/lit/ - Literature

how old are you?

whats your background in philosophy?

how deep of an understanding of freddy's philosophy do you want?

The easiest is to get pic related and work from there. Also, while Zarathustra is the most complete work in terms of philosophy, it's not one to tackle early.

>>2316025

I am 18 years old (not even dry behind my ears, yes I know)

I cant say I am an educated philosopher and neither do I believe I am one. however, I like to philosophize whenever I have a moment to do so. I am going to read "History of western philosophy" when i get it in the mail in a couple of days.

Not looking for extreme depth, Ive just heard his thoughts are fasinating.

>>2316054
>18
>no previous experience in philosophy
>not looking for extreme depth

Read >>2316043.

protip for the next time: you don't start math in the middle of non-euclidean geometry, you work your way up from arithmetic.

>>2316062
>philosophy through the ages=math through the ages

>>2316054
Take Russell with a pinch of salt.

>>2316054
History of Western Philosophy is not something you "read" as such, look at it as a reference book.

>>2316062

Math and philosophy are tow entierly different consepts. And why are you so rude, internet tough guy?

>>2316074
You're just strengthening his point with stupid fucking comments like that.

Reading Keith Pearson's "How to read Nietzsche" at the moment.

That's great, also read Antichrist and most of Zarathustra, Im reading the rest now, as i have grasped his ideas.

Also looking forward to reading Twilight idols, the Genealogy of Morals and Ecce Homo, now that Ive actually found out how profound he was.

Also read a lot of Kierkegaard, around three books of assorted philosophers through time, something about the history of metaphysics, and then just go The World as Will and Presentation by Sjopenburger.
Also done some Kant and Hegel, just to realize what Hannah Arendt was talking about, I read all her stuff.

I read the Antichrist at an age where i had to look up what the categorical imperative meant, I'm going to reread it know when i get all the Kant references, and the nihilism of Christianity.

Seriously, i cannot see how i made myself read all that, unknowningly

>>2316054
You won't get Nietzsche until you're 23

And you'll think you get him when you're 19, 20, 21, and 22, "for real this time" every time

Teenagers and young adults are essentially functionally retarded. Enjoy your metamorphosis.

>>2316062
>you don't start math in the middle of non-euclidean geometry
and then there's this cunt who feels accomplished.
Nietzsche is simple. He is not hard for anyone well read

>>2317386
i don't think intellectual growth works that way. I've met one person who said they were pretty much at the same level of capability to understand something, if not as learned. I'll admit he isn't all that brilliant IMO, he is relatively well versed in literature and history and knows a shit ton about film.

Good ol' Nietzsche pasta to the rescue!

If you don't have a good knowledge of the history of philosophy before Nietzsche, it is imperative that you learn about it before reading him. (If you plan on reading The Birth of Tragedy, read all ancient Greek tragedies and Aristotle's Poetics.) Familiarize yourself with the pre-Socratics, Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, Spinoza, Hume, Kant, Schopenhauer, and Hegel. Then read Kaufmann's Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist. Only then can you start reading Nietzsche, starting either with The Birth of Tragedy or the Untimely Meditations and moving chronologically (except for Zarathustra, which you should leave for the end).

>>2317414
Sure, tripfaggot. Whatever you say. That's why it took over half a century for the first proper Nietzsche reader to come along.

>>2316074
how was i rude, i don't even. i guess by, idk, my little pony forums standards that was rude, but it was pretty mellow for /lit/.

>>2317414
i don't know tripfag, it may not be equivalently hard to non-euclidean geometry, but you need a lot of context if you really want to understand what he's reacting to. with no previous philosophical experience he's pretty well off with a n introductory work. if you really want to get into nietzsche you need kant, spinoza, not to mention greeks, schopenhauer, and to get them you need even more context etc. i just don't think you should just jump into philosophy and miss a bunch of references... you gain more being rigorous with philosophy much more than you do with fiction, you know, and i don't really think people appreciate that.

>>2317427
>>2317427

>little pony forums standards

now now, things get get nasty amongst the bronies on occasion - don't make assumptions.

Before you read Nietzsche, you should study Aristotle for about 10 to 15 years.