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 nor for his wilful
mutilations of N.'s original text. And it is quite a scandal that somebody
with Danto's reputation dared this, and to N. who, I suppose you know, was
mutilated much too much before in a babarian age. An interpretation without
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 no true master of the german language? The avowal of
one's limits and not-knowing is not shameful and a sign of philosophical
effort, of course, but than the respect for an important text should also
show visible consequences). In general it is my opinion that because of the
structure of N.'s phil. trials N. 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 has been proven on N.'s case many, many times
before. (Beware! I don't want to press Danto into the really abominable
quarter of N. interpretators, but his N. book is a blunder, no help to N.'s
original thought, at best more or less an assistance to an understanding 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 N.'s own begging for a careful
reading of his works.
In general such a handling as D.'s, especially in case of a really
read-worthy writer, is no slight offence and has to be punished through
secured, pertinent and negativ criticism.
-Litok
--- from list nietzsche@lists.village.virginia.edu ---