• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Nietzsche Translation.

N

Nap

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 12, 2016
Messages
8,362
Reaction score
3,187
Location
Jackson, MS
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I am wanting to find a proper translation of "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" and it seems that Kauffman is the most common. However, I found this quote from his translation
"But thus do I counsel you, my friends: distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful". Given the text and his view of the Slave Morality, shouldn't it be "punish THE powerful"? I didn't want to get a poor translation, does anyone know which is the best translation so as to get the actual meaning?
 
Nap said:
I am wanting to find a proper translation of "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" and it seems that Kauffman is the most common. However, I found this quote from his translation
"But thus do I counsel you, my friends: distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful". Given the text and his view of the Slave Morality, shouldn't it be "punish THE powerful"? I didn't want to get a poor translation, does anyone know which is the best translation so as to get the actual meaning?
Click to expand...

Here's the German: http://www.pileface.com/sollers/pdf/Zarathustra.pdf

Bottom of page 78:
Also aber rathe ich euch, meine Freunde: misstraut Allen, in welchen der Trieb, zu strafen, mächtig ist!
Click to expand...

Kauffman's correct.
 
Nap said:
I am wanting to find a proper translation of "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" and it seems that Kauffman is the most common. However, I found this quote from his translation
"But thus do I counsel you, my friends: distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful". Given the text and his view of the Slave Morality, shouldn't it be "punish THE powerful"? I didn't want to get a poor translation, does anyone know which is the best translation so as to get the actual meaning?
Click to expand...

So, first, I'd suggest if you think the above, you probably haven't understood Nietzsche. While he considered Zarathustra his most important work, it may be better to start with The Genealogy of Morals or Beyond Good and Evil. Nietzsche's view, as nearly as I can determine, was that what we call evil enters the world by people whose wills are turned against themselves, and through self-attacking they create bad conscience that in turn celebrates slave morality and seeks to impose slavery on others. Now that brief summary does no justice to Niezsche's complex views, but the usual cartoon version of him thinking that a few people might become "supermen" who command the human race in a totalitarian political structure is just not accurate.

Anyway, compared to a great many other languages, it's easy to translate German to English. That said, with any translation there are going to be problems. I think right now the standard is the Cambridge text translated by Adrian del Caro:

https://www.amazon.com/Nietzsche-Zarathustra-Cambridge-History-Philosophy/dp/0521602610/ref=sr_1_fkmr3_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1517672311&sr=8-4-fkmr3&keywords=thus+spake+zarathustra+by+friedrich+nietzsche+cambridge


 
Last edited:
ashurbanipal said:
So, first, I'd suggest if you think the above, you probably haven't understood Nietzsche. While he considered Zarathustra his most important work, it may be better to start with The Genealogy of Morals or Beyond Good and Evil. Nietzsche's view, as nearly as I can determine, was that what we call evil enters the world by people whose wills are turned against themselves, and through self-attacking they create bad conscience that in turn celebrates slave morality and seeks to impose slavery on others. Now that brief summary does no justice to Niezsche's complex views, but the usual cartoon version of him thinking that a few people might become "supermen" who command the human race in a totalitarian political structure is just not accurate.

Anyway, compared to a great many other languages, it's easy to translate German to English. That said, with any translation there are going to be problems. I think right now the standard is the Cambridge text translated by Adrian del Caro:

https://www.amazon.com/Nietzsche-Zarathustra-Cambridge-History-Philosophy/dp/0521602610/ref=sr_1_fkmr3_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1517672311&sr=8-4-fkmr3&keywords=thus+spake+zarathustra+by+friedrich+nietzsche+cambridge
Click to expand...

This is precisely what I am saying.


ut thus do I counsel you, my friends: distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful!

They are people of bad race and lineage; out of their countenances peer the hangman and the sleuth-hound.

Distrust all those who talk much of their justice! Verily, in their souls not only honey is lacking.

And when they call themselves 'the good and just,' forget not, that for them to be Pharisees, nothing is lacking but--power!"
Click to expand...

It seems that comment is directly made to those with a slave morality. I think a modern equivalent would be the Social Justice movement. You can see much of what Nietzsche is saying in them.
 
