Talk:The Antichrist (book)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Neutral stand point & Rreinterpretation of Book[edit]

I have a feeling that who ever authored this page was trying to guide visitor in interpretation of this Book. What Nietzsche was thinking and when and where and what he meant? Is that the way Wikipedia article should be?

I have read the book translated in my language and I cant find any base of many claims here.

Saying that Jesus was an idiot and then saying that Islam was noble and then that Jesus was crucified on cross while in Islam is well known that Jesus was never killed. Obviously Nietzsche never felt to provide any evidence of his claims turning all meanings upside down excluding any other positive possibility in Jesus example. It is evident that atricle is not cosistent as Nietzsche was not either but here is even worst. If Jesus was right in what he said then no death could affected him. Since God is all powerful and creator of all living things he would not have an issue to restore him or anyone else or even to give pure spiritual form. This is just one example. Claiming that God is dead with no support in evidence but just claim as any fool could do. Then authors of this article say that Nietzsche was referring to Christianity but not Christ. But then God is dead and how come he would make any different statement about Jesus who believed/knew that his father was God who is eternal and everlasting? That is nonsense. He portrayed Jesus as someone who wasted his life for nothing. How that can be unless his disbelief is taken as support. Why authors here misinterpret the book trying to twist what was said in the book? And it should not be like that at all here on Wikipedia to take POV on any topic but on this which is because of nature of people controversial not because of unclear Book. --75.82.177.42 (talk) 06:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


Untitled[edit]

Yes, I agree the title Antichrist is misleading, but, to whoever wrote the artcle, do you think it could really be appropriate to translate it as "Antichristian"? After all, what is the whole of Nietzsche's philosophy but consists of puns on words and attempts to mislead; example: the best music of the future which has nothing to do the the music of the future (zukunftsmusik)

"The Antichristian" suggestion is taken from Kaufman, and I've seen it elsewhere - not sure what my own opinion is on what Nietzsche actually intended. --Tothebarricades 02:29, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
"Kaufmann rightly points out that N is trying to be a blasphemous as possible. Therefore "Antichrist" is considered the best rendering. Ethan.Meanor (talk) 20:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The correct translation of the book’s title may be of the utmost importance. Was Nietzsche criticizing the values that were personified by Christ, or was he criticizing the institution of the church, or both? This seems to be at the heart of the book. Hobbes and Spinoza tried to show the pernicious influence of the ecclesiastical church. Was Nietzsche simply in agreement with them or did his critique also extend to the teachings and behavior of Christ? This might be a major distinction.Lestrade (talk) 20:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)Lestrade

Antichrist -Revaluation Of All Values[edit]

I have read the introduction preface of many books on this author and although the book was published as ANTICHRIST by his evil sister, the original title has been revealed to be Re-evaluation of all Values. this gives a whole new twist on the piurpose and intentions of Nietzsche. Nietzsche was a close friend of Pascal, a devoted Christian, actively working his Christian values...this contradicts the title given by his sitster, and past records by his sister who knew Nietzsche to be quite devoted to God and Christ.

--203.59.121.110 15:09, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Nietzsche and Pascal were not contemporaries. Lestrade 02:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
The Antichrist was the first book of a planned project which N had tentatively titled Revaluation of All Values. He himself changed the name to "Antichrist," not his sister; I fail to see what difference you think the title would have made to the content of his thought. As stated above, Nietzsche and Pascal were not contemporaries; N makes a polemical remark about him in §5 of the Antichrist. As to records, nothing presented by the sister is trustworthy. Read his books if you want his opinion. Ethan.Meanor (talk) 20:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
"The Antichrist was the first book of a planned project which N had tentatively titled Revaluation of All Values" - correct, to some degree. For the longest part, the Titel "Der Wille zur Macht - Versuch einer Umwertung aller Werte" (the will to power - attempt of a revaluation of all virtues/values) keeps coming up in his late notebooks (plans like this appear and disappear frequently in his notes, but this one lingers around quite steadily, even being mentioned in his work "Zur Genealogy der Moral") - and on nearly all occasions its planned as a 4-book-series (!) -envisioned by N to be his magnum opus-, of which the first one was supposed to be "Der Antichrist" (others being, e.g. "Der Immoralist", "Der Misosoph" etc.) - but when he had written down the 62 chapters that would become known as "Der Antichrist", not too long before his mental breakdown, he suddenly started reffering to it as "Die Umwerung aller Werte" (see "Ecce Homo": "Die Umwertung aller werte ist fertig!" (the revaluation is finished) he claims, w/o any of the other parts being written yet), as if it was the whole project. This could mark a change of mind about what he considered essential about the work. - or the early signs of mental decay.
- on the other hand: 203.59.121.110 is incorrect in many [more] aspects, obviously confusing many details. F.Nietzsches Sister did publish a book called "Der Wille zur Macht" which she claimed was her brothers plan all along as the announced "Umwertung aller Werte" - many fell for it (including, e.g. Heidegger). She used many notes of Nietzsche, distorting them though, to suit her agenda (she was married to an antisemith, got inspired by that ideology, and even sided with the nazis later on, and their ideology. The work she published was heavily pointed towards that direction, and she could easily be portrayed as a proto-nazi (something that got projected onto F.N. himself, though he often showed disgust for the earlier stages of that [process of] corruption of society, like, e.g. antisemits)). Nietzsche often struggled with his sister and her (mental/ideological) development - just look into ecce homo, when he talks about his mother and sister; even when he talks negatively about "the germans" later on in the same book, it seems, he thinks of all the bad traits he spotted in those two (he claims he himself was polish, other than these women). In his letters though he is almost always very polite even towards those two.
furthermore Nietzsche was (/seemed) rather pious as a little child, in his early schoolyears (visiting a very christian school) only, but his teacher foresaw that he would never be a priest, like the little nietzsche believed to be once (his father was - thats what may have inspired that misapprehension) - but he later pointed out that he was atheist all along (there is an interesting early poem of his, where he struggles heavily with pious believe in god... can't recall the name atm.), and again and again points out the benefits of atheism, and why an intelligent deep thinker can't be anything but an atheist; he portrays it as the inevitable final outcome of mental-, intellectial- and even spiritual development (compare: "Morgenröte", 96.), if not hindered.
about pascal: Nietzsche often spoke very fondly/respectful of him (and was even making subtle references to pascals thoughts), seeing him as a tremendous mind being corrupted (!) by christianity (maybe even as a brother in mind under less beneficial circumstances?); he often displayed pity for that fact, w/o any irony in that. - they could easily have been friends I guess if they would have been contemporaries. "N makes a polemical remark about him in §5 of the Antichrist" - you seem to miss alot about Nietzsches opinion on Pascal. (e.g.: "Es ist nichts seit Pascal passirt, die deutschen Philosophen kommen gegen ihn nicht in Betracht.", notebooks, fall 1885, 44[2]; "nothing has happened since pascal, german philosophers just don't come into consideration (/don't count) if compared to him.") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.25.17.25 (talk) 11:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

A Movement[edit]

Henceforth the article has been moved under the heading "Der Antichrist", please make your redirects thereto. This will make it easier for translations of the title to be discussed. This has also been done in relation to The Gay Science, for the sake of order and so on. If any would like to, please also do the same with every other publication by Nietzsche for they are the original titles. I may do it when I have the time.--Glyphonhart 00:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I have made a reconsideration: that which was stated above is entirely unnecessary. The English title will make due--for the English wikipedia. Therefore, everything has been restored upto the latest edits hitherto under the original article title of "The Antichrist_(book)".--Glyphonhart 19:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Misleading title[edit]

Isn't there a way to show that the title Der Antichrist should really be The Antichristian? Anyone who actually reads the book will see that it is not against Christ, but against Paul. Lestrade 02:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)Lestrade

It has to be obvious to anyone who reads the actual book, not someone else's opinion of it, that Nietzsche did not oppose Christ. He opposed the class of priests in the institutionalized church who maintain power by promoting what Nietzsche considered to be a decadent oposition to life.205.188.117.67 17:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)Lestrade
This is discussed in the second sentence. It is hard to say it "should" be The Antichristian, since Nietzsche almost certainly was aware of the fact that his title had a double meaning in German, but it is (as noted) perhaps more accurate to translate it as such. However, the standard title in English, for better or worse, has long been The Antichrist. --Delirium 03:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
This is extremely misleading. The book is not against Christ. Also, it is not about some humanoid, devilish "Antichrist" character. I believe that the Wikipedia article should strongly emphasize that the proper translation of Nietzsche's title is The Antichristian.Lestrade 01:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)Lestrade
In a nutshell, the book is against the organized Christian Church and against the Christian priesthood. The book is not against Christ.Lestrade (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Wikipedia article titles are not venues to take interpretative stances. Our naming conventions clearly convey that the article should be titled according to the most common English name of the subject, which is without question The Antichrist. For the Genealogy of Morality/Genealogy of Morals and Thus Spoke Zarathustra/Thus Spoke Zarathustra the question is a little more complicated, as there seems to have been a movement towards a different title, but I have yet to encounter an edition of this work titled The Antichristian. This is not to stop us from adding an etymological note warning the reader against misinterpretation of the title, if it is backed up by secondary literature. Regards, ɥʞoɹoɯoʞS 18:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Back to the Content of the Page[edit]

On the issue of the title I would say that in the English language it is normally published as the Antichrist (with a prelude describing its connotations).

  • What bothers me more is:

"In reality there has only been one Christian, and he died on the cross."

About organized Christianity - "I call it the one immortal blemish upon the human race."

"The weak and the botched shall perish: first principle of our charity. And one should help them to it."

"What is more harmful than any vice—Practical sympathy for the botched and the weak—Christianity...."

Are these the best quotations of criticisms of Christianity that people could draw from the book?

  • "have read the introduction preface of many books on this author and although the book was published as ANTICHRIST by his evil sister, the original title has been revealed to be Re-evaluation of all Values. this gives a whole new twist on the piurpose and intentions of Nietzsche. Nietzsche was a close friend of Pascal, a devoted Christian, actively working his Christian values...this contradicts the title given by his sitster, and past records by his sister who knew Nietzsche to be quite devoted to God and Christ.

--203.59.121.110 15:09, 14 August 2005 (UTC)"

Personally, while I do not think Nietzsche was an atheist per-se. I certainly do not think that he, even if he had christian friends, was a fan of the religion (putting it lightly!). Also I don't think calling Nietzsche's sister "evil" is particularly enlightening! LOL (Jezze 01:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC))


This is nuts!

RE: "Nietzsche was a close friend of Pascal"--- This is absurd. Pascal died in 1662; Nietzsche was born in 1844.

RE: "I do not think Nietzsche was an atheist"--- Nietzsche frequently wrote the phrase "we atheists." He proclaimed God dead over and over. He calls religion a lie frequently---though he sometimes admits that it makes people beautiful.

On the Suppressed Passage[edit]

The suppressed passage does not appear in the H. L. Mencken translation that is referenced in the "External Links" section, at the bottom of the Wikipedia article. It is also suppressed in Walter Kaufmann's printed translation. However, it can be seen in the Kaufmann translation provided by the "Nietzsche Channel" website. It can also be seen in R. J. Hollingdale's printed translation. Lestrade 13:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

The Nietzsche Archives might not have been surprised by the fabrication of Christ's words on the cross if they recalled that Nietzsche was the author of a complete fable entitled Also Sprach Zarathustra. That parable resembled New Testament forms and showed that Nietzsche was capable of such creative myth construction.Lestrade 20:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Re-write This[edit]

This page is horrible! Immediately after explaining the name of the book, it goes into some person's interpretation of Nietzsche's ideas about Jesus instead of really referring to the book at all. Just because some of those ideas were inspired by the Antichrist does not mean they relate to the book well enough to COMPOSE THE ENTIRETY OF THE ARTICLE.

This person obviously just wanted to present Nietzsche as having liked Jesus. The part about the book's title not referring to the Biblical Antichrist is bullshit; Nietzsche did want to refer to the Antichrist, the book's title is not the Antichristian, get over it. This page is unacceptable.

Nowhere in the book is there reference to a personage called "The Antichrist." Instead, there is opposition to the institution of the Christian church and religion. Nietzsche opposed the Christian disparagement of life, as he opposed Schopenhauer's denial of the will to live. Instead of "getting over it," we should open the book itself and read what is in it.Lestrade 14:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Lestrade
That is irrelevant to the fact that this page is not actually about the book as much as an interpretation. The beginning sentence of said interpretation doesn't even reference the book!
The book was written in the German language. The English translation of Antichrist is ambiguous. It can be either Antichrist or Antichristian. This information is provided in the first sentence. The book itself can't be referenced in that sentence because Nietzsche did not discuss the ambiguity of the English translation of his German title.Lestrade 23:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Lestrade
Again, that was never my main point. Forgetting the title altogether, this page does not adequately describe the book. Rather, it is an interpretation of Nietzsche's view of Jesus. Although this was in the book, it is not the whole of the book, and the text itself in the article does not give direct references to the book enough.

149.150.236.118 (talk)I agree with the part about Jesus. He didn't like Jesus! His referring to him as the "only true Christian" was meant as an insult, not a compliment. He was referring to the fact that most people who proclaimed to be Christians, like the young successful prince he mentions, are not really Christians because they pursued the Will to Power. Jesus on the other hand was meek and mild, and didn't protest his death, which is exactly the kind of attitude Nietzsche CONDEMNED. How the hell could you read the Antichrist and come to the conclusion that he liked Jesus? He even says he could not find ONE redeemable quality of the New Testament! Sheesh... — Preceding undated comment added 19:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Misunderstanding[edit]

Nietzsche wrote this book to oppose people who were against life. He considered the institution of the Christian church to be against life. He also considered people who were weak and sick to be haters of life. Since there are so many of these, they readily became Christians and Christianity became a dominant religion. Nietzsche's concern with people who were against life began when he reacted to the fourth part of Schopenhauer's main work. In this part, Schopenhauer wrote eloquently in praise of people who opposed life, such as ascetics, hermits, saints, and so on. For the rest of Nietzsche's life, he fought against this negative attitude toward life. This book, The Antichrist, was one of his last attempts to express a positive point of view toward life and condemn those who denigrated the world and life in favor of a life after death. So what happens? People look at the title and think that it is some evil book that is in opposition to Jesus Christ. They read through the book and do not comprehend Nietzsche's words, because they have never read Schopenhauer. This is a total, absolute misunderstanding. It is almost the direct opposite to the true meaning of the book. Wikipedia's job is to provide the correct description of the book. This can be done by people who have read and understood the book. It is for the benefit of those who have not taken the time and effort to read Nietzsche's book or any of the books that contributed to Nietzsche's way of thinking. Lestrade 14:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

I interpreted the book similarly, but unless you have verifiable sources, all this amounts to is original research.Skomorokh 15:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
The most verifiable source is a close and repreated reading of the book itself, as well as of books by writers who are mentioned by Nietzsche.Lestrade 15:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Lestrade
So why not use quotes from the book to show that your interpretation is the correct one? What's the problem here?Skomorokh 15:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll give it a try and we'll see what happens.Lestrade 00:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

Sympathy[edit]

Nietzsche harshly criticized sympathy and compassion. This was in accord with his opposition to Schopenhauer. But, In the end, Schopenhauer seemed to have won. Nietzsche, while walking on a street, witnessed a horse being whipped. He ran to the suffering horse, embraced it, and lapsed into insanity. Fifty years before Nietzsche's breakdown, Schopenhauer had published the following words: "… the essential and principal thing in the animal and man is the same … persons of delicate feelings, on realizing that in a bad mood, in anger, or under the influence of wine, they unnecessarily or excessively, or beyond propriety, ill–treated their dog, horse, or monkey – these people will feel the same remorse, the same dissatisfaction with themselves as is felt when they recall a wrong done to human beings, where it is called the voice of reproving conscience."(Basis of Morality, § 19)Lestrade 00:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

Lestrade's "paraphrase" of § 16, 19 May 2007[edit]

Lestrade's "paraphrase" may be correctly worded in the above-referenced revision, but only after attention was brought to the POV of her/his earlier revision. The earlier revision which read "The Christian religion and its morality are based on imaginary fictions" is most definitely POV and is quite different than the later revision which read "Nietzsche claimed that the Christian religion and its morality are based on imaginary fictions." Lestrade changed the wording of the passage and summarized the change thusly: "This a paraphrase of § 16. It is not my POV. It is properly worded." Yes, that may be so in the later revision, but it was not so in her/his earlier revision. The improper wording of the earlier revision may have been an oversight, or it may have not. Lestrade's contributions to this article are noteworthy; however, I would ask Lestrade to remember that s/he does not own this article, and s/he must stick to the rules. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and it is not a forum to advance any agenda. 71.127.228.173 13:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess that means that I have to insert "Nietzsche claimed," Nietzsche asserted," and "according to Nietzsche" in all of my contributions. I had thought that this was assumed. I have no desire to include any of my personal opinions in the Wiki article. As a matter of fact, I do not have a personal opinion to include.Lestrade 19:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Lestrade
This is interesting: the disputed passage quoted above, "The Christian religion and its morality are based on imaginary fictions," was not added by Lestrade but by 72.73.215.45 at 15:07, 19 May. The same editor made another edit at 15:12. Just 22 minutes later, Lestrade added her/his paraphrase of §16 to make a paragraph comprised of "paraphrases" of §15 and §16 . Later, another editor removed the paragraph on the grounds of POV. Lestrade subsequently added "Nietzsche claimed that" to the disputed "paraphrase" of §15, and leaving the paraphrase of §16 intact, restored the paragraph. In the edit summary s/he wrote: "This a paraphrase of § 16. It is not my POV. It is properly worded."
Now why would Lestrade restore the paragraph, mask her/his change of someone else's contribution (the disputed "paraphrase" of §15), and say in her/his edit summary that it was a paraphrase of §16, not her/his POV, and properly worded?
It is also interesting to note that the disputed paragraph was the only one in the narrative, as of that edit, which did not contain "Nietzsche claimed," Nietzsche asserted," or "according to Nietzsche" as a preface to a proposition like "The Christian religion and its morality are based on imaginary fictions." Lestrade says s/he "had thought that this was assumed." How convenient! Why was it not assumed in every other paragraph?
Lestrade asserts that s/he has no desire to include any of her/his "personal opinions in the Wiki article." Now if we could only be convinced that s/he has no desire to include and of her/his opinions in this Wiki article! It would also be good to be convinced that Lestrade has no agenda with this Wiki article.
Happy trails.72.68.117.141 15:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to cause all of this trouble. A few times, I forgot to log in to Wikipedia. On such occasions, my IP address was displayed, instead of my Username. In other words, I was User:72.73.215.45 at the time of the May 19 edit. My purpose was to explain that such sentences as "The Christian religion and its morality are based on imaginary fictions" were not my thoughts. Rather, they were Nietzsche's thoughts. I was trying to paraphrase or quote Nietzsche's words in order to provide a summary or epitome of the book. I was not trying to present my own thoughts.Lestrade 15:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

"Idiot"[edit]

Could someone update the page to suggest that Nietzsche's use of the word idiot to describe Jesus was probably a reference to Dostoevsky's Idiot? "The only psychologist from whom I have anything to learn" were Nietzsche's words on Dostoevsky, I think. Just saying "he described Jesus as an idiot" is misleading, though it's true that Nietzsche hates the idea of book summaries, so feel free to keep it as it is out of spite for your readers if you'd really like to. 131.215.169.187 10:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that Nietzsche read Dostoevsky's The Idiot? It is known that he read other works by that author, but not The Idiot. The works by Dostoevsky that Nietzsche owned were Humiliés et offensés (The Insulted and Humiliated), Junger Nachwuchs (The Raw Youth), L'esprit souterrain (Notes from Underground), La Maison des Morts (The House of the Dead), and Les Possédés (The Possessed). He did not own The Idiot, but, of course, he might have read it. Lestrade 12:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

Fair use rationale for Image:The Anti-christ.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:The Anti-christ.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Image[edit]

I wonder why the article is decorated by an image of H.L. Mencken's translation. This translation is the least valuable because it is based on the translations of Anthony Ludovici and Thomas Common. These, in turn, were translations of highly edited German texts that had suppressed several important passages due to the controversial nature of Nietzsche's ideas. In contrast, the more recent translations by R.J. Hollingdale and Walter Kaufmann are based on totally complete texts.Lestrade 15:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

Fair use rationale for Image:The Anti-christ.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:The Anti-christ.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Lacking arguments[edit]

The article doesn't actually cite many of Nietzsche's arguments (which are often hidden, by the way). For example, I remember that in first sections he points to arguments against the concept of free will; and also around sect. 25, afair. When he talks about the genesis of values, he also suggests that what we call higher moral system was based on the lower, the "evil", and therefore it is absurd to condemn the former (this is stated more clearly in Twilight of the Idols, c.6, s.8). Next, he notes that the word "truth" was abused, i.e. in that rather rational epoch people generally believed in their reason, considered truth to be what is one and coherent and in contact with the external reality; this is actually very strong argument, because Christians (even if they themselves refuse reason in certain aspects) have to pretend that something is reasonable, to hide various errors, to imitate a coherent reasonable system, when transmitting their ideas (i.e. spreading faith). – When Nietzsche talks of creation (and God's mortal terror of science), he brings the problem of time and eternity to the light. Also, by portreting the history of knowledge as the total opposition of godliness, he points to the fact that in order to know something, it must be simplier than us, less teleological (mere cause-effect), emptier of reason, stupider, more "evil", in general bringing evil people to victory (and gaining power, even spiritual power, over other people). The sole nature of progress (which is demanded by the sole value "truth", worldly truth) is denying both God-the Creator and the Moral God, that is what is said in section 48. And also: that mankind should not seek help from God, because the Deluge (greatly destroying the civilization, the "edifice of knowledge") was his last attempt.

From my side, I could say that also the end of the evil world (the only one where truth, science, is possible) is not approaching, rather the opposite, basing on John 10:16. Also, what is interesting is that Nietzsche's concepts on the teaching of Jesus are much confirmed by the Gospel of Thomas (to which, of canonical Gospels, John's is most similar in the whole way of expression; note that John was the youngest of apostles and it's likely he remembered the sense best). Also, when Nietzsce says that the teaching of personal immortality in its literal sense was especially supported by Paul, we could say that the evidence of this lays in his letters where he confirms many Christians don't believe in eternal life. 77.114.118.110 (talk) 04:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Northern Illinois shooting[edit]

I'm not quite sure how I feel about the introduction including the fact that the shooter sent this book to his girlfriend prior to the shooting. Chapman had The Catcher In The Rye on him when he shot Lennon yet there's no mention of that in the introduction to that book. It's not really relevant to the book on a grand scale, I'd call it distasteful but I feel like that in itself would be in bad taste, it just seems ill-placed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quixulous (talkcontribs) 01:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of removing it, as I'm not quite sure where else it would fit, but it's certainly out of place in the introduction. Quixulous (talk) 05:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Please have a look ...[edit]

at the recently improved article in the German wikipedia de:Der Antichrist. Some of the pictures I have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons might be of use.--Chef aka Pangloss (talk) 13:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The Saint[edit]

This book is highly subjective and has is based wholly on Nietzsche's point of view. Therefore, it is not out of place for me to make a personal comment. It seems to me that one of the most important sections is "Paul and the promise of eternal life." Like Islam's afterworld, Christianity's doctrine of resurrection is a strong appeal to every person's will to live. It has a most powerful attraction and cannot be resisted by most people. In selling a religion, this is the best selling point that any salesman could ever offer. Many people will not read Nietzsche's book for fear of divine punishment. Many people who do read it will not understand it at all. It is a kind of detective story in which the brilliant sleuth (Nietzsche) uses intuitive guesswork and ratiocination to understand the mind of St. Paul and to expose his machinations. He wrote The Case of Wagner in the same spirit. However, the book cannot be read as though it provides factual truths. Even though Nietzsche may have intuitively hit upon the truth, there can never be any certain proof to the conclusions of this very unscientific artwork.Lestrade (talk) 19:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

If it was really about Paul, why does he also condemn the Jews? 198.228.199.172 (talk) 13:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC) Collin237

Hey Che Guevara, you seemed to imply above that Nietzsche was not against Christ but against Paul, i.e., not against Christ, but against Christians. Take a closer look at Section 39. He wrote: "...at bottom there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross... In fact, there are no Christians. The “Christian”—he who for two thousand years has passed as a Christian—is simply a psychological self-delusion." Q.E.D. Teetotaler 6 January, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.81.197 (talk) 06:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't imply anything. I clearly stated my thoughts. Who is Che Guevara?Lestrade (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)Lestrade

Very good, but what does this have to do with the wikipedia page?Ursus Lapideus (talk) 05:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

CALL FOR: Nietzsche scholars[edit]

Hello. I am looking to collaborate with a Nietzsche scholar. The focus is specifically geared towards unravelling N.'s last two works: Twilight of The Idols and The Anti-Christ. I have to be extremely judicious (conservative) in my attribution of themes to Nietzsche, so I'd like to have someone more tapped into the peer-reviewed, manistream consensus of standard Nietzsche scholarship to mediate and provide guidance to the claims I am about to make. Either contact me here->

--  SKYchild  07:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Or by electronic mail: scott (at) infinitelogic (dot) ca THANKS!

Scientific Method: Someone's Screwing Around[edit]

I would like to bring to your attention someone is attempting to essentially argue and debunk Nietzsche in the Scientific Method section, and his so called support is not even anykind of source that is usable. Probably intentional tampering to enspouse his opinion, please edit this section, this isn't a debate forum, it's an online encyclopedia...--24.154.20.241 (talk) 03:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)Concerned Reader

I noticed that too. For now I'm going to remove that section entirely, especially considering its lack of sources.Ursus Lapideus (talk) 02:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The "Scientific Method" section of the article directly relates to § 13 and § 14 of The Antichrist. This should be obvious to any reader.Lestrade (talk) 15:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Lestrade

The "Scientific Method" section that was there had the sources of §13 and §14 to the book, which was appropriate for those bits of information, however there were no sources to an anecdote it was referencing. The anecdote was about Nietzsche breaking down in the street from seeing a horse being whipped and that he ultimately contradicted himself. The current version is good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ursus Lapideus (talkcontribs) 18:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Criticism?[edit]

The book should be heavily and systematically criticised by many authors (making Nietzsche a "holy pagan" in the wordings of Zwingli). Where is that? It should be interspersed in the text here and there. (Personally I cannot wait biking to the library to borrow my copy). Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 08:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Changes to "The Antichrist" redirect to lead here[edit]

The Antichrist

  • (cur | prev) 05:32, 14 January 2013‎ Medeis (talk | contribs)‎ . . (35 bytes) (-6)‎ . . (this is by far the central meaning, see http://stats.grok.se/en/201210/The%20Antichrist%20(book)) (undo)
  • (cur | prev) 05:14, 14 January 2013‎ Neo-Jay (talk | contribs)‎ . . (41 bytes) (+6)‎ . . (redirected to Antichrist (disambiguation). if The Antichrist (book) is really the primary use, then The Antichrist (book) should be moved to The * Antichrist and a process described by Wikipedia:Requested moves is needed) (undo)
  • (cur | prev) 01:35, 3 October 2012‎ Medeis (talk | contribs)‎ . . (35 bytes) (-6)‎ . . (the rock songs and album are hardly main topics for this title) (undo)
  • (cur | prev) 00:22, 8 October 2009‎ 78.34.216.176 (talk)‎ . . (41 bytes) (-401)‎ . . (redirect to Antichrist (disambiguation), this is just needlessly confusing otherwise) (undo)

pasted to make sense of below In ictu oculi (talk) 04:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. Clear consensus that the article "the" fails to adequately distinguish from "the Antichrist". The redirect will be restored to its prior target, the dab page. Cúchullain t/c 22:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


--- The Antichrist (book)The AntichristMedeis kept redirecting The Antichrist to The Antichrist (book) (see this and this) and argues that the book is the primary use of the phrase "The Antichrist". If so, then The Antichrist (book) should be moved to The Antichrist. Since he does not place any move request through the process described by Wikipedia:Requested moves, I have to place the request for him. Neo-Jay (talk) 07:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose. I think the primary use of The Antichrist is "the Antichrist", not the book. It should be redirected to Antichrist (disambiguation) or Antichrist, not The Antichrist (book). --Neo-Jay (talk) 07:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Neo-Jay. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose While I can't know for sure what everyone else might think I know that if I typed the Antichrist I would not have done so because I was looking for a particular book and I would be surprised if most people would. I also think that The Antichrist should redirect to Antichrist or the dab page instead.--174.93.160.57 (talk) 23:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose clearly should point to Antichrist. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support The opposes are counter to our naming policy, we do not create titles or redirects with a or the unless they are inherent to the subject, which is the case with the book, but not with the figure. Assertions of main usage are irrelevant here since the suggested redirect would be an improper article title. μηδείς (talk) 01:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I think there is some confusion here, no one wants to the article antichrist article to the antichrist but simply that the antichrist this article is not what people are likely to look for typing the term in. Simply put the argument is that the redirect should be changed. question.--174.93.160.57 (talk) 03:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, while we certainly shouldn't move our Antichrist article to "The Antichrist", the non-book Antichrist will still be the primary meaning of the term "the Antichrist". Redirecting to the book would misdirect more readers than it would help. Huon (talk) 01:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Agree with Neo-Jay - the redirect The Antichrist should not automatically be inbound to the book but should really redirect to Antichrist (disambiguation). Where does The Devil go? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Um, no. A clear reading of the title policy of MOS says that we don't call articles about XXX "The XXX" unless the is already part of the title. The article about the Antichrist is properly called Antichrist, while the article on the book, but not the person, is properly called The Antichrist, since "The" is part of the title. I am curious what people think users should be typing in when they actually are interested in The Antichrist. I suppose if we assume nobody actually knows the naming conventions here, and that they are entirely counterintuitive, that gets us somewhere. μηδείς (talk) 04:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Does that apply to redirects since no one is suggesting moving "antichrist" "the antichrist" and I don't see the antichrist article redirecting to antichrist means that we are calling that article the antichrist? Also I doubt that many of our average readers are knowledgeable about the rules regarding using the so I doubt that most people looking up this term are looking for the book.--199.91.207.3 (talk) 16:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Okay Medeis|μηδείς let's go from here and change the wording of MOS (where exactly please?) so its clearer, and lets cite this example there. I would think of this book as Der Antichrist actually, but The Antichrist like The Devil is an obvious place where the "The" rule can be tested. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- The target should be a redirect to Antichrist. That article needs (and already has) dablink hatnote to the dab page, where the book is listed. Basically the situation is as it ought to be and no change is needed. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Antichrist (book). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)