3 ms·

How should one read Nietzsche without learning German?

by HKH2 2y ago

_yb2s 2y ago
There are no really easy answers there... What I referenced above is the book I recommend, "Jung's Seminar on Nietzsche's Zarathustra." It is a transcription of academic lectures Carl Jung gave on Nietzsche- where he offers his own semi-translation and interpretation of the meaning. I cannot think of a non-arrogant way to say this, so won't try (Nietzsche sure wouldn't have): but Nietzsche was an extremely smart person with subtle ideas, and most people- including academic translators that are supposed to be experts on his work, simply cannot understand his ideas, and therefore cannot translate them properly. One needs to be able to relate to his ideas from personal experience and (for lack of a better word) spiritual development, and also be able to appreciate complex nuance to really get it. This is confounded by the fact that Nietzsche had an obtuse style on purpose- he actively wanted his work to be exclusive, and not easily understandable, and actually often tried to be misleading or confusing on purpose. Carl Jung had a deep understanding of Nietzsche, that none of the English language translators have. I have read all of his work, and it took me quite a while, including reading Jung's seminars to really feel I could grasp the bigger picture of his ideas. And once I did, I could clearly see that the translators who had translated and commented on his work were really only getting at the surface, and not really understanding- and then also choosing the wrong words when translating as a result, which was making it even harder to understand. Also, if you are going to directly read his work, don't read Zarathustra first as it is an especially hard read- it is written in the style of an ancient religious text and not philosophy- The Gay Science would probably be my recommendation.
- RandomThoughts3 2y ago
  > where he offers his own semi-translation and interpretation of the meaning. Jung's takes on Nietzsche are quite personal. > Carl Jung had a deep understanding of Nietzsche, that none of the English language translators have. That's extremely debatable.
  - DiscourseFan 2y ago
    As the sole arbiter of the true and false interpretations of Nietzsche's writing, its not debatable.
    - _yb2s 2y ago
      I should have done a better job of adding some caveats to my recommendation of Jung- for example that his perspectives are indeed heavily biased through the lens of his own philosophy, and he mostly ignores things important to Nietzsche that don't relate to his own interests. However, this type of sneering/mocking tone is unbecoming of HN discussions, and goes against the HN community guidelines.
      - DiscourseFan 2y ago
        That you missed the irony of my comment makes me think the one I was responding too may have been correct about your views on Nietzsche.
        _yb2s 2y ago
        They are correct.
  - _yb2s 2y ago
    > That's extremely debatable I completely agree. People will have different interpretations and perspectives on it, and there is often no way to know which is closer to what Nietzsche was thinking. Jung is certainly not without his own biases, and very unconventional framing of things. I don’t intend to claim that his perspective is perfect. I’d say he was mostly unique in having the courage to think about ideas from Nietzsche that made him personally uncomfortable, and not try to avoid it or pretend Nietzsche must have meant something else. However it is a matter of degree- a lot of the translations and commentary have really egregious basic misinterpretation and misunderstandings.
- actionfromafar 2y ago
  Didn't Nietzsche's sister edit his texts heavily after his death?
  - _yb2s 2y ago
    Yes, but the original unedited texts still survive and are the basis for the better translations. Specially she edited his work to turn it into proto-Nazi antisemitic propaganda… which is something Nietzsche deeply disapproved of. To this day people associate Nietzsche with these ideas he abhorred, which is quite sad.
grepexdev 2y ago
Kaufman translations are going to be the best you're going to get. He offers some helpful context in the footnotes through the books.
- _yb2s 2y ago
  Kaufmann's are the best, but also still not good. Along with the translation he wrote detailed notes and commentary, and it is clear from that that he was often just completely missing Nietzsche's actual point. The main thing Kaufmann had going for him was that he wasn't doing a motivated mis-translation of Nietzsche to support an agenda of white supremacy... which you'd think is a low bar, but it makes for the gold standard in Nietzsche translation apparently.

