How seriously do academic historians take Nietzsche's

>>8296313
It's not really writen as a true history. It's a story that helps you understand worldviews and the sentiments and conditions which create them.

>>8296313
is that wonder woman

>>8296331
It's meant to be a history of the conditions that created Christian morality, as well as the conditions that created the morality it replaced.

>>8296313
Like, real seriously. They don't even laugh or play their little academic games when they read it, like, there's no giggling or giddiness. They just keep reading with furrowed foreheads and then they go: "This book is...serious".

https://noehernandezcortez.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/nietzsche-genealogy-history.pdf

https://core.ac.uk/download/files/374/11525794.pdf

File: american intellectual.jpg (290KB, 594x375px) Image search: [Google]

290KB, 594x375px

>>8296343
No, it's really not dummy. Nietzsche is just presenting a psychological schemata for the purpose of exposition.

>>8297930
This. Read the chapter on Genealogy in Ecce Homo.

>>8296353
That's because "academics" won't even touch a source text until they're well and tenured, they just read textbooks because IT'S 2016!

Academic historians are professional hacks

>>8298261

So who should we listen to? Non-Academic historians?

Big Jim in the pub who tells drunken stories of 1066?

how seriously did Nietzsche take academic historians in Genealogy of Morals?

not at all so who gives a shit

>>8296313

>academic historians

by that you mean unemployed archaeologists right

>>8297937
The chapter affirms the work as explaining the psychology that lead to the birth of Christianity.

>>8298275
You should listen to Oswald Spengler type characters

>>8298485
But not as an actual historical event. There is a reason why the term genealogy is used. It's like with MacIntyre. While he (MacIntyre) argues that sometime around the enlightenment we stopped doing ethics the way we used to and adopted our new shitty ways of thinking about it he doesn't ascribe to a particular date, or place, or event. Nietzsche isn't saying anything like in 34CE the Jews invented slave morality because of being subjugated by the Romans.

>>8299881
>But not as an actual historical event.
by far most nietzsche scholars think that he does mean to describe an actual historical event, you absolute dimwit

>>8296313
Taking it as a literally true account of history was your first mistake.

>>8300708
BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS PLEASE
THANKS

>>8300719
First understand exactly what Nietzsche thinks of history and of the concept of truth. Read his untimely meditations and on truth and lies in the nonmoral sense.

Then reanalyze your question of whether the genealogy he presents is historical 'fact' in itself.

Nietzsche is significantly less obscurantist than people make him out to be, the problem is that only Nietzsche scholars actually read everything he wrote. He writes in aphorisms which makes him appear as a fragmentary writer but in some sense his body of work is the most generally cohesive in philosophy. He constantly updated many of his older works and referenced them freely in newer ones, he even on one occasion referenced an essay of his that was at that time unpublished. He wrote everything with all of his other works on the desk. Nietzsche never closed a book and considered it a finished thing so in interpreting what he was writing in one work, you must use all of his other works, including works published after the publication of the work in question (Ecce Homo is generally most useful book for aiding interpretation of even his earliest work).

To really get Nietzsche, you have to have read at a minimum a detailed history of his life and all of his published works. Letters, notes and WTP are optional. You should also participate in at least one Franco-Prussian war reenactment and contract dysentery.

>>8298275
>big jim
>not the jack of hearts

>>8296334
yes

wtf I love Israel now

>>8301034
weak effort; ill go with the nietzsche scholars. thank you