What translation of this book do I get?

Interesting. How come his translations are still so prominent if they're incorrect?

They're cheap.

They're only prominent with contrarians. Reading Ludovici makes me almost ill, it's that stylistically poor.

Makes sense. That is why I bought him in the first place...
Thanks for the info though, will pick up Kaufmann's translation then.

Also is there any verdict on the Penguin translation?

Well, Nietzsche was a philosemite, so I would say yeah. It makes perfect sense. Nice quints, btw, hail satan

Their old and the quality of the paper is TERRIBLE. It just falls apart on its own like some kind of ancient artifact.

Pic related. Literally the only reasonable one available to English speakers.

>Nietzsche was a philosemite
Not really true. He was anti-Semitic in a much deeper way than even the anti-Semites of his time. His occasional acknowledgement of the Jews as a strong and hard working race is even a testament to that. He considered all narrowing of life to a "single cause" to be genealogically Judaic, and what stands opposed to Judaism in the purest way is the perspectivism of a polytheistic culture.

He was critical of Judaism, not Jews, whom he admired. He even went as far as saying European intellectual life would be worth nil if one subtracted the contribution of Jews, and of course, his good friend, one of his few friends, actually, Paul Ree, was a Jew. And even that critical attitude is not the same thing as being "against". He was equally critical of partisanism in general, of being "For and Against". Actually, he says quite explicitly that the Judaic worldview, though radically false, rendered life more interesting, and as far as he is concerned lies and falsehood are equally necessary to man and life.

While all true, I wouldn't necessarily call him a philosemite for any of it, because all of that is the byproduct of his philosophy, the philosophy of the Greek polytheists, which is antithetical to Semitic philosophies; and most of his acknowledgements there, within context, are made in order to establish and preserve the perspectivism of polytheistic culture that his predecessor Germans resurrected, which was being squandered and desecrated by the Germans of his time. Though, you could say that he definitely did appreciate the Jews more than most, or maybe all, other writers who have made commentary on them.

I would be cautious in attributing to him any intention of merely "preserving" or "establishing" a polytheistic point of view, which would be a conservative function. Nietzsche's conception of the Free Spirit, is of one unfettered by old values who always marches forward into the unknown. Polytheistic values, while valuable reference points, are still old values, and would also eventually have to be tossed aside in the "transvaluation of all values".

Nietzsche was a genius of the idea of perspectivism which he formulated from his studies of the Greek polytheists. It's significantly divorced from Greek polytheism, especially considering he doesn't talk about a belief in a variety of deities, but it's melded in their spirit more than anyone else's. And he talks at length about this in several of his books. The Antichrist and Twilight of the Idols were essentially one big attack on everything that he considered to have spoiled the idea and value system of perspectivism.

In fact, it's precisely because he's the genius of such an idea that he comes across as "inconsistent" to some people. All ideologies are double-edged swords and perspectivism hurts itself by demanding that the wielder of the idea constantly perish in order to be reborn with a new perspective. This theme permeates Nietzsche's whole work, especially in Zarathustra, and he more or less states it outright in Ecce Homo. But in On the Genealogy of Morality and The Antichrist, he makes it fairly clear that perspectivism stands opposed to Semitic thinkers, aka he was not a Semitic thinker himself.

>aka he was not a Semitic thinker himself.
actually the "transvaluation of all values" is a Semitic notion. He says himself that they were the first to take dominant values and turn them on their head, which is precisely what he aspires to do. He has influences from both polytheism and Judaism.

>He has influences from both polytheism and Judaism.
Sure. In the end will to power suppresses both and becomes something of its own.

Will to power is a purely descriptive doctrine, not prescriptive. It doesn't suppress anything, since it is not exterior to anything. Rather, everything is an expression of it. So, perspectivism and transvaluation are both just different expressions of will to power.

The genius behind will to power is something different from the genius behind perspectivism or Judaism.

If you mean the formulation of the doctrine of will to power, then possibly. The will to power itself, as a fact of life, is omnipresent. Not sure what "genius" is behind it, myself. Any thoughts on the matter?

never even seen a Ludovichi translation in person, Kaufmann is the gold standard

By the genius behind an idea, I mean its total and active form in the world. Nietzsche formulated the idea, but wasn't the genius of it; he was the genius of perspectivism and the prophet (Zarathustra) of the genius of will to power, who would be his coming Overman.

Hollingdale is also really good. Since Kaufmann never translated Human, All Too Human, Hollingdale is the go-to for that one.