How should one read Nietzsche without learning German?

by HKH2 2y ago

How should one read Nietzsche without learning German?

There are no really easy answers there... What I referenced above is the book I recommend, "Jung's Seminar on Nietzsche's Zarathustra." It is a transcription of academic lectures Carl Jung gave on Nietzsche- where he offers his own semi-translation and interpretation of the meaning. I cannot think of a non-arrogant way to say this, so won't try (Nietzsche sure wouldn't have): but Nietzsche was an extremely smart person with subtle ideas, and most people- including academic translators that are supposed to be experts on his work, simply cannot understand his ideas, and therefore cannot translate them properly. One needs to be able to relate to his ideas from personal experience and (for lack of a better word) spiritual development, and also be able to appreciate complex nuance to really get it. This is confounded by the fact that Nietzsche had an obtuse style on purpose- he actively wanted his work to be exclusive, and not easily understandable, and actually often tried to be misleading or confusing on purpose. Carl Jung had a deep understanding of Nietzsche, that none of the English language translators have. I have read all of his work, and it took me quite a while, including reading Jung's seminars to really feel I could grasp the bigger picture of his ideas. And once I did, I could clearly see that the translators who had translated and commented on his work were really only getting at the surface, and not really understanding- and then also choosing the wrong words when translating as a result, which was making it even harder to understand. Also, if you are going to directly read his work, don't read Zarathustra first as it is an especially hard read- it is written in the style of an ancient religious text and not philosophy- The Gay Science would probably be my recommendation.

RandomThoughts3 2y ago
> where he offers his own semi-translation and interpretation of the meaning. Jung's takes on Nietzsche are quite personal. > Carl Jung had a deep understanding of Nietzsche, that none of the English language translators have. That's extremely debatable.
- DiscourseFan 2y ago
  As the sole arbiter of the true and false interpretations of Nietzsche's writing, its not debatable.
  - _yb2s 2y ago
    I should have done a better job of adding some caveats to my recommendation of Jung- for example that his perspectives are indeed heavily biased through the lens of his own philosophy, and he mostly ignores things important to Nietzsche that don't relate to his own interests. However, this type of sneering/mocking tone is unbecoming of HN discussions, and goes against the HN community guidelines.
    - DiscourseFan 2y ago
      That you missed the irony of my comment makes me think the one I was responding too may have been correct about your views on Nietzsche.
      - _yb2s 2y ago
        They are correct.
- _yb2s 2y ago
  > That's extremely debatable I completely agree. People will have different interpretations and perspectives on it, and there is often no way to know which is closer to what Nietzsche was thinking. Jung is certainly not without his own biases, and very unconventional framing of things. I don’t intend to claim that his perspective is perfect. I’d say he was mostly unique in having the courage to think about ideas from Nietzsche that made him personally uncomfortable, and not try to avoid it or pretend Nietzsche must have meant something else. However it is a matter of degree- a lot of the translations and commentary have really egregious basic misinterpretation and misunderstandings.
actionfromafar 2y ago
Didn't Nietzsche's sister edit his texts heavily after his death?
- _yb2s 2y ago
  Yes, but the original unedited texts still survive and are the basis for the better translations. Specially she edited his work to turn it into proto-Nazi antisemitic propaganda… which is something Nietzsche deeply disapproved of. To this day people associate Nietzsche with these ideas he abhorred, which is quite sad.

grepexdev 2y ago

Kaufman translations are going to be the best you're going to get. He offers some helpful context in the footnotes through the books.

_yb2s 2y ago
Kaufmann's are the best, but also still not good. Along with the translation he wrote detailed notes and commentary, and it is clear from that that he was often just completely missing Nietzsche's actual point. The main thing Kaufmann had going for him was that he wasn't doing a motivated mis-translation of Nietzsche to support an agenda of white supremacy... which you'd think is a low bar, but it makes for the gold standard in Nietzsche translation apparently.