Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthetics

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby von Rivers » Wed Jul 22, 2015 10:20 pm

Ornello wrote:"Will to power' is simply impossible, as would be 'will to car' or 'will to light bulb'. Since 'power' is the word that cannot really be avoided, we have to make the construction allow for its presence as a noun.


Why?

It's certainly not a person, place, or thing to Nietzsche.
User avatar
von Rivers
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5856
Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 4:24 am

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby Ornello » Wed Jul 22, 2015 10:30 pm

von Rivers wrote:
Ornello wrote:"Will to power' is simply impossible, as would be 'will to car' or 'will to light bulb'. Since 'power' is the word that cannot really be avoided, we have to make the construction allow for its presence as a noun.


Why?

It's certainly not a person, place, or thing to Nietzsche.


I don't understand what you are asking. It's a concept. This is a translation issue. The word 'power' is the one word that is almost unavoidable in the translation. Thus, the other words have to be chosen accordingly.
Ornello
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 9:48 pm

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby Arminius » Wed Jul 22, 2015 10:32 pm

Ornello, the German language made an exception of that said rule long ago, very long before Nietzsche wrote his books; and later the English language made this exception too.

So "Nomen + zu + Nomen" is an accepted exception of the rule "Nomen + zu + Verb".
Exactly the same in English: "noun + to + noun" is an accepted exception of the rule "noun + to + verb".
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby von Rivers » Wed Jul 22, 2015 10:35 pm

Ornello wrote:I don't understand what you are asking. It's a concept. This is a translation issue. The word 'power' is the one word that is almost unavoidable in the translation. Thus, the other words have to be chosen accordingly.


Linguistically, why does power need to be considered a noun, rather than a verb?
User avatar
von Rivers
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5856
Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 4:24 am

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby Ornello » Wed Jul 22, 2015 10:35 pm

Arminius wrote:Ornello, the German language made an exception of that said rule long ago, very long before Nietzsche wrote his books; and later the English language made this exception too.

So "Nomen + zu + Nomen" is an accepted exception of the rule "Nomen + zu + Verb".
Exactly the same in English: "noun + to + noun" is an accepted exception of the rule "noun + to + verb".


It doesn't matter whether German allows Wille zu + verb or noun. I have seen plenty of examples of both. My point is that in English, 'will to' + noun is impossible, because the 'to' is not a preposition but part of the infinitive.

There is no 'will to cheese', 'will to ketchup', 'will to peanut butter', etc., but 'desire for' works for those nouns, and for any noun. But, observe that 'desire for' cannot be followed by a verb: 'desire for eat', 'desire for run', 'desire for fly' are improper formations.
Last edited by Ornello on Wed Jul 22, 2015 10:44 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Ornello
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 9:48 pm

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby Ornello » Wed Jul 22, 2015 10:36 pm

von Rivers wrote:
Ornello wrote:I don't understand what you are asking. It's a concept. This is a translation issue. The word 'power' is the one word that is almost unavoidable in the translation. Thus, the other words have to be chosen accordingly.


Linguistically, why does power need to be considered a noun, rather than a verb?


You don't seem qualified to enter this discussion.
Ornello
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 9:48 pm

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby von Rivers » Wed Jul 22, 2015 10:40 pm

Ornello wrote:You don't seem qualified to enter this discussion.


That's funny. So is there an answer coming?
User avatar
von Rivers
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5856
Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 4:24 am

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby Ornello » Wed Jul 22, 2015 10:44 pm

von Rivers wrote:
Ornello wrote:You don't seem qualified to enter this discussion.


That's funny. So is there an answer coming?


Uhm, no.
Ornello
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 9:48 pm

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby von Rivers » Wed Jul 22, 2015 10:52 pm

Ornello wrote:Uhm, no.


Darn. I thought 'will to power' was wrong, and that since you want a change of translation from the predominant one, that there was some conceptual difference you would highlight and correct with the change. (Usually the point of altering a translation).

Aren't you useless.
User avatar
von Rivers
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5856
Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 4:24 am

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby Arminius » Wed Jul 22, 2015 10:59 pm

Ornello wrote:
Arminius wrote:Ornello, the German language made an exception of that said rule long ago, very long before Nietzsche wrote his books; and later the English language made this exception too.