Nap said:
I am wanting to find a proper translation of "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" and it seems that Kauffman is the most common. However, I found this quote from his translation
"But thus do I counsel you, my friends: distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful". Given the text and his view of the Slave Morality, shouldn't it be "punish THE powerful"? I didn't want to get a poor translation, does anyone know which is the best translation so as to get the actual meaning?
Click to expand...

It's an oxymoron, the definition of being powerful means that you do not endure punishment, but dole it out instead. Nietzsche would never have made such an idiotic self-contradictory statement.

It's interesting to read Nietzsche, pure intellect devoid of morality. No wonder he went nuts; no wonder Germany's National Socialists made him their mentor; no wonder it led to the complete destruction of Germany.
 
Last edited:
SirGareth said:
It's an oxymoron, the definition of being powerful means that you do not endure punishment, but dole it out instead. Nietzsche would never have made such an idiotic self-contradictory statement.

It's interesting to read Nietzsche, pure intellect devoid of morality. No wonder he went nuts; no wonder Germany's National Socialists made him their mentor; no wonder it led to the complete destruction of Germany.
Click to expand...

It is only a self contradiction if taken out of context. He is talking about the poor revolting.
 
Most people I've found misunderstand, misinterpreted, or misapply Nietzsche.
 
Nap said:
This is precisely what I am saying.




It seems that comment is directly made to those with a slave morality. I think a modern equivalent would be the Social Justice movement. You can see much of what Nietzsche is saying in them.
Click to expand...

So that's your angle, no one should dare question power, especially the unsubstantial people with their "slave morality". Fweedumb.

I refer you to Adam Smith’s statement: “All for ourselves and nothing for other people seems in every age of the world to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.”

The quotation is interesting as it comes from Book III of Wealth Of Nations, chapter IV, and here it is in the paragraph it is quoted from:

“But what all the violence of the feudal institutions could never have effected, the silent and insensible operation of foreign commerce and manufactures gradually brought about. These gradually furnished the great proprietors with something for which they could exchange the whole surplus produce of their lands, and which they could consume themselves without sharing it either with tenants or retainers. All for ourselves and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind. As soon, therefore, as they could find a method of consuming the whole value of their rents themselves, they had no disposition to share them with any other persons. For a pair of diamond buckles, perhaps, or for something as frivolous and useless, they exchanged the maintenance, or what is the same thing, the price of the maintenance of a thousand men for a year, and with it the whole weight and authority which it could give them. The buckles, however, were to be all their own, and no other human creature was to have any share of them; whereas in the more ancient method of expence they must have shared with at least a thousand people. With the judges that were to determine the preference this difference was perfectly decisive; and thus, for the gratification of the most childish, the meanest, and the most sordid of all vanities, they gradually bartered their whole power and authority.”

You are headed toward tyranny and totalitarianism. Watch.
 
Fenton Lum said:
So that's your angle, no one should dare question power, especially the unsubstantial people with their "slave morality". Fweedumb.

I refer you to Adam Smith’s statement: “All for ourselves and nothing for other people seems in every age of the world to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.”

The quotation is interesting as it comes from Book III of Wealth Of Nations, chapter IV, and here it is in the paragraph it is quoted from:

“But what all the violence of the feudal institutions could never have effected, the silent and insensible operation of foreign commerce and manufactures gradually brought about. These gradually furnished the great proprietors with something for which they could exchange the whole surplus produce of their lands, and which they could consume themselves without sharing it either with tenants or retainers. All for ourselves and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind. As soon, therefore, as they could find a method of consuming the whole value of their rents themselves, they had no disposition to share them with any other persons. For a pair of diamond buckles, perhaps, or for something as frivolous and useless, they exchanged the maintenance, or what is the same thing, the price of the maintenance of a thousand men for a year, and with it the whole weight and authority which it could give them. The buckles, however, were to be all their own, and no other human creature was to have any share of them; whereas in the more ancient method of expence they must have shared with at least a thousand people. With the judges that were to determine the preference this difference was perfectly decisive; and thus, for the gratification of the most childish, the meanest, and the most sordid of all vanities, they gradually bartered their whole power and authority.”

You are headed toward tyranny and totalitarianism. Watch.
Click to expand...

When did I say that?
 
Nap said:
When did I say that?
Click to expand...

