[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 6 KB, 194x259, nietzshe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1155267 No.1155267 [Reply] [Original]

What should I read before I dive into Nietzsche? And when I do start reading him, what book should I start with?

>> No.1155283

>>1155267
CAPSGUY IS INTERESTED IN THIS TOO.

>> No.1155290

to kill a mocking bird. 4th of july. start with willy wonka and the chocolate factory.

>> No.1155293

I started reading Beyond Good and Evil and I feel like everything he was saying just flew over my head. He kept mention people who I've never read about.

>> No.1155292

Schopenhauer and Hegel

>> No.1155297
File: 19 KB, 261x326, bertrand-russell.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1155297

>>1155292
>>1155267
>mfw any German or French philosopher (except Frege)

>> No.1155298

First of all, what kind of philosophical knowledge do you have?

>> No.1155301

you can read thus spoke zarathrusta with no background knowledge quite easily

>> No.1155303

>>1155298
Very minimal, up until now I have been reading mostly just novels.

>> No.1155304

Aristotle. Kant. Schopenhauer. Those are the big 1's

>> No.1155305
File: 16 KB, 330x417, 1280616125822.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1155305

>>1155301

>> No.1155307

dont bother with schopenhauer and hegel. i took a course on nietzsche in college, we read almost everything he wrote. we started with the birth of tragedy to get idea of his overall philosophy, then i believe genealogy of moral followed by beyond good and evil. from there i forget, but we ended with thus spoke zarathustra

>> No.1155311

>>1155307
But wasn't it confusing when he goes on about other philosophers?

>> No.1155326

oh yea. walter kaufman's translations are top notch he has a lot of notes that'll explain these ppl and ideas too you. very scholarly

>> No.1155328

>>1155303
Then you should get familiar with philosophy history in general. I know some people will post something like "YOU HAVE TO READ EVERY DAMN PHILOSOPHER AND KNOW EVERYTHING FROM PLATO TO SCHOPENHAUER!!!" but forget that. I've seen threads where people suggested at least two years of ready *everything but Nietzsche* before getting to his books. That's ridiculous. Of course it'd be better because Nietzsche refers to various philosophies a lot, but it's not that bad.

I've started reading Nietzsche with only a minimal philosophical background (basic knowledge of Plato, Schopenhauer, Kant...) and I understand most of what he's saying. Sure lots of things went over my head, but when I'll get to know Kant's philosophy, for instance, I'll come back to it and see what I missed.

I only have one question though: why do you want to read Nietzsche if you don't anything about philosophy?

>> No.1155329

>>1155311

all you really need to know about other philosophers he mentions you'll pick up from reading around about nietzsche anyway. The main one's to focus on are Schopenhauer and Kant, and some basic knowledge of Ancient Greek philosophy also.

>> No.1155331

>>1155328
two years of reading*

>> No.1155334

>>1155311
no i knew most of them, plus i used walter kauffman's translation very good

>> No.1155339

>>1155307
>Don't bother with Schopenhauer, Kant, or Hegel. This anon took a course!

>> No.1155340

i knew a good amount of ancient greek from my lit classes plus i'm into that shit anyhow, and it helped a lot when i read the birth of tragedy. anyhow start with that one it presents his idea of the appalinian and dyonisian duality which his philosophy is based on

>> No.1155347

>>1155340
The Birth of Tragedy is not his most important work at all. And the apollinian/dyonisian is not the major fondament of his philosophy; the core of Nietzsche's philosophy is the will to power, der Wille zur Macht.

>> No.1155350

>>1155347
>fundament

>> No.1155351

>>1155339
yea, i've got a bachelor's in lit and minor in philo. by the way liberal arts degree's are useless dont get one

>> No.1155353

>>1155347
you're right the will to power is. but birth is a good place to begin with. the dyonisian= ruling principle of man=will to power

>> No.1155355

EXCEPT FOR ISHMAEL (IF THAT EVEN COUNTS), CAPSGUY HAS READ NO REAL WORKS ON PHILOSOPHY :(

I WAS THINKING OF READING GREEK CLASSICS?

>> No.1155356

>>1155355
maybe a book on the history of philosophy would be good.

>> No.1155369

COPYPSTA TO THE RESCUE

If you don't have a pretty 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.) After you have done this and you're familiar with the pre-Socratics, Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, Spinoza, Hume, Kant, Schopenhauer, and Hegel, you should 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).

>> No.1155381

>>1155347
>the core of Nietzsche's philosophy is the will to power, der Wille zur Macht.

lolwut

No.

>> No.1155386

>>1155381
that's a good argument you got there

>> No.1155401

>>1155369
Dude, that's not necessary. You can understand most of what he's saying without reading all of these before. Sure it would be necessary to read them at some point, but you can do that after reading some of Nietzsche's books.

>> No.1155413

>>1155386

I'm not the one who made the assertion, it was a baseless claim from the beginning. And it must remain baseless because there are no possible arguments for it.

