“It is not enough to prove something, one has also to seduce or elevate people to it. That is why the man of knowledge should learn how to speak his wisdom: and often in such a way that it sounds like folly!”

On another note, it really is testament to the historical misunderstanding of Nietzsche that the ideas he’s most associated with – militant nationalism, anti-Semitism, and nihilism – are precisely those against which he fulminated.

You’re right in suggesting Kaufmann’s career is largely due to his analysis and translations of Nietzsche, but his other work is notable, as well. For someone who really just leeches off Nietzsche, try R. J. Hollingdale (I may likely be misspelling this).

The point, and I think you know this and are being largely sarcastic for the sake of argument, is not that someone is noteworthy as a philosopher because they are quotable. I would say that if someone is quotable, they should be discussed in their relevant field (English class without Shakespeare is pretty vacant) but this was not the overall point. I was just adding that as support for the idea that Nietzsche is the father of the 20th century. I do truly believe that he, more than anyone, had direct influence on those 100 years. (I think Dostoevsky and Freud should also both be discussed as philosophers, and have been, as you know. Freud’s religious commentary is quite cogent and insightful.)

I agree that Nietzsche is often not easily cut into chunks, but I think you’ll find he’s more often easy to follow than in just Beyond Good and Evil. I’ve read all his works aside from Will to Power and many follow a single theme. His first one, The Birth of Tragedy, is probably the most fluid of them all. And as I already noted, Plato was not one to write out his beliefs directly (so far as I know) and is today concerned the greatest philosopher of all time by a large percentage of people.

I have had Sartre in two courses, and I feel his work is important. You’re primarily right that the French philosophers are more often working in literature than philosophy, but don’t discount Voltaire, Camus, deBeauvoir, Stendhal, the Marquis de Sade, etc. You’re right many of these people work in literature, but they also have works of philosophy (which is not to say the literary works aren’t also philosophical).

I don’t know how long it would take to find 6 people who know what “existentialism” is, but I do believe very much it wouldn’t take long to find 6 people who have existentialist thoughts or feelings — the absence of gods and the growing meaninglessness and absurdity of the world is something not hard to come by.

Now I have to find how to address these issues within the body of the essay…

Seriously, I’m not sure I follow why it is that because he is quotable he should not be ignored. Shakespeare is quotable, but that doesn’t mean he’s a philosopher (although perhaps his writings are philosophical). The same could be said of Dostoevsky. Or Freud.

While I agree that Nietzsche does do philosophy, perhaps you’ve hit on something that he is not one that can easily be cut into chunks, with one important exception; Beyond Good and Evil.

As for Sartre, I’ve never taken a philosophy course that’s actually gone over his philosophy (and if I’ve taken one that’s touched on existentialism, I can’t remember it). In fact, with the exception of Descartes, I’m under the (mistaken?) impression that while the French may do philosophy, nothing has come from it since the time of Descartes – the rest is simply literature …

Put another way; how many people would you have to stop on the street before you found a half a dozen people who could talk to you about existentialism?