/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17719078]

WTF Nietzsche would hate /lit/?!

[Anonymous No.17719083]

he had 10000 book stare, the library records prove this.

[Anonymous No.17719085]

And /lit/ hates Nietzsche. We call that symmetry!

[Anonymous No.17719100]

>>17719078
yes, this is what Schopenhauer said too. It's disgusting how a lot of /lit/ plows through hundreds of novels on a book reading list to accomplish something instead of rereading .

[Anonymous No.17719101]

Out of all authors, Nietzsche has the most threads on this board, yet his books never really make it high in any charts. Weird.

[Anonymous No.17719107]

Based.

>>17719100
This is why serious discussion is hard here. Fucking speedreading niggers and wikipedia skimmers abound.

[Anonymous No.17719111]

>>17719100
Can you cite what Schopenhauer had to say about it?

[Anonymous No.17719117]

>>17719100
Reading diverse books is good. Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, and yourself are all pseuds.

[Anonymous No.17719121]

>>17719100
>novels

[Anonymous No.17719128]

depends on the books

better to read only 10 good books several times each rather than 100 shitty books once

[Anonymous No.17719139]

>>17719100
Seneca:
> The primary indication, to my thinking, of a well-ordered mind is a man’s ability to remain in one place and linger in his own company. Be careful, however, lest this reading of many authors and books of every sort may tend to make you discursive and unsteady. You must linger among a limited number of master-thinkers, and digest their works, if you would derive ideas which shall win firm hold in your mind. Everywhere means nowhere. When a person spends all his time in foreign travel, he ends by having many acquaintances, but no friends. And the same thing must hold true of men who seek intimate acquaintance with no single author, but visit them all in a hasty and hurried manner. Food does no good and is not assimilated into the body if it leaves the stomach as soon as it is eaten; nothing hinders a cure so much as frequent change of medicine; no wound will heal when one salve is tried after another; a plant which is often moved can never grow strong. There is nothing so efficacious that it can be helpful while it is being shifted about. And in reading of many books is distraction.

[Anonymous No.17719145]

>>17719139
So what you're saying is we live in a society?

[Anonymous No.17719147]

>>17719100
Seneca too:
>Be careful, however, that there is no element of discursiveness and desultoriness about this reading you refer to, this reading of many different authors and books of every description. You should be extending your stay among writers whose genius is unquestionable, deriving constant nourishment from them if you wish to gain anything from your reading that will find a lasting place in your mind. To be everywhere is to be nowhere. People who spend their whole life travelling abroad end uphaving plenty of places where they can find hospitality but no real friendships. The same must needs be the case with people who never set about acquiring an intimate acquaintanceship with any one great writer, but skip from one to another, paying flying visits to them all. Food that is vomited up as soon as it is eaten is not assimilated into the body and does not do one any good; nothing hinders a cure so much as frequent changes of treatment; a wound will not heal over if it is being made the subject of experiments with different ointments; a plant which is frequently moved never grows strong. Nothing is so useful that it can be of any service in the mere passing. A multitude of books only gets in one’s way. So if you are unable to read all the books in your possession, you have enough when you have all the books you are able to read. And if you say, ‘But I feel like opening different books at different times’, my answer will be this: tasting one dish after another is the sign of a fussy stomach, and where the foods are dissimilar and diverse in range they lead to contamination of the system, not nutrition. So always read well-tried authors, and if at any moment you find yourself wanting a change from a particular author, go back to ones you have read before.

[Anonymous No.17719149]

>>17719128
better to read 500 good books and reread the best ones too

[Anonymous No.17719160]

>>17719111
In his essay "On reading and books"
>>17719121
I'm specifically referring to novels. Poetry and nonfiction tends to be read and reread more closely

[Anonymous No.17719163]

I read shitty posts all fucking day, what's the difference?

[Anonymous No.17719167]

WTF? I am just like Nietzsche. I read only big books.

[Anonymous No.17719168]

>>17719078
>/lit/
>Reading too much

[Anonymous No.17719171]

>>17719139
>>17719147
Based Seneca-anon reminding me to get around to reading Seneca

[Anonymous No.17719176]

>>17719149
Time is a rare commodity.

[Anonymous No.17719181]

>>17719128
What if the 10 good books are actually shit? How would you even know they're good if you don't read more books? Unless you're a cuck and a canon-whore and only read what pseuds tell you is good like a dog.

