So what's the deal with Kaufman versus Ludovici, particularly with regards to their separate renditions of the Will to Power?
Is Kaufman truly a "pernicious Jewish scholar" who wanted to sanitize and liberalize Nietzsche, as that copypasta says? Or is Ludovici just a dunderhead lacking skill in German who I shouldn't bother reading?
I've read Kaufman translations before, and while I prefer Hollingdale on most things I thoroughly enjoyed his fine usage of the English language and his skill in tracking down allusions. However, his commentaries and introductions are troublesomely neutralizing in character and, seeing how he was a Jewish Kierkegaardian with a hatred for racists and anti-semites, I could see this seeping into a book as important as the Will to Power.
I know Nietzsche himself disliked anti-semitic nationalists, but he also was no fan of the Jews himself, contrary to what a secondary reading of him through Kaufman would tell you.
Any Germanbros here who know the original WtP and can tell me if Ludovici or Kaufman get to the meat of it better? Or if there is any difference at all?
TL;DR is Kaufman a revisionist kike
Kaufman's translations themselves are fine. It's only in the notes that he gets iffy. Ludovici, on the other hand, completely butchers Nietzsche. This is not a question for serious scholars. Only autistic neonazis prefer Ludovici.
>>7861653
Are you sure about this? I listened to the preface and the first book of Ludovici's translation and it seemed fine to me. Perhaps later on he starts becoming nazi?
>>7861569
Was Nietzsche actually a fan of anything apart from mountains
>>7861669
He liked the Greeks, Mozart, and life, things jews cannot into
Found some minor but important discrepancies between the texts.
From 199:
Ludovici:
>in a word the Jews: an instinctively crafty people, able to create an advantage, a means of seduction out of every conceivable hypothesis of superstition, even out of ignorance itself.
Kaufmann:
>simply -- Jews: with an instinctive ability to create an advantage, a means of seduction out of every superstitious supposition, out of ignorance itself.
Kaufmann omitted the crafty part. In his rendition, the Jews seem strong, overthrowing rough conditions; in Ludovici's they seem to do the same only through subterranean means (which would fit Nietzsche's image of them as per usual, yet in Kaufmann's asterisk here we are redirected to a sale's pitch for his own book).
Also
184
Ludovici:
>The Jews made the attempt to prevail, after two of their castes the warrior and the agri cultural castes, had disappeared from their midst. In this sense they are the " castrated people": they have their priests and then their Chandala. . . . How easily a disturbance occurs among them an insurrection of their Chandala.
Kaufmann:
>The Jews tried to prevail after they had lost two of their castes, that of the warrior and that of the peasant; in this sense they are the "castrated": they have the priests -- and then immediately the chandala--
>As is only fair, a break develops among them, a revolt of the chandala: the origin of Christianity
Kaufmann replaces "How easily" with "as is only fair", completely swapping the meaning from an implication of the Jews' natural degeneracy into the chandala to something cyclical, as if all civilizations decline into the chandala, or, worse, "fair" meaning egalitarian, although I really don't want to believe Kaufmann would ever insert that much.
942, where Nietzsche btfo's Evolafags.
Ludovici:
>The only nobility is that of birth and blood. (I do not refer here to the prefix " Lord " and L almanac de Gotha: this is a parenthesis for donkeys.) Wherever people speak of the " aristo cracy of intellect," reasons are generally not lacking for concealing something; it is known to be a password among ambitious Jews. Intellect alone does not ennoble; on the contrary, some thing is always needed to ennoble intellect. What then is needed? Blood.
Kaufmann:
>There is only nobility of birth, nobility of blood. (I am not speaking here of the little world "von" or of the Almanach of Gotha: parenthesis for asses.) When one speaks of "aristocracy of the spirit," reasons are usually not lacking for concealing something; as is well known, it is a favorite term among ambitious Jews. For spirit alone does not make noble; rather, there must be something to ennoble the spirit.--What then is required? Blood. *
>*When Heinrich Hartle quoted this note in Nietzsche und der National-sozialismus (Eher, Zentraverlag der NSDAP, Munich 1937), p. 55, he omitted the parenthesis for asses," without indicating that anything had been omitted. This was entirely typical of the Nazi's use of Nietzsche. For a discussion of this note, see my "Nietzsche" chapter, ten, near the end [[[oy vey buy my shit goyim]]]
Don't know why that is of note that the Nazi faggot omitted that phrase, and can only imagine what his chapter says about this (By blood he means spirit! by spirit he means blood!). Also, Ludovici's "password" and Kaufmann's "favorite term" betray an opposition of sentiments, if I am not going crazy.
>>7861852
Well none of these quotes are particularly charitable to Jews, so I don't see how Kaufman is a "revisionist kike"
>>7861852
Could you post the German as well?
