Verified answer

Oh, I'd say it's a combination. Translators doing their work to the best of their ability, including big words and complex sentences. Nietzsche still being a "philisophical elitist" himself--probably more of this. After all, he wasn't exactly the most humble man to ever walk the earth!

I can't say I've ever had this problem reading Nietzsche in translation. Have you been reading the Walter Kaufmann English translations? I believe they're considered the standard, and that's what I mostly used. If you're reading older translations the English may just be old-fashioned.

It can be difficult to translate philosophical work because so much depends on getting the precise shade of meaning right. Translators may sometimes have to use less common words to best get across the intended meaning. But German usually translates pretty cleanly into English.

Nietzsche quite fairly has the reputation for being the easiest to read but hardest to understand of any of the big names in philosophy. But keep in mind that this is comparing Nietzsche to other philosophers, not to "People" magazine or something. Give Kant a try though and tell me he doesn't make Nietzsche look like a master of straightforward and simple prose.

I've got to disagree with you about Nietzsche wanting "the common folks" to be able to read his books easily, though. He very clearly states again and again that he expects people to read his books carefully and in order and to actually concentrate and reflect on them. He did NOT want them read casually by people who weren't willing to give them this kind of attention.

neither.

i think you're referring to the aphorism where he says, if you want to seem profound, speak obscurely, and if you want to be profound, speak clearly. that's hardly the same thing as writing in simple words. nietzsche expressly said he wasn't writing for common folk. he wrote for a small community of kindred spirits that, in his mind, probably weren't even born yet.

the perfect example of someone who "seems profound" is kant. if you've never had to read him, you're lucky. kant is a terrible writer. he used a lot of run-ons and abstract terminology. nietzsche found him laughable. he felt kant was, subconsciously, a bad writer on purpose. his ideas were full of holes, so kant glossed over them with tricks of language.

the elitists you mention would probably say, if you don't get kant, it's your own fault. but of course, it's kant's fault, because he's full of **** half the time. nobody wants to admit they didn't understand those pages of kant that made no sense, or they assume he must be over their heads.

true story. in 1996, alan sokal submitted a paper called "transgressing the boundaries: towards a transformative hermeneutics of quantum gravity" to a journal of postmodern cultural studies. after they published it, he revealed it was a hoax, and the paper was absolute nonsense. that's like kant. to nietzsche, kant was a hoax that nobody else got.

anyways, writing clearly means expressing in two lines what lesser writers say in two pages.

however, if he seems obscure, it helps to read him in order, because he assumes you've already read his previous works and he doesn't have to explain himself twice.