[Anonymous No.17719183]

>>17719168
It's a common view on this board that you should read diverse and many books.

[Anonymous No.17719187]

>>17719176
>posts on 4chan
>Time is a rare commodity.

[Anonymous No.17719191]

>>17719187
You got me there, not gonna lie.

[Anonymous No.17719192]

>>17719101
His philosophy is bombastic and assertive, full of sweeping statements. This makes him fun to talk about on an image board filled with memes. This does not make him a great philosopher.

[Anonymous No.17719196]

>>17719078
>>17719147
>>17719139
Wow, they are literally me.

[Anonymous No.17719198]

BASED
I only read clifford the big red dog over and over again!
I am an intellectual

[Anonymous No.17719207]

>>17719160
>I'm specifically referring to novels. Poetry and nonfiction tends to be read and reread more closely
That's why I reread all of the big novels by Dosto every year since I first got through them. Recommended.

[Anonymous No.17719214]

>>17719192
>This does not make him a great philosopher.
Since when is quality a criterion for making it high on /lit/ charts?

[Anonymous No.17719217]

should you reread books in short intervals or come back to it after a while?

[Anonymous No.17719222]

The best things you can reread regularly are Homer, Plato, and the Bible.

[Anonymous No.17719240]

>>17719171
I used to read one of his letters every morning while having my coffee and ponder it later in the day. I gained a lot.

[Anonymous No.17719246]

>>17719240
nice fedora

[Anonymous No.17719261]

>>17719217
Sometimes I will finish, flip the book to the beginning and start over. Sometimes I will fancy to reread it later on and I just will. It's pretty much self-regulatory.

[Anonymous No.17719289]

>>17719246
I know. That's why I'm flexing it on an anonymous forum to gain applause from other anonymous autists like myself. Makes all the sense.

[Anonymous No.17719303]

>>17719289
>I know. That's why I'm flexing it on an anonymous forum to gain applause from other anonymous autists like myself. Makes all the sense.
It does actually

[Anonymous No.17719310]

>>17719303
Maybe it does, you're right. Anyway it wasn't the point, I was just giving an example of what was discussed.

[Anonymous No.17719404]

>>17719139
I humbly disagree

[Anonymous No.17719416]

>>17719192
Nietzsche perhaps isn't a great philosopher but he has great insights and commentary on contemporary world.

[Anonymous No.17719597]

>>17719078
I don’t disagree with Nietzsche and Schopenhauer on this point, but I do think one has to build up a foundation of literature before getting around to finding a refuge of books to reread. I suspect I, and most of /lit/, have a long way to go before getting to that point.

[Anonymous No.17719645]

>>17719078
kek what a pseud.

[Anonymous No.17719654]

>>17719597
I agree.

[Anonymous No.17719657]

>>17719597
Yeah Nietzsche got a classical education lol he's read most of the western canon before university.

[Anonymous No.17720280]

>>17719078
Nahhhhhhh

[Anonymous No.17720410]

>>17719192
>This does not make him a great philosopher.
No, but he is still a great philosopher.

[Anonymous No.17720411]

>>17719078
Anyone with even a minimum of taste would.

[Anonymous No.17720434]

>>17719107
This.

[Anonymous No.17720473]

>>17720410
Why is he a great philosopher?

[Anonymous No.17720485]

>>17719078
This is one of those rare posts on /lit/ which we have a great discussion, quote some thinker, and arrive at a conclusion that ties it all together >>17719597
Back to retard posting.

[Anonymous No.17720514]

>>17720473
He summed up an entire 500 year period, resolving all its main philosophical problems.

[Anonymous No.17720529]

>>17720514
> all its main philosophical problems.
What were these?

[Anonymous No.17720556]

>>17719192
Read him and come back to discuss actual problems with his works instead of pathetically settling for low-hanging fruit.

[Anonymous No.17720585]

>>17720529
Everything from Cartesian dualism onward is addressed in his philosophy. Nonetheless, his books are too robust and insightful to not call him great.

[Anonymous No.17720591]

>>17720585
>Everything from Cartesian dualism onward is addressed in his philosophy.
These were already addressed by Kant, Hegel, and Schopenhauer. I don't really see what Nietzsche brings new to be called great.

[Anonymous No.17720619]

>>17720591
>I don't really see what Nietzsche brings new to be called great.
A distillation of all of them, including many more. He had a better sense for philosophy, literature, art, psychology, social etiquette and so on than all of them and was always capable of spotting their weak points for this reason.

