/lit/ - Literature

Nietzsche is harder than his meme reputation would make you think.

Heidegger's lectures are crystal compared to his published works. Read "What is Thinking?", that'll bring you up to speed. And incidentally, half of those lectures are on Nietzsche

burroughs is the only author I can understand

>>13444969
Haven't read heidegger, but Nietzsche is really fucking easy. Idk if it's because I read people like Kant or Schopenhauer first, but Nietzsche felt incredibly easy. He just writes a bit too poetically for philosophy imo.

>>13444969

If those are too tough for you never touch Kant or Hegel. And definitely never pick up Anti-Oedipus

>>13445011
Isn't Schopenhauer considered easy as a philosopher?

>>13445011
>Nietzsche is really fucking easy
please explain his ideas on appearance and essence, then. Please explain his proof of the eternal recurrence. Please explain why he found logic illogical. Please explain aphorism 75 of the Gay Science (that will really get me laughing!), please explain why he found Wagner's music itself (not Wagner himself) decadent.
With Nietzsche, the less you find the easier it will be. You will skim over half the fucking paragraph thinking he's being poetic lol.

>>13445013
>Kant
isn't he that Chinese fellow?

>>13445017
Idk I heard people say he was difficult, but I didn't think he was too bad provided you read or understand on the fourfold root of sufficient reason. Along with that his concept of "will" isn't the most intuitive, but if you read kant first none of it should be too bad.

>>13445050
>be an autist and study every bit of critique Nietzsche ever made ever
>or receive the overall message by noting his arguments while reading but not getting bogged down in being a sophistic faggot who needs to parrot his every critique
Dilate

>>13445102
this
>>13445050
I didn't memorize random passages while reading. Me not remembering the less important pieces of his philosophy doesn't mean that he's complicated.

>>13445050
>explain his proof of the eternal recurrence

where does he claim to prove it? it's an expressive concept that indirectly shows us facets of our nature, not some scientific theorem

>>13445102
>>13445132
>can't remember some of the most basic parts of a philosophers philosophy
>claiming you "read" them
Yeah, you can read anything if you don't fucking retain it is my point. He explains every one of my initial points (except a "proof" for eternal recurrence, which he attempts in will to power) in nearly every one of his main works multiple times.

>>13445134
he never really claimed to prove it, but he does throw some very hard-hitting arguments in to back it up. I think in will to power (?) he says somewhere that "The law of the conservation of energy demands
eternal recurrence.", which is expanded on in a book called quantum Nietzsche.

>>13445102
this is embarrassing anon

>>13445177
Nice, I'll lump that in with his claims about diet and climate, that is to say, baseless autiscience fluff

>>13444976
>Nietzsche
>Hard
Nietzsche's thinking likely wasn't even original. The themes he touches upon should be self-evident to anyone with a cursory interest in the topics he addresses.

>>13445225
Based

>>13444969
When I studied Being and Time at school it was normal to spend hours per page working through it.

I’m surprised you are having so much time with Nietzsche though. He’s not that tough compared to the rest of the canon, and certainly nothing like Heidegger.

Also as >>13444976 said, Heidegger’s lectures are way clearer and make a far better starting point.

>>13445157
I don't think his opinions on Wagner or a random aphorism in the gay science are remotely important to "getting" nietsche lmao

They're both relatively nonsensical (especially Heidegger) and people mainly read them to feel smart

>>13445279
>I don't think his opinions on Wagner are remotely important to "getting" nietsche lmao
Yeah, not important! Even though he denotes two books to the fucking guy (not including the birth of spirit, where a quarter of the book is denoted to Wagner), as well as hundreds of aphorisms. But this is why Nietzsche is so "easy" and "poetic" to everyone: they read a paragraph, not seeing any of the connections he's making, then think he's being "poetic" because they can't see them, and so think it's all wasted space.
>or a random aphorism in the gay science
if you understood it, you would realize how it connects to his analyses of the greeks. But people can barely parse the meaning of it! Let alone go any deeper into it! Even walter kaufmann cites it exclaiming that he has no idea what it means lol. People's interpretations of Nietzsche are so shallow they will think that when Nietzsche uses the word "dancing", he really means actual dancing!
And here I am, arguing with a guy who can't even spell his name right, let alone understand why his opinions on Wagner are important to understanding him...

