Date: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 09:09:30 -0400 (EDT) From: "John B. Morgan" <jbmorgan-AT-umich.edu> Subject: My Sister & I On Fri, 6 Oct 1995 ENGROSEN-AT-acs.eku.edu wrote: > However, both sides of the debate is present in the AMOK edition, 1990. I have the AMOK edition, and have read all of the prefatory material. I can't say that I was convinced that there was any authenticity to it. It sounded like a typical scam operation to me, complete with a "hook" (Nietzsche's incest) to appeal to the popular crowd to make sure there's a profit return. It also seems odd that not a single Nietzsche scholar of any significance has been willing to defend the work during the last 45 years. And as I already pointed out, the fact that there is no German original seems odd. Yes, I know, the preface says that it was "lost," leaving only a barely legible (of course, to leave room for retractions) translation by Oscar Levy, but that seems amazingly convenient to me. Say what you like about Kaufmann, but the holes he poked in "My Sister and I" were pretty huge ones (including the fact that some of the language in it would not be possible in German, but only in English). Nietzsche's sudden interest in Karl Marx was also strange. Isn't it also funny that after Kaufmann's criticisms, there suddenly appeared a new, corrected edition that tried to eliminate the things he had objected to? Besides, the whole thing rests on the supposition that Nietzsche wasn't as far gone as everyone says he was after January 1889, which may be true, but there's simply too much evidence against it for me to believe that he was capable of writing a whole new book. John Morgan CAHILL: "You create strong feelings, The University of Michigan but you won't give us any easy answers." Alzheimer's Disease Research KUBRICK: "That's because I don't have any Center (MADRC) easy answers." jbmorgan-AT-umich.edu --- from list nietzsche-AT-jefferson.village.virginia.edu --- ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005