[Anonymous No.17720657]

>>17720619
Better sense of art, literature, social etiquette, etc, maybe, but no idea where you get the rest from. How did he distill Kant? He barely even touches upon Kant. I'm not convinced he even read him, let alone distill them. He barely even touches upon Hegel. Can you be more concrete?

[Anonymous No.17720658]

>>17719078
>I fear not the man who has read 10,000 books. I fear the man who has read 1 book 10,000 times
Sun Tzu, The Art of War

[Anonymous No.17720673]

>>17720658
Yeah it's good to fear lunatics

[Anonymous No.17720682]

>>17719597
Basado

[Anonymous No.17720743]

>>17720657
He talked about Kant at least once in all his books and many times in several of them so I'm not sure what you mean. I think he least addressed him only in The Birth of Tragedy and Ecce Homo. He also mentions Hegel in Untimely Meditations, Gay Science, and occasionally in several other books.

In a way, he was both the Empedocles and the Diogenes Laertius of the Renaissance and its aftereffects. His books for the most part cover the major truths and attitudes from that time period and bring them together under his unique genealogical method.

[Anonymous No.17720773]

>>17719261
>Sometimes I will finish, flip the book to the beginning and start over
Like I do with your mom

[Anonymous No.17720823]

>>17720743
Talking about them and mentioning them doesn't mean anything. He never addressed them in depth at any point, he just says an off-hand remark about Kant's tables or his categorial imperative or about Birth of Tragedy being Hegelian (no shit) but there's never any depth to it.
>His books for the most part cover the major truths and attitudes from that time period and bring them together under his unique genealogical method.
This is just fluff. Nothing concrete, nothing substantial, nothing great.

[Anonymous No.17720968]

>>17720823
>He never addressed them in depth at any point
That's not true. For example, he addressed Kant deeply in places like Human §19, §21, §25, §216; Dawn §3, §207, §481; Gay Science §97, §193, §334; Beyond Good and Evil §11, §54; Genealogy of Morals §6, §25; Twilight of the Idols §29; Antichrist §10, §11, §12. Cumulatively, this is a deep assessment of Kant, and if you're not sure how, I recommend Kaufmann's Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist and Tragedy and Philosophy which covers Nietzsche's style, influence, and a summary of his thoughts in relation to thinkers like Plato, Aristotle, Kant and Hegel.

>This is just fluff. Nothing concrete, nothing substantial, nothing great.
There is nothing substantial or great about his four core ideas, being will to power, the overman, amor fati, and eternal recurrence, which essentially form a cosmogony derived from the Renaissance period up to and through the Romantics?

[Anonymous No.17720986]

Who cares what Nietzsche has to say? I'll go create my own values, thank you.

[Anonymous No.17721012]

>>17720968
>For example, he addressed Kant deeply in places like [..]
You're quoting a bunch of aphorisms. Show me how he addressed Kant in-depth specifically. Don't just spam citations from aphoristic collections.
>There is nothing substantial or great about his four core ideas, being will to power, the overman, amor fati, and eternal recurrence, which essentially form a cosmogony derived from the Renaissance period up to and through the Romantics?
More of the same. These have nothing to do with that specific period you keep quoting for some reason. It's related to any part of history including the ancient world. You keep avoiding making any concrete defense and instead just posting vast claims and generalisations. It's becoming a waste of time unless you can be more specific about your claims.

[Anonymous No.17721131]

>>17721012
>Don't just spam citations from aphoristic collections.
That isn't spam, I hand-picked those aphorisms in order to show you that he addressed Kant in many books many times. Over the course of his writing he established a deep assessment of Kant, certainly beyond just writing an off-hand remark about his tables or categorical imperative as you said.

>These have nothing to do with that specific period you keep quoting for some reason.
They're all deep insights that he attained from his literary travels through the period and his commentary on the various philosophers and other important figures from then (Descartes, Spinoza, Goethe, Schiller, Wagner, Machiavelli, Montaigne, Locke, Pascal, Larochefoucauld, Voltaire, Rousseau, Leopardi, Napoleon, Madame de Stael, Mirabeau, Chamfort, Darwin, Carlyle, George Sand, Sainte-Beuve, Dostoevsky, Flaubert, Taine, the Goncourts, Renan, many others) illustrate this. They have everything to do with the period.