>>1155401

90% of Nietzsche's writings are a reaction to and dismantling of earlier philosophical positions. He is (deliberately) user un-friendly and assumes you have read everything he has, which is a lot. Also, he is not the clearest of writers; there's a reason why he spawned horde upon horde of misinterpreters.

Therefore reading him without knowing about the history of philosophy, and reading him without a lecturer (or Kaufmann) to guide you is insanity and can only yield terrible results.

>> No.1155415

>>1155369
this is retarded

i just read TST and got a loads out of it

>> No.1155420

>>1155415

The fuck is "TST"?

>> No.1155434

>>1155420
TALSO SPRACHT TZARATHUSTRA

>> No.1155440

Read the Bible. That was his main influence.

>> No.1155448

read the bible because the intertextuality is tremendous it literature in general. dont read the bible to understand N. that's just dumb

>> No.1155457

>>1155448
Often, Nietzsche was criticizing the Bible. he was raised a strict christian so much of his writings deal with biblical issues from an anti-biblical perspective. So much so, it helps to read the bible in order to see where he is coming from.

>> No.1155458

thus spoke zarathustra is the culmination of his work and it's generally agreed you should read it last. but if you got stuff out of it good, just be careful you're not reading your own ideas into it

>> No.1155468

it's unnecessary, to read the bible, the most he does is bash the slave mentality of jews and christians in genealogy of morals.

>> No.1155479

>>1155468

You're forgetting The Antichrist...

>> No.1155487

he outlines all of his arguments against christianity. it would be more practical to read schopenhauer and kant before it would to read the bible (although those are unneseccary). although i still think any serious student of lit should read the bible

>> No.1155490

I second this. Once you get used to his writing style, I think a lot of it is pretty understandable without any background in philosophy. I also think Nietzsche is the best place to start if you're at all interested in postmodernism. I recommend Beyond Good and Evil, and The Gay Science as starting places.

>> No.1155497

I have noticed that this question gets asked frequently, and there are always two types of people in the threads: those that say that you need a fuckton of studies before engaging him, and other which say that you can just plunge in. I think that the latter group plunged in, and "got" maybe 5% of what Nietzsche has to offer. At universities he is typically never studied before the 4 quarter. So many professional philosophers misunderstood and misinterpreted him, what chance does anyone on here stand?

>> No.1155501

>>1155369

This is correct.

>> No.1155507

true, without my professor it would have been confusing. but it isn't theoretical physics and if you only get 5% thats still 5% you didnt have before. thats the purpose of reading, its good for you, and if you love it enough you will study until you get what you want like anything else in life.

>> No.1155512

>>1155507
no it's on the same level as theoretical physics whether you like it or not

>> No.1155520

if it was on the same level as theoretical physics i would be rich right now. it's no where close, please tell me you're joking. please. i guess if you're 12 yeah it would be on the same level.

>> No.1155523

If you read Nietzsche, make sure it's a Kaufmann translation. The guy knows Nietzsche inside out, although some of his interpretations are a little dated.

Alternatively, read Kaufmann's 'Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist' first. It takes a lot to start to understand Nietzsche, and pretty much everything you think you understand about him after first reading one of his works is wrong.

If you're quite well-read philosophy wise, try Delueze's 'Nietzsche and Philosophy.'

>> No.1155524

>>1155520
>someone who doesn't understand Nietzsche

>> No.1155532

>>1155524

someone who doesnt understand anything. i took a class on him in college and recieved an A. Nietzsche can be confusing, but not impossible to understand.

>> No.1155575

The problem with plunging into a philosopher without the proper philosophical education is that your likely to be seduced by whatever argument that they make.

Case-in-point: Every Objectivist ever.

>> No.1155619
File: 9 KB, 268x326, russell_bertrand.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1155619

>mfw serious replies everywhere

Have you fools learned nothing from my tier threads?!?

>> No.1155634

I would suggest the IPA for German first. Even I forget how to say that monster sometimes.

>> No.1156159

>>1155347
Yeah, but The Will to Power was not even a completed book; it was a bunch of notes his nazi sister compiled from his stuff, I thought. Thought.

I thought the idea of the Dionysian was one of the big things, as well. Well, maybe for ethics.

But yeah, Nietzsche was very influenced/had a lot to say about Schopenhauer and Kant, and a little bit Hegel. He admired in a way Schopenhauer, but he had a lot to say to break down the systems of Kant and Hegel, which he despised.

>> No.1156215

>>1155575
Well if you're intelligent enough, observant enough, disillusioned enough, and pretty much lived the descriptions of different philosophies as you were growing up without any prior exposure to any philosophy texts or similar lit. Then you go to college and take a philosophy class and notice how many of the different teachings are things that you've already observed in your own life and surroundings, and that these texts contain plenty additional examples to your prior knowledge/experience.

>> No.1156217

Read Kaufmann's biography before you dive in.

Start with "On the Use and Abuse of History for Life". It's short and a good way in.