/lit/ - Literature

Work your way there, starting with the Greeks.

>>3710237

Shitty advice.

Thus spake Z is the entry level.
There are several "intro to" books on him.

Well, first you should learn how to spell his name.

>>3710235

You don't. Demented people are demeaned in their cognitive capabilities and Nietzsche was demented, ergo his works are the product of a demeaned mind.

Rather let the streets educate you. Unlike Nietzsche, they're smart, they're real.

>>3710235
>How do I into Neitzche?

Don't listen to them, 'start with the Greeks' is more wrong than 'start with Zarathustra', but really start with Genealogy of Morals and Beyond Good and Evil.

It depends on where you're coming from. You could just pick up any old Nietzsche tome and dig into it, and maybe try to look up anything you aren't getting. I mean, if you're not familiar with Kant, utilitarianism, Greek culture and philosophy, German history, etc, etc; then you're not going to be on the exact same page as him, but most nobody is. Enjoy it for what you get out of it, even if only the fun of figuring out where he goes wrong, and use it as a springboard for more reading.

Also, I hope you like exclamation points.

>>3710239
>Shitty advice.
>Thus spake Z is the entry level.
Wow. TSZ is p opaque to the uninitiated, and at the very least requires knowledge of the Greeks. Ignore edgy teens like this guy OP. You won't get anything out of a philologist like N without it.

>>3710249
What really matters is that you´ve found a way to feel superior to everyone in this thread.

>>3710293

In this whole thread? Nah, I don't know any of you, bitches. But Nietzsche? Him I know, I know his works and his life, and can confidently say that I am superior to him because I am mentally sane.

U jelly?

>>3710269
Oh, you classicists. Never change.

>Hey /lit/, I'm interested in [random philosopher] where should I start with his works?
>Start with the greeks

fuck you lit

>>3710307
b-but they're the basis of like, all philosophy

>>3710303
>Oh, you classicists.
Oh, you... er... idiots? It's really not about being a classicist any more than reading the Odyssey before reading Ulysses is. In fact, for TSZ, it's much more important to know guys like Plato, you really won't get anything worthwhile out of it otherwise.

>>3710307
There are some philosophers you can just jump into, but Nietzsche is really not one of them.

What do the greeks have to do with TSZ?? If you want to understand TSZ you need life experience, all the reading in the world will not help you with TSZ.

If you wanna start nietzsche: Ecce homo and Nietzsche contra wagner are 2 books written by nietzsche explaining who he is.

Then Twilight of idols and gay science are a good start.

The 2 last book you should be reading is beyond good and evil and TSZ.

Start with Beyond Good and Evil you flaming faggot.

Then write down or really think about what he was saying, don't just think "fuck evrything lol" and move on and contemplate being an ubermensche.

Read some secondary literature regarding the book (a good critic will tie all his works togetehr and show hiw one book echoes another, or develops from a previous point, etc)

To get a full synthesis out of nietzsche i'd recommend the greeks, kant and schopenhauer as the preliminaries, as usual

>>3710422
>TSZ you need life experience
This is a silly statement. All of us have life experience; you'd know that, if you had any idea whence experience is derived of. Unless you meant 'life experience regarding that particular theme in the book'

>>3710314
But then you'll miss the experience of reading Plato fresh in the context of TSZ. I'm not going to contend against your love of chronology, though. It's a common quirk, and not one without sense.

>>3710442
>But then you'll miss the experience of reading Plato fresh in the context of TSZ.
But you'll miss the experience of reading TSZ fresh in the context of Ayn Rand. That's a really weak reason, if it is even a reason at all.

>>3710442
>But then you'll miss the experience of reading Plato fresh in the context of TSZ.

>>3710437
>kant and schopenhauer
what are good intro books for them?

>>3710437

"In the end, no one can “hear” more out of things, books
included, than he already knows. Whatever one has no access to
through experience one has no ears for. Now let us imagine an
extreme case: that a book speaks of nothing but events which lie
entirely outside the possibility of a frequent or even rare experience —
that it is the first utterance for a new range of experiences. In this case
simply nothing will be heard, along with the acoustical delusion that
where nothing is heard there is nothing there either...This is, in the end, my
average experience and, if you will, the originality of my experience."

>>3710468
>intro
Kant has written a shorter version of/preliminary/introductory material -- the Prolegomena -- to his first Critique. Check that out.
For Schopenhauer, it's his On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, that ought to be read before The Will and Representation

>>3710506
Much better