[Anonymous No.17721288]

>>17719597
>but I do think one has to build up a foundation of literature before getting around to finding a refuge of books to reread

yes i was thinking this too

[Anonymous No.17721306]

>>17720968
>§

what´s that? a simoleon?

[Anonymous No.17721316]

>>17720968
>Kaufmann

is he good? i heard he re-wrote some line shit-talking about anglos, looks like a coward

[Anonymous No.17721336]

But Nietzsche was still a voracious reader.

[Anonymous No.17721378]

>>17720473
What makes a philosopher great in general? The fact that we are still talking about him over a hundred years later and that thousands of academics have poured and dissected his writings speaks for itself.

[Anonymous No.17721446]

>>17721306
>simoleon
A silcrow

>>17721316
He's good, if only as a helpful introduction to Nietzsche's work while we wait for the full KSG by Montinari and Colli to be translated.

[Anonymous No.17721490]

>>17719100
>>17719078
Point of reading is finding & corralling those wild horses that are dearest to you

>>17719100
>Schop: read it twice bare minimum; not worth reading/remarking on if one & done
>personal libraries should be a tool chest — small and efficient
All the reading in the world won’t transmute a reader into the target reader for the writer’s writer

>>17719107
Good threads basically turn into AMAs with ones that have actually done the reading

>>17719139
Rumination and prolonged engagement is ideal. Closer you get to the present day, the more a worker bee one can be about it

>>17720743
He read Hegel as a teenager, judging by the library stubs

>>17721316
Hollingdale is preferable, Koofman just had the earliest note apparatus — but there are any number of critical editions now to make that irrelevant

[Anonymous No.17721499]

>>17719100
Seneca did too

[Anonymous No.17721502]

>>17721336
All his reading when he was younger is why he came to that conclusion later on.

[Anonymous No.17721671]

>>17719107
I wouldn't even say it's necessarily the fault of speedreaders, but the sort of soulless bugmen who stop "subvocalizing" as though hearing the words in your head is too much to ask for. These spiritually and intellectually deprived individuals act as though the act of reading only requires glancing at words with your eyes without actually taking in the language. This is why nobody here can discuss books; the Wikipedia skimmers take in information, but not the book, and speed"readers" take in nothing.

[Anonymous No.17722533]

>>17721316
>Kaufmann
He's genuinely terrible. Full of resentment and low IQ.

[Anonymous No.17722540]

>>17721378
Academics talk about him because he's convenient: anti-Germans, anti-Christianity, anti-antisemitism. His contemporary, Kierkegaard, is better in every regard, but he was a Christian so he doesn't have his place in contemporary discourse.

[Anonymous No.17722830]

>>17722533
it doesn´t surprise, now the question is, why the fuck he went for Nietszche? John Stuart Mill and Rawls would be more suitable to him lmao

[Anonymous No.17722943]

>>17722830
>why the fuck he went for Nietszche?
Because he's not actually resentful. I think that poster is confusing smugness with resentment. Kaufmann felt that he was the first scholar to "rescue" and "revive" Nietzsche after his reputation went down the drain with WWII, and felt he was a philosopher and historical hero on account of that, so he grew very smug and his writing style shows it.

[Anonymous No.17723191]

>>17719183
Just because one group is louder doesn’t mean it’s the better view

[Anonymous No.17723506]

>>17719078
Actually he would fit in here quiet well with that attitude.

[Anonymous No.17723513]

>>17719078
Nietzsche hates everything except the Greeks though, how is this noteworthy

[Anonymous No.17723720]

>>17719078
lol, typical full of shit passage. many witnesses confirm his apartments full of books.

[Anonymous No.17723727]

>>17719100
True. Someone who reads without actually reading is no better than a retard.

[Anonymous No.17725125]

>>17722540
>dude being against anti-semitism is so fucking CRINGE BRO

[Anonymous No.17725135]

>>17722540
Oh, please. What a lord of horse-shit.

[Anonymous No.17725410]

>>17720673
Kek

[Anonymous No.17725686]

>>17719117
let me guess, you think mindless consumption is a worthwhile hobby.

[Anonymous No.17725828]

Well yeah, he'd probably dislike a bunch of humorless sociopaths

[Anonymous No.17726803]

>>17722830
For obvioust reasons anon. It was a revenge on Germany.

[Anonymous No.17726943]

>>17719078
sounds like he was coping for being an inexperienced plebeian when it comes to reading