>>7861947
It's worth noting that Kaufmann is largely responsible for rehabilitating Nietzsche in the English world.. The entire reason he had to be rehabilitated was his association with Nazism. This was a much bigger issue at the time than now, but you can still see embers of it in how people react to Heidegger's "Nazi taint. Heidegger and even major Nazi thinkers like Schmitt were given the Nietzsche treatment by the 90s for the most part, so it's hard for us to remember the postwar climate.
A lot of people reading Kaufmann would have been LOOKING for Nazi shit, looking to prove to themselves what they already knew, that Nietzsche was the primordial Nazi. There is good reason beyond revisionism for Kaufmann to stress benign readings.
>jewish professor Kauffman translates a scathing critique of jews differently
how can any of you find Kauffman credible? I swear, the gullible autists on this board.
Oh god
Look, anyone who has read through most of N's work can tell that Will to Power is obviously a bunch of old notes cobbled together for shekels, as happens with any famous author who can no longer control his sycophants.
Compared to say The Genealogy of Morals, Will to Power is a joke and should never have been published
>>7862060
t. faggot leftist
his sister's plebbish butchery doesn't mean it wasn't his authentic thought
Hollingdale for everything except Gay Science and Genealogy
Kaufmann for those two
Will to Power in original German only
>>7861981
What I found was far more endearing that what I expected, but I decided to post the differences I discovered anyways.
>>7862030
I was looking for a good manuscript of the German for awhile but couldn't find any, will try again.
To your second point, I understand the historical importance of Kaufmann's work, but out of annoyance towards those who constantly cite his commentaries at a time when it would be so valuable to hear Nietzsche's true voice I have begun to have contempt for Kaufmann. He had a worthy place during the sixties but now we should begin to move towards better translations, as Stanford seems to be preparing as we speak.
>>7862060
Quit your bullshit, he made no money off any of this and was planning since Beyond Good and Evil to write a final and ultimate book that would be the Transvaluation of all Values. It was never finished, but we have the rough outline, and that is the Will to Power
Some of Kaufmann's notes are elucidating (such as in Genealogy where he identifies the 'blonde beast' with the Lion, a symbolic stage in the evolution of man mentioned in Zarathustra); others are petty and irritating (such as any note appended to a section where Nietzsche rails against the perversity of woman)
>>7862107
>(such as any note appended to a section where Nietzsche rails against the perversity of woman)
do you have any examples? i'm curious
>>7862096
>we have the rough outline, and that is the Will to Power
No.
>>7862084
Just because he jotted something down on a piece of paper does not mean that he stood behind it all of the way, he was all about continuous refinement of thought. Its like a bunch of old sketches of an inventor, it might just be experimental or prototypical garbage that he would be embarrassed to publish
Found this, don't know if it is credible or not, but was linked on wikipedia:
https://nietzsche.ralfj.de/willeBJ.pdf
check out pg 140-141, where he says Mein Kampf a few times, kek.
Page 96 has the first passage as:
>— Juden: instinktiv klug, aus allen abergläubischen Voraussetzungen, mit der Unwissenheit selbst einen
Vorzug, eine Verführung zu schaffen
seems from this that there is no mention of the word crafty, but the word "klug" is not written by Kaufmann at all, which according to Wiktionary can mean "intelligent, prudent, wise, smart." Google Translate has "wise, clever, prudent." Perhaps this reveals some of Ludovici's bias in his translation, yet also coul show some harbored fright in Kaufmann's decision to omit the word.
As was expected, Nietzsche is between the two extremes.
Cannot find the source for the other note in this document, even when I search something specific like "französische Revolution," so it is not exhaustive.
>>7862174
That opinion will stand until you read hundreds and hundreds of notes which say the same thing over and over, like I just did.
>>7862125
sick rebuttal
>>7862109
Dunno any for women, but in Beyond Good and Evil aphorism 195 after Nietzsche describes the historical part the Jews played with contempt, Kaufmann notes:
"But compare section 52 above, also Human all too human 475 [where he says the stock exchange jew is probably the most contemptible species of animal of the earth, but I'm sure [[[Kaaaauuuffmmannnn]]] meant the part where he says Spinoza is cool] and the Darn, section 205 (Portable Nietzsche, pp 61ff; 86f [buy muh shit and read /my/ translayshins!!]); and above all, sections 248 and 250 below. For a discussion of Nietzsche's image of the Jews and the many pertinent passages in his writings, see Kaufmann, Nietzsche, Chapter 10 [BUY MUH SHIT]".
>>7862107
I agree with the blonde beast one, that was a nice interpretation. Also of interest is Nietzsche's associate with blue eyes with German stupidity and rabble qualities in a Will to Power note, contrary to "aryan ideals".