>He was anti-Semitic in a much deeper way than even the anti-Semites of his time
he said that Germany should focus on bringing more Jews into the country to clean up the German's dirty intellectual habits and argued that all anti-semites should be deported from Europe

>that letter he wrote after his mental breakdown where he claims that he has personally seen to it that all anti-semites will be shot

Attached: 1551899853976.jpg (540x720, 33K)

Right. But why do you think he said that? Because he wanted the Germans to think like the Jews think, or because he wanted future Germans to fuse the two and form a third, like his predecessor Germans (i.e. Goethe) wanted?

>be anti-Semitic
>get shot by the Überwaffe

Attached: N-Gun.jpg (524x400, 26K)

no, he hate the Germans, which is why he renounced his citizenship and claimed he was a Pole. Contemporary Jews were a perfect model for his philosophy and he respected their ability to refuse herd mentality and instead focus on reason. He really liked Jews, and he really hated Germans, really no two ways around it.

He hated his contemporary Germans but liked several of his predecessors plenty, Goethe, Schiller, Beethoven, Kant — even if he strongly disagreed with the last one. In contra Wagner, he expresses that the Germans failed to live up to the ideals of the 18th century Germans. I find your assertion that Jews are a "perfect model" for his philosophy to be stretching what he said about them, and you're also completely disregarding what his philosophy entailed (perspectivism and the Overman) when you say any one group existing at the time was "perfect" for him.

he considers goethe to be a "good european" not a german

He also talked about race mixing, not the complete annihilation of the Germans.

perspectivism is a deeply Jewish tradition, they did not build a unified cannon nor a unified interpretation of that cannon, it is encouraged for young Jews to question the scriptures and debate them to try and bring new interpretation forth. they were a perfect model because they were specifically the group in Europe that was able to resist European values and remain in a place of transvaluation. plus, he was very fond of their reliance on reason. none of it is contentious. obviously Jews were not the Ubermench but that's one of the rhetorical positions like the True Philosopher, it's an ideal of the next man, not simply the best people out there today

Spinoza, a deep influence on Nietzsche’s thought, was a jew

ignore quote

yeah but to be fair his Jewish community excommunicated him for being too radical

Nietzsche called the Jewish value system slave morality, he characterized Christian Europe as a sort of Jewish conquest of Rome

thw judeo-christian value system for sure, but we are talking about European Jews in the late 19th C not the judeo-christian value system

>perspectivism is a deeply Jewish tradition
Not Nietzsche's perspectivism, it's different and it's Greek rather than Jewish. Jews cause divergences out of their desire to rebel; the Pre-Socratics were not motivated by rebellion but were all "perfect circles" in the sense that each one of them possessed a philosophy that was complete and recursive and incompatible with one another. The differences are illustrated in the Hebrew and Greek religions.

how is that perspectivism? that's just multiple people each having their own philosophy lmao. perspectivism is something one person does consciously and deliberately

Nothing is done perfectly that is done consciously.

The Pre-Socratics themselves weren't perspectivists. The maintainers of the Greek pantheon and the various philosophical schools were. Nietzsche often laments the loss of value systems in history wherever class distinctions are lost, like when slaves are liberated, and even says things in Zarathustra like cripples ought to remain crippled because it gives them their unique perspective in life.

>Jews cause divergences out of their desire to rebel
no it's a deep seated Jewish tradition practiced in sheol for millennia. to rebel would be to refuse to critically analyze scripture. the culmination of slave morality comes through Jesus

ok, but how is multiple prescoratics each having their own philosophy perspectivism? do you imagine that they are some kind of collective entity or something? how tf

Claiming that their rebellious tendency being institutionalized means it's no longer a rebellious tendency is a little facetious, don't you think?

I think the idea of institutionalized rebellion is a literal oxymoron. to rebel is to go against institutions

It is an oxymoron, which is why I don't buy it. Just because they're encouraged to rebel doesn't mean their desire to rebel is coming from the encouragement. They understand themselves better than that. The system is designed to make their nature thrive.

What do you mean which translation? The anglo translation, of course. English is the only language in which Nietzsche's posthumous fragments have been translated to like it's part of his oeuvre hahahaha. It is definitely in line with the anglo obsession with sex, money and race. "The Will to Power" hahahahahaha, become a better you in 12 easy steps! Hahahahaha bordel de queue les anglois et leurs engeances dégénérés m'inspire beaucoup d'humour ce soir. Imaginez une seconde lire nietzsche dans l'espoir de se taper deux trois putes et toucher un peu de pognon.