"It seems that comment is directly made to those with a slave morality. I think a modern equivalent would be the Social Justice movement."

This was what got King murdered, going after the system as a whole.
 
Fenton Lum said:
"It seems that comment is directly made to those with a slave morality. I think a modern equivalent would be the Social Justice movement."

This was what got King murdered, going after the system as a whole.
Click to expand...

And how do you make the leap from that quote to "nobody should question power"
 
Nap said:
And how do you make the leap from that quote to "nobody should question power"
Click to expand...

Let me simplify for you:

"It seems that comment is directly made to those with a slave morality. I think a modern equivalent would be the Social Justice movement."

You're saying this "Social Justice movement" should question power? Or should not question power?
 
Last edited:
ashurbanipal said:
So, first, I'd suggest if you think the above, you probably haven't understood Nietzsche. While he considered Zarathustra his most important work, it may be better to start with The Genealogy of Morals or Beyond Good and Evil. Nietzsche's view, as nearly as I can determine, was that what we call evil enters the world by people whose wills are turned against themselves, and through self-attacking they create bad conscience that in turn celebrates slave morality and seeks to impose slavery on others. Now that brief summary does no justice to Niezsche's complex views, but the usual cartoon version of him thinking that a few people might become "supermen" who command the human race in a totalitarian political structure is just not accurate.

Anyway, compared to a great many other languages, it's easy to translate German to English. That said, with any translation there are going to be problems. I think right now the standard is the Cambridge text translated by Adrian del Caro:

https://www.amazon.com/Nietzsche-Zarathustra-Cambridge-History-Philosophy/dp/0521602610/ref=sr_1_fkmr3_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1517672311&sr=8-4-fkmr3&keywords=thus+spake+zarathustra+by+friedrich+nietzsche+cambridge
Click to expand...

What in your opinion is the definition of Ubermensch? Here's Oxford dictionary's definition:

Übermensch
NOUN
The ideal superior man of the future who could rise above conventional Christian morality to create and impose his own values, originally described by Nietzsche in Thus Spake Zarathustra (1883–5).

Also called superman, overman
 
Nap said:
I am wanting to find a proper translation of "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" and it seems that Kauffman is the most common. However, I found this quote from his translation
"But thus do I counsel you, my friends: distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful". Given the text and his view of the Slave Morality, shouldn't it be "punish THE powerful"? I didn't want to get a poor translation, does anyone know which is the best translation so as to get the actual meaning?
Click to expand...

Makes sense to me the first way. I don't see any problem. It refers to people with a powerful impulse to punish. In fact, the word 'the' where you want to put it would screw up the sentence.
 
SirGareth said:
It's an oxymoron, the definition of being powerful means that you do not endure punishment, but dole it out instead. Nietzsche would never have made such an idiotic self-contradictory statement.
Click to expand...

It's very simple. He refers to people with a powerful impulse to punish. The translation is clear and correct.
 
Fenton Lum said:
Let me simplify for you:

"It seems that comment is directly made to those with a slave morality. I think a modern equivalent would be the Social Justice movement."

You're saying this "Social Justice movement" should question power? Or should not question power?
Click to expand...

I never said either, try asking what someone thinks rather assume whatever nonsense you believe them to be saying.

People should question power, this however does not have anything to do with some in that movement displaying many of the characteristics Nietzsche talks about when describing the Slave Morality.

Do you think it is unreasonable to believe that there are some driven by envy, jealously, and a hatred of those they feel are in a better position than them hiding behind their calls of "justice" and want nothing more than to turn the tables and become the oppressor. This is the point Nietzsche was getting across in that passage in my opinion. I believe that applies to some within the Social Justice Movement.
 
Last edited:
Grand Mal said:
Makes sense to me the first way. I don't see any problem. It refers to people with a powerful impulse to punish. In fact, the word 'the' where you want to put it would screw up the sentence.
Click to expand...

Only if you are viewing the sentence independent of the text surrounding it.
 
JC Callender said:
What in your opinion is the definition of Ubermensch? Here's Oxford dictionary's definition:

Übermensch
NOUN
The ideal superior man of the future who could rise above conventional Christian morality to create and impose his own values, originally described by Nietzsche in Thus Spake Zarathustra (1883–5).

