The "forgery" of Nietzsches writings - NOT true:
Letter
UNSCRUPULOUS SISTER
By Ingo Seidler, Reply by Philippa Foot
In response to Immoralist (February 17, 1966)To the Editors:
I have no quarrels with Professor Foot's recent review of two new English books on Nietzsche (Feb. 17), and I entirely share her view that we ought to come to grips, at long last, with Nietzsche's challenge as a moral philosopher. What dismays me is the fact that Mrs. Foot, too, finds it necessary to repeat Professor Schlechta's tiresome legend of Nietszche's "unscrupulous sister." (This, incidentally is the second legend involving Mrs. Förster-Nietzsche. It is the merit of Professor Kaufmann to have exposed the first—claiming incestuous relations between Nietzsche and his sister—by questioning the authenticity of the book, entitled My Sister and I, in which the legend finds its source.)
Mrs. Förster-Nietzsche's three volumes on the life of her famous brother show her to be a very unremarkable intellect indeed, and there is no lack of testimony that she was a most disagreeable person. In marked contrast to her brother, she was beyond doubt both an anti-Semite and a fierce German nationalist. However, nobody, including Professor Schlechta, has ever adduced a shred of evidence suggesting that she meddled with her brother's philosophical writings, published or unpublished. Schlechta believes that his lady-foe altered a few strictly personal letters of her brother's so as to put herself in a more favorable light. On the other hand, there is the striking fact that the various editions of Nietzsche's works which appeared while Mrs. Förster was in full control of all the manuscripts, abound in (previously unpublished) anti-nationalistic and anti-anti-Semitic remarks. Nothing would have been easier for an unscrupulous sister, bent on recreating her brother in her own image, than to suppress such fragments as: "Maxime: Shun anybody involved in that dishonest race-swindle [verlogener Rassenschwindel]." Or: "The trick of the anti-Semite [elsewhere described as "a coward who lies on principle"] is to attack the opponent on pseudo-moral grounds." Or again: "To meet a Jew is a blessing if you live among Germans," etc., etc. Yet, such statements were printed again and again during the time of Mrs. Förster's reign, and as late as 1943. Ironically, it is Professor Schlechta's new edition that does not find room for many of these!
Ingo Seidler
University of Michigan"
The above suggest that the alleged biased editing of Nietzsche's works by his sister is completely false, while the below suggest that even if there was such editing, it has been corrected subsequently.
The editors corrected many distortions and restored many omissions of
previous editions, most of them resulting from the attempts of the
philosopher's sister Elisabeth to misrepresent aspects of Nietzsche's
life, especially concerning his friendships with Richard and Cosima
Wagner. Much that had been written about these relationships, by the
respective biographers of Nietzsche, Richard and Cosima Wagner, was
revealed to have been based on falsehood.
%O Originally published by Walter de Gruyter, Berlin. Nietzsche Contra Wagner."
Sources: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/12504
http://www.cs.uu.nl/wais/html/na-dir/music/wagner/books-faq.html
I have always been under the impression that Nihilism was a belief and not a condition. To call yourself a Nihilist and to act on a Nihilist doctrine is to be aware of what you are and to believe in it.
On may suffer from a Nihilistic condition, but until they acknowledge and accept that they indeed believe in the philosophy of Nihilsm, they are not a true Nihilist.
WHat I said is already proven by genetic scientists.still I have a totally diferent view on the world than my ancestors, my father who was a naval officer had a very different view on stuff much European situation due to the cold war, you couldnt have draged him to Russia even at gunpoint, me I would love ot go to Russia, I was a border patrol along the Norwegian/Finnish/Russian(USSR when I was inn) border I encountered Soviet forces and we were at gunpoint with each other time and again, even so I hold no grudge against the Ruskies, my father detested them.
this is just a little example on me, I dont know how genetic scientist really states this as a fact cause that has to be a very controversial desicion. I know many takes the view of their parents cause it sounds" good but this aint the fact for tons of people, so what I wonder is how do these genetic scientists explain that people are miles appart from their parents viewpoints
Re: Nihilism
Originally posted by hh?
discuss Nihilism. comes from the Latin word Nihil...ill post my opinion later BUT now i have to go start on my stupid AP Bio fish project (check thread Omfg! 😂)if u dont know what nihilism is then heres some info
"Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy. While few philosophers would claim to be nihilists, nihilism is most often associated with Friedrich Nietzsche who argued that its corrosive effects would eventually destroy all moral, religious, and metaphysical convictions and precipitate the greatest crisis in human history. In the 20th century, nihilistic themes--epistemological failure, value destruction, and cosmic purposelessness--have preoccupied artists, social critics, and philosophers. Mid-century, for example, the existentialists helped popularize tenets of nihilism in their attempts to blunt its destructive potential. By the end of the century, existential despair as a response to nihilism gave way to an attitude of indifference, often associated with antifoundationalism."
How can one not have loyalties?? It is merely impossible, as you said "have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy" I believe that sentence means none other than that one is loyal to destruction?? that it won't give in to any other matter, but to destroy?? ISN"T THAT LOYALTY??? How would you define it???
Originally posted by finti
this is just a little example on me, I dont know how genetic scientist really states this as a fact cause that has to be a very controversial desicion. I know many takes the view of their parents cause it sounds" good but this aint the fact for tons of people, so what I wonder is how do these genetic scientists explain that people are miles appart from their parents viewpoints
One does not inherit everything from ones parents, but the brain is still "programmed" to think in a particular way. Evidence (biochemical constitution of the brain) has been found which points to the fact that religious people and atheists have a different chemical composition and molecular structure in their brains. Atheists share a common molecular structure in the part of the brain which determines intellectual disposition, and the same with theists.
ahhhhhh science. the way people leap to grasp a theory to prove, or disprove, a point makes me laugh. science, whilst being able to assist with certain things, should in no way be looked upon as being ultra-reliable. science is flawed and is still very, very primitive in the grand scheme of things. whilst the technology may have had advanced, our moral ethics and knowledge of, have stayed pretty much as they where 75 years ago. i refuse to listen to what genetic scientists say as they are talking about something they can barely understand. bio-chemics are not the reason for the way mankind works. because scientists don't always have an answer, but they always need to, they pin their own cliche on the subject.
of course a person can choose nihilism, just as one can choose anarchism, fascism, communism etc.
to wholly put your faith in genetic science - a science that is still at its core, very primitive, is like having faith in letting an infant rewire your house.
"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."
science has also proved that all black people are more intelligent than caucasians, that people who have Jewish features are stupid, that being fat has absolutely nothing to do with eating or exercise, that children are only naughty if they have a chemical deficiency, that arsenic is not poisonous, that bumblebees cannot fly, that evolution exists, that evolution does not exist, that Hitler's diaries are genuine and fake, and that Atlantis was actually landbound..... oh, and that humans and chimps should be able to produce a viable hybrid while a labrador and an alsatian can't.....