Nietzsche Rigor and Attempt at Cross-Paradigmatic Aesthetics

I already quoted the Kaufmann translation of that sentence to you on page 1 (hence the “that”). It’s section 668 of Der Wille zur Macht.

That convention is then somewhat liberal, which may be fine in most cases, but in the case of Nietzsche, who was a philologist, it’s probably not the best choice.

Though I agree with this statement, I don’t think we hold this opinion for the same reasons, and contest whether you hold it for the right ones.

Does anyone here know if Nietzsche read Shakespeare in the original?

Three of the four works I have translated were translated by him (two with Hollingdale). I know exactly what his strengths and weaknesses are.

“On” is even an explicitly bad, wrong translation; as “zu” (unambiguously meaning “to”, never “on”) clearly tells us that Nietzsche was not presenting us with such a genealogy, nor was able to present a discourse “on” it - he rather uncovers some means to the establishing of such a genealogy, and presents us with various introductions to the concept that morality has a genealogy.

The writings of the many morally fixed and entrenched Nietzscheans on the web could be seen as “on a genealogy” - that is to say, built on the assumption that such a genealogy has been unambiguously made explicit and certain, and is something one can discuss as a clear-cut object. This however speaks to ignorance of the sort of goal that Nietzsche’s strength could afford to project; to be the genesis of a new morality. This may very well be an intended higher meaning to the title of the book; and of course “on” is perfectly out of place in that case.

Nietzsche always writes in order to increase his own and his readers powers; certainly the construction of a genealogy of morals must be seen as an exercise of creative will, not in the last place a way to touch on and where necessary and possible overcome the history of morals in oneself, and derive morals directly from ones own capacities, ‘the quantum of power that one is’. Therefore, to take the genealogy (or the various subtly differing genealogies) of morals as suggested by Nietzsche’s work too literally is an act of cowardice.

Very concisely: “Zu” always denotes a movement, a becoming. “On” is rather akin to the word “meta”, it implies fixed concepts and objects.

668
‘wollen’ ist nicht ‘begehren’, streben, verlangen: davon hebt es sich ab durch den Affekt des Commando’s es giebt kein ‘wollen’, sondern nur ein Etwas-wollen: man muß nicht das Ziel auslösen aus dem Zustand: wie es die Erkenntnißtheoretiker thun. ‘Wollen’, wie sie es verstehn, kommt so wenig vor, wie ‘Denken’: ist eine reine Fiktion. daß Etwas befohlen wird, gehört zum Wollen (: damit ist natürlich nicht gesagt, daß der Wille ‘effektuirt’ wird…) Jener allgemeine Spannungszustand, vermöge dessen eine Kraft nach Auslösung trachtet - ist kein ‘Wollen’ KGW VIII, 2.296, KSA 13.54

  1. ‘To will’ is not ‘to desire’, to strive, to aspire to; it distinguishes itself from these through the emotion connected with commanding. There is no such thing as ‘willing’, but only the willing of something; the aim must not be severed from the state in the manner of the epistemologists. ‘Willing’, as they understand it, is no more possible than ‘thinking’; it is a pure invention. It is essential to willing that something should be commanded (but that does not mean that the will is ‘exerted’). The general state of tension through which a force seeks to discharge itself, is not an instance of ‘willing’.

The English convention for such titles is ‘on’. That’s all there is to it.

I have quite a lot of problems with your translation, but not with your translation of wollen and Wille, which surprises me. May I ask how you translate Wille zur Macht in the book (including the title)?

We decided to keep the title the same, to avoid marketing issues. ‘Desire for power’ was used within the text itself. This section does not represent Nietzsche at his most lucid.

Will through ‘macht’ is distinguished from will through ‘kraft’, inasmuch as macht -channels the force of kraft into overcoming through self mastering.

Well, in the sense of “intelligible” I agree, but not in the sense of “sane”. I think I understand exactly what he’s saying.

The title is one thing, but this is another. Don’t you think that what he says here about the will has implications for the doctrine of the will to power?

You really can’t take Nietzsche too seriously.

My stomach!
It doesn’t mater if it is demonstrably and unambiguously wrong, the fact that several people have made this banal mistake is enough to tell us to repeat their banal mistake.

Edit -

I just realized you intend to publish a translation, which is written to follow convention rather than to strive for accuracy; More, you seem to be proud of that!

The intellectual arrogance derived from mans cognitive debilitations is without limit. What a puny creature.

It’s a title. Titles are searched for by prospective purchasers and indexed in bibliographies, etc. It is helpful to use the same title for all editions. Duh. There are several translations of Morgenröthe under the title Dawn or (Dawn of Day), and one under the title Daybreak. What’s the point of doing that (Daybreak)? It’s idiotic! My translation of Der Wille zur Macht will come out under the title Will to Power for the same reason (but within the text it will be translated as ‘desire for power’). The work Zur Genealogie der Moral first appeared in English in 1897 under the title A Genealogy of Morals. The next translation, which appeared in 1911 as part of the Oscar Levy edition, appeared under the title On the Genealogy of Morals, and most subsequent editions have followed that practice. This follows standard English practice for essays. Hume’s essay Of Miracles is similar. See:

grammar.about.com/od/classicessa … speech.htm

As for you, sir, most professional scholars are clueless about translation. When the works are more of a literary type (such as Nietzsche’s are) striving for literal accuracy is futile and self-defeating. I have plowed through four of Nietzsche’s works now, and I know how he works. There is very little in the way of ‘argument’ at all. It is the style and emotional impact that one has to try to recreate. One must be faithful to the intentio operis.

See this thread:

boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/sho … p?t=280138

Zarathustra is garbage. It’s Nietzsche’s worst work (though he thought it was his best). [i]Morgenröthe /i is his best work.

I cannot argue against this. You’ve convinced me. Thanks for putting me right.

For the Nietzsche Naive:

To his credit, Nietzsche was attempting to “start over”, a notion with which I cannot entirely disagree. But then, if such is to occur, it very seriously needs to be (for everyone’s sake) by those who have a clue as to what they are talking about. Unfortunately for everyone involved, such a person was never heard from during that time … nor since.

… until now when no one can listen.

All rightie then!

Translation from Josefine Nauckhoff, section 366 of Fröhliche Wissenschaft:

Dass euer einziger Wille ist, Meister eures Handwerks zu werden, in Ehrfurcht vor jeder Art Meisterschaft und Tüchtigkeit und mit rücksichtslosester Ablehnung alles Scheinbaren, Halbächten, Aufgeputzten, Virtuosenhaften, Demagogischen, Schauspielerischen in litteris et artibus—alles Dessen, was in Hinsicht auf unbedingte Probität von Zucht und Vorschulung sich nicht vor euch ausweisen kann!

And because your only desire ( Wille) is to become masters of your craft, with reverence for every type of mastery and competence and with ruthless rejection of anything specious, semi-genuine, meretricious, virtuoso-like, demagogical, or histrionic in litteris et artibus – of anything that cannot give you proof of its unconditional probity in discipline and prior training.