases, especially in chemistry, even till about 1960. It didn’t had to be „declared“, as you presume. It was known all over the world. Today most of the people have forgotten it, especially in the USA (we know the reasons!), so it is only known by scientific historians and people who are in other respects interested in science and/or scientific history.
Concerning to German as the language of philosophy one has to say that(1.) it depends on the known fact that German was the language of science, and (2.) some philosophers (e.g. Martin Heidegger et. al.), and some linguists named German (b.t.w.: also the Ancient Greek) the language of philosophy because of the its structure, functions, and forms (incl. poetry).
What did Nietzsche’s sister when, where, and why say?
And I remind you: Mind is NOT psyche (perhaps only in your language). If someone is ill, he/she/it can it be in different ways.
[i]
…
Back to the topic:
Was Nietzsche a panpsychic or a panpsychotic? Either … or? Neither … nor?[/i]
…
Animal “languages” are very different to human languages, and this fact has always been clear to scientists or philosophers. Excuse me, but your premise is false because animals use language in a too much diffderent way than humans do. Language is NOT only a physiologic phenomenon, it is a lingiuistic system (cp above: my posts), and this linguistic system is typical for human beings. Human language is so very much different to animal “languages”, that both became two language systems during the evolution. Human language is primarily a very much single language, a language by itself, a language system on ist own.
???
Touch tends to be the first medium of communication, followed by sight, and then sound. But there is no hard line or universal requirement.
I can’t really comment on which modern language is more suited for philosophy.
What did Nietzsche’s sister when, where, and why say?
And I remind you: Mind is NOT psyche (perhaps only in your language). If someone is ill, he/she/it can it be in different ways.
[i]
…
Back to the topic:
Was Nietzsche a panpsychic or a panpsychotic?[/i]
… [/quote
Still the difference has not been answered. There is some animal type communication within human communication. Some people prefer animal communication. Nietzsche broke down upon seeing a horse whipped, Hitler’s dog Blondie, meant more to him then the people he destroyed. Where can psychic phenomenon be separated from psychotic behavior? It is not a legitimate distinction.
There are so many potential topics in this thread it’s hard to choose just one. We have O_H, the linguistics expert, contributing along with James, the logic expert. We have me, an expert on absolutely nothing whatsoever, trying to answer the OP. (“we” and “us” aren’t rhetorical. They’re general pronouns used to indicate the members of the web site.)
To go off a bit tangentially, about language and sound and all that, there’s an article in New Scientist (Feb. 8-14, 2014) about how the domesticated finch’s brain has developed a ‘language’ center, similar to Wernicke’s area in the human brain, wherein the finch stores the sounds of its various songs. But, of course, to accept that means a person would have to accept that languages started with sound rather than (flag) semaphores.
arminius wrote:
This is another topic, but, briefly, Nietzsche’s sister, Elisabeth Forster, wasn’t around when Nietzsche ‘collapsed’ in Turin and was left an invalid until his death. She was in Paraguay with her husband and a few other German couples, trying to establish Nueva Germania, a colony in which a ‘pure Aryan race’ would be developed. Although Nietzsche was never anti-semetic, Elizabeth and her husband were.
When the colony failed and Elisabeth returned to Naumberg and her mother’s home, she became her brother’s caretaker and established the Nietzsche Archives. She took his notes and rearranged them according to her philosophy, then had them published. She ended up a friend of Hitler who attended her funeral in 1935.
Nietzsche studied and lectured on philology, the study of language development through linguistic criticism. I really don’t know how Nietzsche, the man, can be understood without knowing this.
But it’s late, now. I have an early day tomorrow.
Nietzsche, the man, is still a subject of research.
In my effort to answer the OP, I’ll ask, “Will Nietzsche’s philosophy, assuming it can be defined, endure for 500 or more years? Will it have changed the way the world thinks in that time?”
Five hundred years is an arbitrary number. Has Nietzshe’s philosophy changed to world as it is now?
As for his mustache–I do hope he used a napkin as he ate. And I do hope he always carried a clean hankie–especially during the winter. 
You seriously can’t go by what people say about people during that era who were involved in any political activity. Documents get faked, lies get told, lies get told about the lies, and it just becomes no more than rumor and childish gossip.
The writings that are attributed to him display someone under serious stress. No one at this point can count on any rumors concerning the cause. His sister supposedly changed some of his writings to be more anti-Jewish, but it is just as likely to be the other way around. You can’t believe anything you hear and only half of what you directly see (unless it is on TV, then maybe 10%). Rewriting history has become the art of the age, shifting blame. Hitler was complaining about that same thing at the time.
No.
Languages started with signs (cp. semiotic), the transition of semiotic signs to the first lingusitic signs was the beginning of the language in that sense we can use the word „language“ very generally. The sound started later. Sound is not necessary for language, but an advantage, as all human languages indicate. Primitive animals do not need any sound for their language, they use a very primitive language, a chemical language.
Excuse me, but you did NOT answer my question. All what you said is known!
In addition: Whether Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche was in Paraguay or not, whether she or her brother were antisemitic or not, and other whether … or not … - all that has nothing to do with my question.
That’s all known.
So you can NOT answer my question.
Okay. It doesn’t matter.
Arminius,
Are you assuming I know something about Elisabeth Forster-Nietzsche no one else knows? How could that be?
As for unanswered questions, you haven’t answered mine, either. As a matter of fact, we don’t seem to even be on the same page! When I say language is sound, it’s because, to me, that’s how it began. I imagine a small group of hominids walking along when one turns to another and sees the second is about to be attacked from the rear. The first yells out a warning–possibly jumping up and down while yelling. Tone of voice and inflection are also a part of language–a part of communicating, which is the purpose of language, isn’t it?
Karl Jaspers attempted a psychological study of Nietzsche using Nietzsche’s letters to friends written in the months leading up to his collapse. There were no contemporary psychiatric records, even medical records were spotty. But could even a celebrated psychiatrist such as Jaspers reach any definitive conclusions based only on correspondence?
It’s accepted that Nietzsche used drugs–including chloral hydrate and morphine. Could that have caused his bi-polarism–if he suffered from bi-polar disorder? I think it’s safe to say that he was mad, which is not to say his madness detracted from his creativity. His madness may have heightened his creativity–or vice versa.
My questions hint at this when I ask, “Will Nietzsche’s philosophy, assuming it can be defined, endure for 500 or more years? Will it have changed the way the world thinks in that time?”
Can you answer my questions?