Thus Spoke Zarathustra:A book for All and None

I'm saying he isn't authoritative, Parkes is fine.

>
>>how can one man be so intelligent is beyond >me
>He explains it in Ecce Homo.

I'm not the one who you replied to but could you elaborate a bit more? Haven't read Ecce Homo and I'm curious about what Nietzsche had to say about his own intellect.

>>Nietzsche wasn't a philosopher.

Oh look, this thread again.

Do you even into moral philosophy?

>Nietzsche was a moral philosopher
No he wasn't

>he hasn't read Genealogy of Morals

You don't deserve those trips

>He actually explains why he is more worthy of the term than the more academic labourers a la Kant/Hegel.
Where?

Kaufmann is a fantastic translator, but a bad interpreter. Someone he mostly avoided imposing his shitty reading onto the translation.
btw
>based Hollingdale
fite me

*somehow

Why do people claim he wasn't a philosopher. Seems like rhetoric

Ecce Homo is short enough but if you look at the chapter titles you'll find the specific the answer to your question.

Beyond Good and Evil: We Scholars. #211

Kaufmann's interpretation isn't shitty. He brought scholarly rigor (from academic experience in German and 19th century philosophy) to the English Nietzsche. Because of that he could highlight many things that layman translators missed.

He isn't shitty, just whitewashing. He was invested in both his Zeitgeist (hence, the exaggeration of individualism, and downplaying anything remotely fascistic) and promoting his own work (popularising 'Existentialism'). The former bias is precisely why he was so crucially effective at rehabilitating Nietzsche as a primary source in English.

>Why do people claim he wasn't a philosopher. Seems like rhetoric
Yep, firstly they don't even define philosophy or philosopher. Then they ignore Nietzsche's history and definition of them. If you too eagerly pick up on how different his work appears to the tradition then of course you'd miss the subtler ways in which he still belongs to it.

know my fate. One day there will be associated with my name the recollection of something frightful — of a crisis like no other before on earth, of the profoundest collision of conscience, of a decision evoked against everything that until then had been believed in, demanded, sanctified. I am not a man, I am dynamite. — And with all that there is nothing in me of a founder of a religion — religions are affairs of the rabble, I have need of washing my hands after contact with religious people . . . I do not want ‘believers’, I think I am too malicious to believe in myself, I never speak to masses . . . I have a terrible fear I shall one day be pronounced holy: one will guess why I bring out this book beforehand; it is intended to prevent people from making mischief with me . . . I do not want to be a saint, rather even a buffoon . . . And none the less, or rather not none the less — for there has hitherto been nothing more mendacious than saints — the truth speaks out of me. — But my truth is dreadful: for hitherto the lie has been called the truth. — Revaluation of all values: this is my formula for an act of supreme coming-to-oneself on the part of mankind which in me has become flesh and genius. It is my fate to have to be the first decent human being, to know myself in opposition to the mendaciousness of millennia . . . I was the first to discover the truth, in that I was the first to sense — smell — the lie as lie . . . My genius is in my nostrils . . . I contradict as has never been contradicted and am none the less the opposite of a negative spirit. I am a bringer of good tidings such as there has never been, I know tasks from such a height that any conception of them has hitherto been lacking; only after me is it possible to hope again. With all that I am necessarily a man of fatality. For when truth steps into battle with the lie of millennia we shall have convulsions, an earthquake spasm, a transposition of valley and mountain such as has never been dreamed of . . .

a lot of ''philosopher'' didn't consider themselves philosopher: Kant,Hegel

Except Nietzsche did, and he thought Kant and Hegel fail to qualify, keep up.

Scene 2.
-Enter- Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche, followed by Whipped-Scholars.

Does the poetic quality of Zarathustra come across successfully in translation?

Nietzsche considered himself much of a psychologist and/or genealogist, a sort of 'investigator'/sceptic/critic, than a philosopher per se.

He is actually very critical/sceptical of philosophers, whether self-professed or otherwise.

Also, Kaufmann is the best translator of Nietzsche but the worst interpreter. I'm personally rather glad that the ideal of a 'Liberal' Nietzsche is finally beginning to die out.

No. It translates pretty horribly into English.

It was the one work of Nietzsche's that I actually had to drag myself through. I've always wondered how the German/original compares - not least considering that Nietzsche considered the work so great/important that he believed himself to be a sort of 'successor' to Goethe on account of it.

>Nietzsche considered himself much of a psychologist and/or genealogist, a sort of 'investigator'/sceptic/critic, than a philosopher per se.

What? Zarathustra is explicitly his positive philosophy and value-legislating book. He says that the free spirits and philosophers of the future will be all you describe, and more. Read the "We Scholars" chapter of Beyond Good and Evil.

>Kaufmann is the best translator of Nietzsche but the worst interpreter
We already covered this, how is he any worse than Zimmern or the pre-war interpreters? 'Liberal' Nietzsche is not great but it is better than '19th Century Nationalzeitung Man' of Ludovici.

It is probably one of the top five or ten works in the German language.,