So "Nomen + zu + Nomen" is an accepted exception of the rule "Nomen + zu + Verb".
Exactly the same in English: "noun + to + noun" is an accepted exception of the rule "noun + to + verb".

It doesn't matter whether German allows Wille zu + verb or noun. I have seen plenty of examples of both. My point is that in English, 'will to' + noun is impossible, because the 'to' is not a preposition but part of the infinitive.

No, and you did not carefully read my posts, because if you had done it, then you would have known that the rules and the changes in the history of both languages are the same - the only difference is that the German language allowed the said exception of that rule much earlier than the English language.

Ornello wrote:There is no 'will to cheese', 'will to ketchup', 'will to peanut butter', etc., but 'desire for' works for those nouns, and for any noun. But, observe that 'desire for' cannot be followed by a verb: 'desire for eat', 'desire for run', 'desire for fly' are improper formations.

Yes, that is what I said as well, but I also said that both languages (German earlier, Englsih later) allowed an exception of that rule.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby Sauwelios » Wed Jul 22, 2015 11:42 pm

Ornello wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
Ornello wrote:Nonsense. 'Will to (noun)' is not a proper construction in English. There may be some influence from the mistranslation that we are discussing.


Sure it is. It has been at least since the phrase "will to power" was first widely accepted.


What do you mean 'widely accepted'? It is a mistranslation and always has been. Some translator makes a goof, and since nobody seems to give a shit about English idiom, that means it's 'widely accepted'? I think not! I did find some early examples (late 19th c) where the translation of Nietzsche's phrase was 'will for power'.


It's not a goof. I will grant you that the construction "will to [noun]" did not exist in English. Then, however, there arose a demand for an English translation of texts of Nietzsche that contained the key phrase Wille zur Macht. Now just as translators would concur on "power" (as opposed to, say "might"), so they would on "will" (as opposed to, say, "want"). But how were they to translate the connective zur? (Naturally they let away the [de]r part, as "the will to the power" would be like a Russian saying "I want to buy car".) So what were they to choose? "Will for power", "will of power" (as happened in French), or simply "will to power"? The latter was not just the most obvious choice, but had the added advantage of leaving intact any strict meaning Nietzsche might have wanted to convey with zu. This made it a no-brainer, really.

"Will to power" is found throughout a huge body of scholarship and literature on Nietzsche, not to mention popular use.


'Desire for power' is an extremely common expression, and is idiomatic.

https://www.google.com/#tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_ ... r+power%22


But was Wille zur Macht comparably idiomatic in Nietzsche's times, or even now? I think not. I think the words you may be looking for are Machtstreben ("striving for power"), Machtgier ("greed or desire for power"), or Machthunger ("hunger for power"). The will to power however is not a striving, greed/desire, or hunger; it's not a want of power, but a will to power: it does not mean that one wants (lacks) power, but that one wills (imposes) it.


Ornello wrote:
Arminius wrote:Ornello, the German language made an exception of that said rule long ago, very long before Nietzsche wrote his books; and later the English language made this exception too.

So "Nomen + zu + Nomen" is an accepted exception of the rule "Nomen + zu + Verb".
Exactly the same in English: "noun + to + noun" is an accepted exception of the rule "noun + to + verb".


It doesn't matter whether German allows Wille zu + verb or noun. I have seen plenty of examples of both. My point is that in English, 'will to' + noun is impossible, because the 'to' is not a preposition but part of the infinitive.


It's the same in German: Der Wille (um) zu [infinitive]. In that case zu is no preposition, but a particle required by the infinitive.


There is no 'will to cheese', 'will to ketchup', 'will to peanut butter', etc., but 'desire for' works for those nouns, and for any noun. But, observe that 'desire for' cannot be followed by a verb: 'desire for eat', 'desire for run', 'desire for fly' are improper formations.


It's not quite right that all the examples you give for this are concrete things. But at least they're better than the ones you gave before, like "will to car"--which naturally requires an article in order not to sound like a stereotypical English-speaking Russian.