>>7862109
>>7862251
What a fucking jewish piece of shit
>>7862251
Jesus. Kaufman's opinion ("this is so wrong i can't even") is on the same page as Ns aphorisms?
Makes me glad I know German and I don't have to put up with this bullshit.
Also, regarding the Will to Power. It surely isn't a fabrication (like Montinari assumed) or just a cash-in by his sister, it's something in-between. If you look at any of Ns published works and the corresponding notes you'll see how much he refined the notes, how he gave them a voice, so it's a shame we don't have WP as a finished product but at least we have the fragments, and the outline of European Nihilism in WP is worth it alone to have been put out.
>>7862251
>pushing your agenda in others' works
>>7862251
>reddit-tier whiteknighting in an era before reddit or Internet Mangina Disease were even invented
Was he..
Was he the Jew that started it all?
>>7862394
>Was he the Jew that started it all?
Ahem, foolish goy...
>>7861669
He was a fan of not being sick and not getting cucked.
Though honestly, I do think he latched onto genuinely insightful sentiments that had not been really dived into as deeply previously.
as /pol/ would say, he understood the need of a certain blue-pill in moderation to stay healthy mentally.
>>7862060
came in the thread to say basically this.
>>7862060
Have you actually read Will to Power, especially the very last aphorism? It's about the most genuine Nietzsche you'll ever read, and 100% fits with the rest of his books.
Can you autists read whatever translation of the Case of Wagner just once?
Who the hell would waster their time denouncing anti-semites if they actually hated the Jews? For fucks sake take this thread back to /pol/.
>>7863055
>if you're not a proto-Nazi you must love the Jews
This is the side of /lit/ I really don't like. Why are you guys so lame
>>7863026
Absolutely Libidinal.
>>7862190
>As was expected, Nietzsche is between the two extremes.
Thank you for this, beautiful anon. Brought a tear to my eye, honestly. This is scholarship. This is /lit/.
Kaufman is bad (obviously) and should be avoided. He is not the worst, but he sure is bad! His translations are rife with kikisms ("Ressentiment" untranslated, desultory yid-bowdlerization, glib insertions of relativism).
Ludovici was a brilliant expositor of Nietzsche and an amazingly facile translator. I would hesitate to call him an all-out Nietzsche expert however.
KENNEDY is a great translator. Hollington is okay. Many "modern" translations are truly, truly odious, and it should be avoided like the plague.
Read it in the original German.
>>7863069
Well, seeing as I didn't say that I'm going to have to remind you to work on your reading comprehension and not project your own lack of distinctions on to others. Try to leave wishful thinking at the door when you interpret others, you'll be surprised what you can take from other people when you don't assume they have the same hang ups as you.
>>7863026
this world is actually tedious
>>7861947
The parenthetical phrase is to show that nobility was used as a term not coinciding with political institutions (hence "lord" or "von") but as inherent superiority, arguably in a pseudo-Darwinian sense. What Jack London would later refer to as the " natural aristocracy ".
The Nazi reading dropping this is important because their order integrated the old Counts and Baronets wherever possible. Nietzsche was sneering at the notion that some inbred Earl's posthumously legitimized bastard was a higher sort of man.
Essentially ol Fred irritably reminds the reader not to make the born in me wrong generation fedora mistake of thinking Uebermensch means titled vassal of the state
>>7863391
Thanks, didn't know that about the Nazis
>>7861669
Opium, morphine, chloral hydrate, hashish.
>>7863026
>tfw you can't read freddy without getting hype as fuck
master rhetorician and stylist desu
>>7862251
t. current year, are you fucking kidding me?
>>7862251
>correct opinions conveniently added at the bottom
Nice.
>>7861947
>not understanding the Spirit/Blood dynamic to be a central metaphorical, philosophical concept tied to Nietzsche's own varying degrees of health
>>7863026
Will to Power, or rather the later notebooks really as it should be called, is pretty dope. But they were not meant for publication in their current form. The mode of inquiry is not identical to the manner of presentation and Nietzsche who was one to always take appearances and presentations as objects worthy of force and thought themselves understood that the former, messier, more direct work was always to be kept hidden away, internally determining the formal precision and beauty of the aphorism.
Take the notebooks together with the published works and recognize the aesthetic to philosophical work that Nietzsche introduces to what appears to merely be a philosophy of aesthetics.
>>7863026
Sweet jesus
>>7861671
Lol
>>7864123
Is this true?
>>7864990
Yes, confirmed by all his biographers and his personal correspondence.
He was mostly self-medicating though, he was a very sickly man.
>>7864998
I was starting to feel that I couldn't live as the Übermensch if I continued to use benzos. Thank Superman I can use Nietzsche's chloral hydrate use the same way I use Sartre's amphetamine use as a justification!
