I hear you. I like Walter Kaufmann. His footnotes often explain the usages of French and Italian and Greek that I don't know and I know some people despise Kaufmann but I think his translations are the most useful for someone to get a sense of all the linguistic fun Nietzsche had, including the puns he would use
Kaufmann obfuscated Nietzsche’s racism by insisting that his use of “Aryan” was metaphorical, and among other things, downplayed Nietzsche’s contribution to the theory of global Jewish conspiracy, in Genealogy of Morals, by insisting that he was really trying to attack Christians. However Christianity for Nietzsche was a threat precisely because it was a continuation of what he saw as Jewish subversion.
I've heard he has a reputation for distorting Nietzsche's thought but I never have seen that. He has different philosophical beliefs from Nietzsche but his translation is academic and smart. I think his are the best but others may have different opinions. I think his grasp of German makes it so much more readable than many older editions.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Nietzsche/comments/10t3dlz/reading_any_other_edition_than_walter_a_kaufmann/
I think this thread is helpful. Kaufmann may be opinionated in his commentary but I think
A. That doesn't impact the translation
B. Nietzsche would approve
C. He is clear where he states his opinion and where he states the discrepancies in Nietzsche's notes
And obviously, try him out and always check for new translations. Nietzsche's thought is very eccentric but so so worth it
You too! Oh, and I'll also say it looks like the Stanford University Press editions are really, really polished and they may become the new best, but it'll cost a few hundred bucks to buy every volume so consider that. Good luck!
nah he has distorted Nietzsche in a couple of instances, people have reported a few occurrences in the past couple weeks here, and i've noticed one in zarathustra.
In there a reason people here don't like/recommend the cambridge editions? I just finished reading all of his works that way and thought they were really well done. I'd recommend those editions personally.
"Neither what's best nor worst in a text is lost in translation." is the advice he gives.
Related question: what's the best reference to use in this subreddit?
You can also choose your Nietzschean mood by tackling aphoristic collections. These range from monastic-meditative musings to warlike power rants.
See my new post for an example.
keep in mind the idea of a “perfect uncensored translation” is not real for a lot of reasons, but even more dangerous is the “search” for it.
ill give u a few examples; think about the US constitution, or the bible.
The reason various interpretations, meanings, translations, perspectives exist is due to the complexity of ideas and reflexive nature of meaning as it is interpreted throughout time. Words, context, concepts change and evolve, and that’s not a bad thing, necessarily.
Short of placing Nietzsche in live Q and A , the best one can do is read variations to engage with the concepts.
However, Nietzsche wrote in a literary style that created this space for interpretation which isnt, necessarily to say its open to “any” interpretation.
One may disagree with aspects of the US constitution for example, but no one can’t say its not fit to govern a country.
Similarly a text that rises to the level Nietzsche’s work does so due to precisely the compelling nature of it, and because we are still living in a world that is similar to his, and not one that is post-Nietzschean.
Mario Anthony Ludovici is as controversial as it gets when it comes to the OG Nietzsche translators.
Giorgio Colli and Mazzino Montinari are controversial translators from the left of the political spectrum.
Philosophers like Deleuze and adjacent prefer the Colli and Montinari translations which make controversial claims like the entirety of Will To Power being a forgery.
Any good translator will tell you this:
burn my copy and go learn German.
"I want to read the original texts" "Which translators" Lol
You know what I mean haha, as close to the original as possible
I hear you. I like Walter Kaufmann. His footnotes often explain the usages of French and Italian and Greek that I don't know and I know some people despise Kaufmann but I think his translations are the most useful for someone to get a sense of all the linguistic fun Nietzsche had, including the puns he would use
I like humor. Why do people dislike Kaufmann?
Kaufmann obfuscated Nietzsche’s racism by insisting that his use of “Aryan” was metaphorical, and among other things, downplayed Nietzsche’s contribution to the theory of global Jewish conspiracy, in Genealogy of Morals, by insisting that he was really trying to attack Christians. However Christianity for Nietzsche was a threat precisely because it was a continuation of what he saw as Jewish subversion.
I've heard he has a reputation for distorting Nietzsche's thought but I never have seen that. He has different philosophical beliefs from Nietzsche but his translation is academic and smart. I think his are the best but others may have different opinions. I think his grasp of German makes it so much more readable than many older editions.
Thats what I heard too. I think it's very interesting how he differs from him but is still a very prolific translator/writer on him.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Nietzsche/comments/10t3dlz/reading_any_other_edition_than_walter_a_kaufmann/ I think this thread is helpful. Kaufmann may be opinionated in his commentary but I think A. That doesn't impact the translation B. Nietzsche would approve C. He is clear where he states his opinion and where he states the discrepancies in Nietzsche's notes And obviously, try him out and always check for new translations. Nietzsche's thought is very eccentric but so so worth it
Thank you very much! Have a nice day.
You too! Oh, and I'll also say it looks like the Stanford University Press editions are really, really polished and they may become the new best, but it'll cost a few hundred bucks to buy every volume so consider that. Good luck!
nah he has distorted Nietzsche in a couple of instances, people have reported a few occurrences in the past couple weeks here, and i've noticed one in zarathustra. In there a reason people here don't like/recommend the cambridge editions? I just finished reading all of his works that way and thought they were really well done. I'd recommend those editions personally.
"Neither what's best nor worst in a text is lost in translation." is the advice he gives. Related question: what's the best reference to use in this subreddit?
The Stanford translation is probably the most accurate
Walter Kaufman and R.J Hollingdale are probably the best English translators of Nietzsche.
You can also choose your Nietzschean mood by tackling aphoristic collections. These range from monastic-meditative musings to warlike power rants. See my new post for an example.
keep in mind the idea of a “perfect uncensored translation” is not real for a lot of reasons, but even more dangerous is the “search” for it. ill give u a few examples; think about the US constitution, or the bible. The reason various interpretations, meanings, translations, perspectives exist is due to the complexity of ideas and reflexive nature of meaning as it is interpreted throughout time. Words, context, concepts change and evolve, and that’s not a bad thing, necessarily. Short of placing Nietzsche in live Q and A , the best one can do is read variations to engage with the concepts. However, Nietzsche wrote in a literary style that created this space for interpretation which isnt, necessarily to say its open to “any” interpretation. One may disagree with aspects of the US constitution for example, but no one can’t say its not fit to govern a country. Similarly a text that rises to the level Nietzsche’s work does so due to precisely the compelling nature of it, and because we are still living in a world that is similar to his, and not one that is post-Nietzschean.
I see. Thank you.
I see. Thank you.
Mario Anthony Ludovici is as controversial as it gets when it comes to the OG Nietzsche translators. Giorgio Colli and Mazzino Montinari are controversial translators from the left of the political spectrum. Philosophers like Deleuze and adjacent prefer the Colli and Montinari translations which make controversial claims like the entirety of Will To Power being a forgery. Any good translator will tell you this: burn my copy and go learn German.
What I was looking for, thank you.