Ultimately the problem with all your examples is that the will to power is not the will to have power.
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7183
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby James S Saint » Wed Jul 22, 2015 11:46 pm

von Rivers wrote:
Ornello wrote:I don't understand what you are asking. It's a concept. This is a translation issue. The word 'power' is the one word that is almost unavoidable in the translation. Thus, the other words have to be chosen accordingly.


Linguistically, why does power need to be considered a noun, rather than a verb?

The closest verb form would be "empower", not "power".

As I said, no matter which way Nietzsche intended it (which is why I avoid discussing dead philosophers), he was wrong.

There is no form or translation of "Will to Power" that reflects the actual reality of life. It is a simple minded, superficial notion, that just happens to be misleading, which is why it didn't take over the entire world 10,000 years ago. It is only a "half-truth".

Sauwelios wrote: the will to power is not the will to have power.

I seriously doubt that.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby Ornello » Thu Jul 23, 2015 1:56 am

Arminius wrote:
Ornello wrote:Yes, that is what I said as well, but I also said that both languages (German earlier, English later) allowed an exception of that rule.


No, there is no 'exception' to the rule in English. The earliest translation of Nietzsche's expression I could find was 'will for power', from the 1890s. Some time later, so it seems, some translator used 'to' instead of 'for', probably because he didn't know the German zu means 'for' since it sounds like 'to' and is used with verbs like the English 'to' is. But of course the academic morons have no sense and never even questioned it. Perhaps it was a native-speaking German translating into English (such mistakes are frequently made by non-natives). It is not 'incorrect', it is impossible.

The term wozu means, 'what for?', 'why?', 'to what purpose?'.
Last edited by Ornello on Thu Jul 23, 2015 2:44 am, edited 2 times in total.
Ornello
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 9:48 pm

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby Ornello » Thu Jul 23, 2015 2:29 am

Sauwelios wrote:
It's not a goof. I will grant you that the construction "will to [noun]" did not exist in English. Then, however, there arose a demand for an English translation of texts of Nietzsche that contained the key phrase Wille zur Macht. Now just as translators would concur on "power" (as opposed to, say "might"), so they would on "will" (as opposed to, say, "want").


But it ain't so. Wille can be translated in many ways, depending on the context.
See pages 845-846 here:
https://books.google.com/books?id=SBdXAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA890&dq=Muret+Sanders+1901&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEIQ6AEwB2oVChMI15P9pY7wxgIVxXo-Ch0rDQwl#v=onepage&q=Muret%20Sanders%201901&f=false

"Will to power" is found throughout a huge body of scholarship and literature on Nietzsche, not to mention popular use.


What do you expect from academics? Intelligence? Knowledge of English grammar? Keep wishing, baby.

(I have seen the term 'overhumanity' in Nietzsche literature, no joke.)
Ornello
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 9:48 pm

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby Arminius » Thu Jul 23, 2015 2:48 am

Ornello wrote:
Arminius wrote:Yes, that is what I said as well, but I also said that both languages (German earlier, English later) allowed an exception of that rule.

No, there is no 'exception' to the rule in English. The earliest translation of Nietzsche's expression I could find was 'will for power', from the 1890s. Some time later, some translator used 'to' instead of 'for' ...

You just admitted that an exception was axccepted. The native speakers of the English language accepted the "to" in the term "will to power", probably because there were more examples before the "will to power". Centuries before this there was the same linguistical change in Germany.

Ornello wrote:... probably because he didn't know the German zu means 'for' since it sounds like 'to' and is used with verbs like the English 'to' is.

The German "zu" and the English "to" have the same root. In Low German "to" is still used instead of "zu" which is High German, as i said several times. So "to" is not only used in English but also in Low German.

Ornello wrote:But of course the academic morons have no sense and never even questioned it. Perhaps it was a native-speaking German translating into English (such mistakes are frequently made by non-natives).

It is possible, but I guess that it did not happen in that way.

Ornello wrote:It is not 'incorrect', it is impossible.

Again: The exception of that said rule was accepted and is accepted by the native speakers.

Language changes.

