[yonoataraxia]

Unfortunately I'm German so I can't recommend good translations, but it should definitely be possible to read Goethe in German and English simultaneously. Look for Dual-Language Editions with side-by-side views of German and English texts.

Definitely worth it to freshen up your memory. I hope you find some time to do it. Although I kind of disagree with the view that Goethes thoughts are "more important" than Nietzsches'. Both sometimes contain astonishing levels of obviousness (used here with negative connotation) and both have works which are hyped due to their names.

[wging]

> Both sometimes contain astonishing levels of obviousness (used here with negative connotation)

I recently (re)read something very interesting about 'obviousness' in philosophical writings. The idea was that when a claim is obvious, it is because you are not the target audience for that claim. For example, you live in a world where Sartre lived and wrote and had an impact; the ideas that he wanted to convey are no longer novel, at least partly because he conveyed them and they became part of the culture. (Though even today, there are likely people to whom the claims are not so obvious as they are to you.) The essay starts off talking about claims that are obviously wrong, not obviously right, but later applies the same reasoning to obviously right claims. I am going to abandon an attempt to summarize a 1000-word essay. Just go read it.

http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/11/read-history-of-philoso...

[yonoataraxia]

I hope it's clear to see that obviousness is something I also see as a subjective thing which is related to the reader. That they contain obviousness is based on the fact that both thinkers shaped our thinking through their works or that we see their knowledge as "common knowledge" nowadays.

I used the word because this obviousness leads to boredom for some readers and I can see how both writers have obvious statements (from today's point of view) in them. That this is entirely subjective and based on the knowledge and self-awareness of the reader was never questioned, although I agree that I wasn't clear about it.

- And there is another dimension which was the reason for me to use the word with negative connotation: Sometimes Goethe just wrote about his wishes and desires towards a woman and some people try to see a lot more in some of his works (this is entirely subjective). It's like some of Kafkas works which can be interpreted quite clearly using his biography. But I don't want to start a discussion about the difference between interpretation and what the author tried to say. Many experts interpret works without considering the biography of the author and see the work of someone as something which stands on its own. I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I slightly favor methods that analyze texts based on the biography of the writers. But I can also understand why this is not necessary for a good interpretation.