I'm informed about Danto's analytic roots and that he is no nobody. But that
is no excuse for his bad translation of Nietzsche and his wilful mutilations
of Nietzsche's original text. And it is quite a scandal that somebody with
Danto's reputation dared this, and to Nietzsche, who and I suppose you know,
was mutilated much too much before in a babarian age. An interpretation
without a secured source text is really unscientific, at least when a source
text in a competent translation is at hand (why on earth did he try it by
himself and even confess that he is not a true master of german language? The
avowal of one's limits and not-knowing is not shameful and a sign of
philosophical effort, for sure, but than the respect for an important text
should also turn out visible consequences). In general I'm of the opinion
that because of the structure of Nietzsche's philosophical 'trials'
Nietzsche is the last to exert one's quick interpretation (so to speak en
passent interpretation), it will not only lead to mutilations, but also to
misuse for one's own intentions (and that perhaps almost unintentionally), as
it is proven many, many times on Nietzsche's case. (Beware! I don't want to
press Danto into the really abominable quarter of Nietzsche interpretation,
but his Nietzsche book is a blunder, no help to N.'s original thought, at
best more or less an assistance to an understandig of analytic trials, but in
a wrong context by means of a badly 'doctored' base).
And last but not least I want to remind of Nietzsche's own begging for a
careful reading of his texts. In general such a handling as Danto's,
especially in case of a really read-worthy writer, is not a slight offence
and must be punished through secured, pertinent and negativ criticism.
-Litok
---------------------
Forwarded message:
From: perovich@HOPE.CIT.HOPE.EDU (Nick Perovich)
Sender: owner-nietzsche@jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
Reply-to: nietzsche@jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
To: nietzsche@jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
Date: 97-08-08 13:28:13 EDT
Oh, dear.
>Besides Kaufmann (who is the best), I also suggest that you read works by a
>philosopher named Danto. Esp. one called "Nietzsche As Philosopher". He was
>a student of Kaufmann (I think)
>Rich
(1) Here's what Kaufmann has to say about Danto's NIETZSCHE AS PHILOSOPHER:
"A hasty study, full of old misconceptions, new mistranslations, and
unacknowledged omissions in quotations. The context of the snippets cited
is systematically ignored, and no effort is made to consider even most of
what Nietzsche wrote on any given subject." (THE PORTABLE NIETZSCHE, p. 24)
(2) What Kaufmann has to say about Nietzsche can be worth attending to, but
he was a pioneer in Nietzsche studies in English and worked perhaps too
hard to make Nietzsche philosophically "respectable." It seems to me that
a number of treatments now surpass Kaufmann in philosophical
sophistication, Nehamas (NIETZSCHE: LIFE AS LITERATURE), and Staten
(NIETZSCHE'S VOICE), to name but two.
(3) BTW, what Danto has to say about Nietzsche can be worth attending to as
well--Kaufmann's abuse is sadly all-too-typical of his treatment of other
scholars--though one would do well to read Danto's claims with a very
critical eye. Danto is a very interesting philosopher coming out of the
analytic tradition who has written on an extremely wide variety of topics:
philosophy of history, aesthetics, and mysticism, among others. He
received his undergraduate degree at Wayne State and his Ph.D. at Columbia.
--- from list nietzsche@lists.village.virginia.edu ---
--- from list nietzsche@lists.village.virginia.edu ---