>>13444976
>Nietzsche
literally entry level

>>13445284
I agree. They are relatively nonsensical.
They are nonsensical to you relative to me.

>>13445346
>a thinker like Heidegger spent years studying an entry-level philosopher

Not at all.

>>13445347
That makes no sense retard

>>13445346
>>13445350
Nietzsche's both entry-level and boss-tier. He's one of those you return to again and again and always find more.

>>13445368
Every great philosopher is like this.

>>13445368
He didn't Take N******** seriously lol

>>13445337
>Wagner
so he spent a lot of time on something unimportant
>aphorism
I don't think understanding a random aphorism is the key to understanding Nietzsche

>>13445337
>they will think that when Nietzsche uses the word "dancing", he really means actual dancing!
Not him but can you help me to understand what he really means with that aphorism?

>>13445050
Read Phaedrus you pedant

>>13445231
this person is an idiot and has clearly never opened Nietzsche. Also we aren't talking about his themes nor his originality, we're talking about the way he communicates philosophical ideas. If you knew this I am sure that you would realise that the way he communicates his ideas are integral to their originality. Pseud.

>>13445050
I don't know why I am replying this is, because your post is most likely bait. But who cares.

Nietzsche cared enough about (pseudo-)scholastic concepts such as appearance and essence, to expose their inner inconsistenties...? That's new to me. Nietzsche, certainly not the post-Zarathustra Nietzsche, didn't care about piecemeal refutations of scholastic wizardy; metaphysics as a whole was his target. And it is silly to aim your heaviest artillery at a bunch of insignificant outposts while you feel confident enough to attack the fortress. If N. took aim at a specific metaphysical concept, he would do so to show the futility of metaphysical thought as a whole, and it would be about setting an example for the future.

To the best of my knowledge N. never offered proof of the eternal recurrence. I do know he wanted to study physics to give it a scientific grounding but gave up on that idea because of personal reasons and he couldn't stick to a single body of work for a prolonged period of time: see how often he postponed the 'Will to Power'. Saying Nietzsche found logic illogical is a rape of his argument: it cuts so many corners you're making a fool of yourself. His criticism of logic is everywhere in his works, from Human, All too Human to Beyond Good and Evil, appearing in many different shapes. You can't give a single reason why he rejected logic. And note the following: the logic N. was against was decidedly Aristotelean, not Fregean or "analytic"; those things didn't even exist when he wrote. I am not aware of N. being aware of George Boole's work, and if he did, he never mentioned him.

Gay Science, no. 75? Fine. The first part of the section is a (presumably) fake quote by an 'old dance teacher'. N. often refers to dance throughout his work and the 'dance teacher' is important. Look up studies on N.'s dance metaphors and the idea of dancing if you really wanna get to the bottom of this. I don't expect GS no. 75 to receive a lot of attention because it's not important for the rest of his philosophy. And nor is it well written; a boring paraphrase of Aristotle concludies the section that is taken from Nicomachean Ethics 1123b, and probably Rhetoric 1361a.

>>13446322
>We should consider every day lost on which we have not danced at least once.
>And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music.
>Without music, life would be a mistake... I would only believe in a God who knew how to dance.
>One must still have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star.
>Dancing in all its forms cannot be excluded from the curriculum of all noble education; dancing with the feet, with ideas, with words, and, need I add that one must also be able to dance with the pen?
Not the poster you are asking, but he probably means life-affirmation by following the Will To Power and Self-Actualization in order to reach one's greatness.

ITT: people who can not explain nietzsche.. saying that it is not that important to understand the things they did not understand, yet the things they understood have importance.
lmao

Just read the Thustra a call every philosopher a fucking faggot.
It is what Nietzsche would have wanted. You literally can't prove me wrong on this one.

>>13445050
Wagner's music is decadent because it's tradition-wank. Because Wagner is a larper.

>>13447916
Except he was an avowed progressive, stomping on established traditions in music and preaching revolutionary political sentiments in his works. He was a left-wing anarchist and friends with Bakunin, got exiled from Dresden because he participated in the democratic revolt, and was mostly opposed by conservatives who preferred Brahms, Mendelssohn, Schumann etc. Neither musically nor politically is it tradition-wank.