Also called superman, overman
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's the cartoon version. The Ubermensch cannot be defined, really. That's why Zarathustra ends with Zarathustra exiting the cave, going out to great the Great Noon, but the encounter itself is not described. The Ubermensch is one who is continually "going over" (but in a strange linguistic twist, also one who is "going under")--what that means is the Ubermensch is always overcoming old values, always delving into the dark deep to discover new values, always manifesting greater and greater self-command. No one can ever be the Ubermensch, because the Ubermensch is always becoming.

The Ubermensch does not impose his values on others, though. Zarathustra is always careful not to do so. He preaches his message, but does not seek authoritarian control, not even of those who call themselves his students.
 
ashurbanipal said:
Yeah, that's the cartoon version. The Ubermensch cannot be defined, really. That's why Zarathustra ends with Zarathustra exiting the cave, going out to great the Great Noon, but the encounter itself is not described. The Ubermensch is one who is continually "going over" (but in a strange linguistic twist, also one who is "going under")--what that means is the Ubermensch is always overcoming old values, always delving into the dark deep to discover new values, always manifesting greater and greater self-command. No one can ever be the Ubermensch, because the Ubermensch is always becoming.

The Ubermensch does not impose his values on others, though. Zarathustra is always careful not to do so. He preaches his message, but does not seek authoritarian control, not even of those who call themselves his students.
Click to expand...

I have only read excerpts and listened to discussions on it. They seemed to agree with you that it was less about controlling others and more about personal struggle and becoming the best person you can be. Something similar to Jordan Peterson's maps of meaning. Peterson seems to be heavily inspired by Nietzsche and why I wanted to learn more about Nietzsche and his philosophy.
 
Nap said:
I have only read excerpts and listened to discussions on it. They seemed to agree with you that it was less about controlling others and more about personal struggle and becoming the best person you can be. Something similar to Jordan Peterson's maps of meaning. Peterson seems to be heavily inspired by Nietzsche and why I wanted to learn more about Nietzsche and his philosophy.
Click to expand...

Cool. He's a difficult but rewarding thinker to try to understand. I renew my recommendation to start with Genealogy of Morals or Beyond Good and Evil, both of which are fairly-well accessible and also mature works, so they represent his finished views.
 
ashurbanipal said:
Cool. He's a difficult but rewarding thinker to try to understand. I renew my recommendation to start with Genealogy of Morals or Beyond Good and Evil, both of which are fairly-well accessible and also mature works, so they represent his finished views.
Click to expand...

Is there a translation you recommend of those?

I had planned to start with Zara because I had read that was what he considered his masterpiece. If you were to put his works in a particular reading order, what would it be?

Edit: I went back to reread your earlier post and it seems to clarify the translation question and the reading order, so disregard this post :p I was pretty drunk last night so didn't recall the second half of your message.
 
Last edited:
Nap said:
I am wanting to find a proper translation of "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" and it seems that Kauffman is the most common. However, I found this quote from his translation
"But thus do I counsel you, my friends: distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful". Given the text and his view of the Slave Morality, shouldn't it be "punish THE powerful"? I didn't want to get a poor translation, does anyone know which is the best translation so as to get the actual meaning?
Click to expand...

No, he's saying that we should not trust those who are keen to punish others.
 
jet57 said:
No, he's saying that we should not trust those who are keen to punish others.
Click to expand...


Inspired ones they resemble: but it is not the heart that inspireth them-- but vengeance. And when they become subtle and cold, it is not spirit, but envy, that maketh them so.

Their jealousy leadeth them also into thinkers' paths; and this is the sign of their jealousy--they always go too far: so that their fatigue hath at last to go to sleep on the snow.

In all their lamentations soundeth vengeance, in all their eulogies is maleficence; and being judge seemeth to them bliss.

But thus do I counsel you, my friends: distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful!

They are people of bad race and lineage; out of their countenances peer the hangman and the sleuth-hound.

Distrust all those who talk much of their justice! Verily, in their souls not only honey is lacking.

And when they call themselves "the good and just," forget not, that for them to be Pharisees, nothing is lacking but--power!
Click to expand...

It wasn't simply those keen on punishing others. He is talking about being wary of those that preach too much about equality and justice because they are not driven by good intentions but by envy and jealousy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom