User talk:RJC
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Hello, RJC, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Longhair | Talk 21:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Welcome and New Messages
Hello. I'm happy to help, however I'm not 100% sure what you mean. Are you saying that you receive a new message notice every time you login, with or without new messages being left, or that the welcome message I left for you is still visible? If you could clear that confusion up for me I'll be happy to help you overcome any issues of misunderstanding. -- Longhair | Talk 02:45, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- It most definately would be confusing. It's an issue I myself have encountered a few times, but it mostly occurs when I'm editing the same pages in a session. Whenever I visit a new page I'd not been to before during the session the message always clears. It may be related to your browser cache settings and making adjustements to this area of your browser to clear old files regularly could clear it up for you. I wish I could be more help but it does appear to be a local issue with your software and not the wiki software as such. -- Longhair | Talk 03:04, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Nietzsche, Kaufmann, Heidegger, and Jaspers
This would have been posted in the Nietzsche discussion page, but it is more directed to you: It should be said I do not feel how widely a perspective is respected (vide your statement on Walter Kaufmann in the discussion page) thereby depicts on the whole how accurate and precise the interpretation itself is. Hitherto, it seems quite clear to me that Kaufmann has yet to be adequately received by scholars on par with Martin Heidegger's reception and influence, nevertheless if it is of interest to you, I suggest reading his From Shakespeare to Existentialism, that is if you have not already, which has an immensely interesting critique on Heidegger and Karl Jaspers, who happens to have said a great deal about Nietzsche's 'philosophizing' as it were but was appropriated by few scholars, and Jaspers should be mentioned in the main article, too. This is not to say I am curmudgeonly by formulating a debate with you here, I agree insofar as this article is to present interconflicting perspectives. On the other hand, it is disappointing to me that Kaufmann has not been welcomed by very many as of now, for some serious study into his work would be terrific. In any case, thank you for your reply, however new I happen to be here, criticism is always acceptable, even invited.--Glyphonhart 7 July 2005 21:45 (UTC)
On Kaufmann: Your criticism is well-taken, especially as I've come to note an essay that goes right into it: The Walter Kaufmann Myth: A Study in Academic Judgement by David Pickus. Quite emphatically, one will be more suspicious and inquisitive with whatever may come one's way. I must ask you — or impress upon you its significance — to read the above highlighted article.
With profoundest gratitude, Glyphonhart 8 July 2005 04:05 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your criticism on Pickus's essay. With that said, I would like to indicate that I am not as yet familiar with the contemporary goings on, that is to say, I have not gone into major studies within the academic field for I am not in college (but I do aim to major in philosophy when I get the chance). Your statement does indeed answer why Kaufmann has been paid the attributes that you elaborated, with which I was unfamiliar. In any case, my statement in the discussion page was not about that Kaufmann was censored but, in lieu of Pickus's essay, that certain conditions should be heavily considered before such attributes are accorded to Kaufmann thoughtlessly. In sum, I think this has been resolved quite nicely with additional material that does us some great benefit in allowing us to fix the article.
With profoundest gratitude, Glyphonhart 19:58, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Your question on Neitzsche
On Glyphonhart's talk page:
"He may not have meant all those anti-Semitic things he said, but this simply causes us to wonder why he appealed to an anti-Semitic prejudice which he did not share and whether he didn't underestimate — of all things, for him — the violently explosive potential that lurked beneath the surface of a decaying Europe. Or, if he was aware of it, we must conclude that he just didn't care, and so assign him some bit of responsibility for how his rhetoric was later (mis-)used."
- Like others, the personality system I'm quoting is somewhat incomplete (it's also an early interpretation by it's authors). Riso, Don Richard; Hudson, Russ (1996). Personality Types: Using the Enneagram for Self Discovery (Revised edition). Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0-395-79867-1. p. 195 "The Provocative Cynic"
- They begin to take more extreme and unorthodox positions, as if they were trying to extract more confidence from ideas that are becoming meaningless to them. Fives may not be entirely convinced of the radical views they express, but express them they do, wielding them like cutting tools.
p. 196
- ...but their intention is no longer to arrive at the truth. It is to use their knowledge as a way of unsettling others. .... They have an ax to grind. Understanding has been abandoned for polemics.
p.197
- The result is that their ideas mix legitimate insights with extreme interpretations, while Fives themselves have no way of knowing which is which. ... Fives at level 6 may even enjoy arguing viewpoints which they find repugnant just to reaffirm their intelligence while simultaneously proving the futility of making any further efforts. 24.22.227.53 07:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Regarding Thus Spoke Zarathustra
It has come to my attention others are trying to revert this page according to their own views, contrary to what is widely expressed in the scholarly world and thus should be written into the article, such as Kaufmann's translation is consistently thought to be the best possible English translation and the like. At any rate, my request is that you merely assisst others who wish to contribute by keeping an eye on the article, and to revert any vandalisms that may occur, I only ask for I know that you are very familiar with this and Nietzsche. Thank you very much for your help. Also, in connection with the message above about nonsense, numbers, and personalities, RJC, your response on Glyphonhart's talk page titled "Nietzsche and Anti-Semitism" should have been directed to 24.22.227.53.--Anon.
[edit] Machiavelli
I don't know if you read my posts on the Machiavelli talk page, so I thought I would add some thoughts here. My understanding of Strauss is that Machiavelli's works were a significant influence upon his ideas of esotericism, his attacks on liberalism, and so on. I don't know whether you've read 'Thoughts on Machiavelli' by Strauss, but this does support my opinion, purely through the respectful tone that Strauss adopts throughout. Strauss might not AGREE with Machiavelli, but he is certainly influenced by him. As for your replacement of Military Theory with Philosophy -- I quote Cary Nederman, "Machiavelli never seems to have considered himself a philsopher ... nor do his credentials suggest that he fits comfortably into standard models of academic philosophy" (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). I would suggest that he be described as a thinker concerned with Politics, Military Theory, and History. Thanks. Terrencethetractor 23:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, I've just noticed that Machiavelli is listed on the Leo Strauss page as one of his influences (nothing to do with me, and it had no bearing on my original edit). Therefore I will be reinserting Leo Strauss in the Machiavelli infobox, but feel free to contact me if you disagree (something which I would have appreciated from you in the first place). Terrencethetractor 23:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Magna Moralia citations
Hi, and thank you for explaining about the citation. It initially looked unsupported to me. Sorry to have reverted it unnecessarily. — James.S (talk • contribs • count) 21:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] In regards to "Thus Spoke Zarathustra"
Hi, I'm the person that was discussing the possibility of Cyrus as an influence to John Locke. When I visited your userpage, I saw a link to Thus Spoke Zarathustra, I just wanted to ask ,since you obviously know about the book, that do you recommend it? --(Aytakin) | Talk 03:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Cicero denouncing Catiline
Can I ask where you found this image? I think it's absolutely stunning and would like to nominate is as a featured picture, but it's currently too small and has JPG compression artifacts. If you could point me to where you found the original, I may be able to get it featured. Thanks. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