The verbs "machen" (German) and "make" (English) and the nouns "Macht" (German) and "might" (English) had lost their former much deeper relationship a bit, so that the rule "Nomen + zu + Verb" ("Wille zu machen") / "noun + to + verb" ("will to make") was not possible anymore and became a rule exception: "Nomen + zu + Nomen" ("Wille zur Macht") / "noun + to + noun" ("will to might"). Use other examples in order to ascertain this rule exception by negating the other examples.
Last edited by Arminius on Thu Jul 23, 2015 2:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby Ornello » Thu Jul 23, 2015 2:54 am

Arminius:

The German rules are irrelevant, why do you keep bringing them up? In English, what matters are English rules.

'Will to power' is impossible in English, no matter how many morons say it.
Ornello
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 9:48 pm

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby Arminius » Thu Jul 23, 2015 3:10 am

I am speaking of both the German and the English rules in order to show why both (and not merely one of the both) languages changed.

The English langauge has changed, Ornello.
Last edited by Arminius on Thu Jul 23, 2015 3:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby Sauwelios » Thu Jul 23, 2015 3:12 am

Ornello wrote:
Arminius wrote:
Ornello wrote:Yes, that is what I said as well, but I also said that both languages (German earlier, English later) allowed an exception of that rule.


No, there is no 'exception' to the rule in English. The earliest translation of Nietzsche's expression I could find was 'will for power', from the 1890s. Some time later, so it seems, some translator used 'to' instead of 'for', probably because he didn't know the German zu means 'for' since it sounds like 'to' and is used with verbs like the English 'to' is. But of course the academic morons have no sense and never even questioned it. Perhaps it was a native-speaking German translating into English (such mistakes are frequently made by non-natives). It is not 'incorrect', it is impossible.


This is nonsense. The German zu does not always mean "for". The reason it sounds like "to" is that it's etymologically the same word... The next thing you say is just a rant. And as for "will for power", what's your source for that?


Ornello wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
It's not a goof. I will grant you that the construction "will to [noun]" did not exist in English. Then, however, there arose a demand for an English translation of texts of Nietzsche that contained the key phrase Wille zur Macht. Now just as translators would concur on "power" (as opposed to, say "might"), so they would on "will" (as opposed to, say, "want").


But it ain't so. Wille can be translated in many ways, depending on the context.


Yes, but we're discussing one very specific context, the context of Nietzsche's key phrase Wille zur Macht...


"Will to power" is found throughout a huge body of scholarship and literature on Nietzsche, not to mention popular use.


What do you expect from academics? Intelligence? Knowledge of English grammar? Keep wishing, baby.

(I have seen the term 'overhumanity' in Nietzsche literature, no joke.)


Your example is indeed not very elegant; it should of course be "superhumanity", "superhumankind", "overmanhood", or "overmankind".
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7183
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby Arminius » Thu Jul 23, 2015 3:25 am

The German "zu" does almost always mean "to". Hence I wrote:

I wrote:The German "zu" and the English "to" have the same root. In Low German "to" is still used instead of "zu" which is High German, as i said several times. So "to" is not only used in English but also in Low German.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby Ornello » Thu Jul 23, 2015 3:40 am

Arminius wrote:The German "zu" does almost always mean "to". Hence I wrote:

I wrote:The German "zu" and the English "to" have the same root. In Low German "to" is still used instead of "zu" which is High German, as i said several times. So "to" is not only used in English but also in Low German.


No, it does not. Most of the time it means 'for', but it can mean 'at', 'in', or 'to'.

http://forum.wordreference.com/threads/ ... or.587402/

Besonders:

"My point was: an English German teacher might be able to answer this question; a German is puzzled by it, because a German does not perceive "zu" and "für" as related, or as competing prepositions.

You really need to give examples! Prepositions are tricky. They don't translate well between languages. You basically have to learn for each expression what preposition is appropriate.

For example -- Zum Beispiel.
For your information -- zu Ihrer Information.
A gift for my brother -- ein Geschenk für meinen Bruder.
For whatever reasons -- aus welchen Gründen auch immer.

I don't know that there is a rule. An English native fluent in German might be better qualified to answer this question."
Ornello
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 9:48 pm

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby Ornello » Thu Jul 23, 2015 3:47 am

Sauwelios wrote:
Ornello said: (I have seen the term 'overhumanity' in Nietzsche literature, no joke.)


Your example is indeed not very elegant; it should of course be "superhumanity", "superhumankind", "overmanhood", or "overmankind".


Nietzsche never used the term Übermenschlichkeit, ever. The scholar who used this term ('overhumanity') made it up, and it has nothing to do with anything Nietzsche wrote.

Christa Davis Acampora:

http://www.pdcnet.org/scholarpdf/show?i ... e_type=pdf
Last edited by Ornello on Thu Jul 23, 2015 2:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ornello
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 9:48 pm

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby Arminius » Thu Jul 23, 2015 3:54 am

Ornello wrote:
Arminius wrote:The German "zu" does almost always mean "to". Hence I wrote:

I wrote:The German "zu" and the English "to" have the same root. In Low German "to" is still used instead of "zu" which is High German, as i said several times. So "to" is not only used in English but also in Low German.

No, it does not. Most of the time it means 'for', but it can mean 'at', 'in', or 'to'.

http://forum.wordreference.com/threads/ ... or.587402/

Besonders:

"My point was: an English German teacher might be able to answer this question; a German is puzzled by it, because a German does not perceive "zu" and "für" as related, or as competing prepositions.

You really need to give examples! Prepositions are tricky. They don't translate well between languages. You basically have to learn for each expression what preposition is appropriate.

For example -- Zum Beispiel.
For your information -- zu Ihrer Information.
A gift for my brother -- ein Geschenk für meinen Bruder.
For whatever reasons -- aus welchen Gründen auch immer.

I don't know that there is a rule. An English native fluent in German might be better qualified to answer this question."

That guy seems to be stupid.

Believe me, Ornello,"for" does almost always mean "für", and "zu" does almost always mean "to".

There are indeed some examples that show how problematic translation can be, but it is not as problematic as some morons say.
Last edited by Arminius on Thu Jul 23, 2015 4:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby Ornello » Thu Jul 23, 2015 3:56 am

Arminius wrote:That guy seems to be stupid.

Believe me, Ornello,"for" does almost always mean "für", and "zu" does almost always mean "to".


But even if that were true (it isn't), there are many uses of 'to'.

The article is correct. Go learn some German.
Ornello
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 9:48 pm

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby Arminius » Thu Jul 23, 2015 4:16 am

Ornello wrote:
Arminius wrote:That guy seems to be stupid.

Believe me, Ornello,"for" does almost always mean "für", and "zu" does almost always mean "to".

But even if that were true (it isn't), there are many uses of 'to'.

The article is correct. Go learn some German.

Do you speak any of the said two languages? If yes, then it can only be English. You do not know anything about the German language, thus you should be silent when it comes to translate words form German into English and from English into German.

There are so many examples for the rules I mentioned, so that a list of them would just be too long for this thread.

You have no idea. Your posted article is not correct, because it is suggesting that languages contain more exceptions than rules. A language with more exceptions than rules is no language. The posted examples are indeed correct, but do not disprove the correct statement that "for" does almost always mean "für", and "zu" does almost always mean "to".

So the translation of the German "Wille zur Macht" into the English "will to power" or "will to might" is correct.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthe

Postby Sauwelios » Thu Jul 23, 2015 4:37 am

Ornello wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
Ornello said: (I have seen the term 'overhumanity' in Nietzsche literature, no joke.)


Your example is indeed not very elegant; it should of course be "superhumanity", "superhumankind", "overmanhood", or "overmankind".


Nietzsche never used the term Übermensch[l]ichkeit, ever. The scholar who used this term ('overhumanity') made it up, and it has nothing to do with anything Nietzsche wrote.


Well, der Mensch may mean "man" in the all-encompassing sense--"mankind"--as well, but it would be weird to say "overman" in that sense. So "overmankind" could be fine, depending on context and interpretation. And why wouldn't a scholar be able to coin a word like "overmanhood", for example when discussing the character or nature of the overman?
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7183
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot]