[ 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: 7 KB, 321x500, nietzsche1864.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2424930 No.2424930 [Reply] [Original]

Hey, /lit/izens. When I started out reading philosophy, I kind of started in an odd sequence, I suppose, and never read Nietzsche. I started with Hegel, Kierkegaard, Kant, then ole' Al "the Bear" Camus, Sartre, and even some Beauvoir.
Now, however, I'd like to take a crack at Nietzsche. What's the best one to start with? Should I just go for his most popular, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, or is there a specific order I should go at him in?

>> No.2424943

Read chronologically, you fucking heathen.

>> No.2424952

>>2424930
Look at that moustache-less face. What an abomination.

>> No.2424961

I read Beyond Good and Evil first, and in my Nietzschean studies thus far it has served me well.

>> No.2424967

>>2424943
+1 to that. It's interesting and important to see how old Freddy's perceptions evolved as he aged.

>> No.2424971

>>2424943
I don't know, Tim.
>>2424961
Swell.

>> No.2424977

>>2424967
Tim.. I don't know.

I guess so, Tims.

>> No.2425014

Quit reading pointless shit and brush up on math

>> No.2425019

>>2425014
Best advice in this thread. Math is nice.

>> No.2425023

>>2425019
>>2425014
I'm good with math, already. I do read science books often, though.

>> No.2425619

Read The Birth of Tragedy first, OP.

>> No.2425625

Philosophy is fucking bullshit. Read history or study math.

>> No.2425628

>/lit/ thinks philosophy is existentialism
>laughingtranssexuals.jpg

>> No.2425636

Fucking hell. Read Kant, Hume, Wittgenstein, Quine, Chalmers, Hegel, Searle...

Get the fuck away from the existentialists.

Just take all your existentialist literature, soak it in gasoline, and set it on fire.

Do the same with any Foucault or Derrida or Zizek.

>> No.2425642

>>2425636
yup. good suggestion.

just start into wittgenstein with no background.

>> No.2425643

Like someone already mentioned, Beyond Good and Evil will serve you well as he touches on almost everything. It's definitely one of his most acidic works, and the most entertaining in my opinion. In his first segment "prejudices of philosophers", he basically tears through 2000 years of philosophy by exposing their flaws and outright mocking them. One segment is just full of funny one liners on women, relationship advice, cognitive bias, anti-Semitism, etc.
It is a great book.

>>2425014

leave math to the neckbeard hordes. they are the new working class.

>> No.2425648

>>2425636

Existentialism is basically just the Humanities inverse of Logical Positivism (science, maff). Both claim to be asserting the bankruptcy of philosophy while they've gone down in history as philosophical systems/movements themselves. I think if you're gonna do philosophy as a discipline, really do it and respect it. Existentialism/psychoanalysis/poststructuralism on the one hand and semantic holism (quine/putnam)/logical positivism on the other, have ruined philosophy's readability for people who really need it.

Go back to fundamentals. Starting from the Presocratics to Hegel. Skip most of philosophy after Hegel. It sucks.

>> No.2425654

1.Read a shit-ton of Aquinas
2.Troll the fuck out of everyone.
3.Salvation?????

>> No.2425655

>>2425648
>quine/putnam
>ruined philosophy
Butthurt engineer who can't read analytic philosophy detected

>> No.2425678

>>2425648
I'd say that the whole question of "living with nothing" which is based on that one peon assumption has torn through every single philosophical book since. It's ridiculous that this question was already pondered on and the whole question of Nothingness answered with Parmenides and Aristotle. Still, everything is about combating nihilism. It's getting to the point of nausea.

Nietzsche isn't existentialist. That entire label is bullshit because no one falls under it. His shit is worth reading. Read it after you read everyone else and then make up your own opinion. Zarathustra and Beyond Good and Evil are essential but do it chronologically if you want to really see how his thought process goes. Also read Kierkegaard cause it's Kierkegaard.

It's most important to read Descartes and Spinoza if you are going to go through Western Philosophy after Greeks and the middle ages. They are the foundation of everything after and their definitions in concepts are used throughout philosophy after. Spinoza also told the whole nothingness shtick to fuck off.

>> No.2425697

As we're already on Phi - Is Sophie's world a great place to start? I will be reading it in Norwegian as well.

>> No.2425700

>>2425697
Yeah.

>> No.2425724

>>2425697

Nah. Start with Nozick's Examined Life or Thomas Nagel's introduction to philosophy. And that's if you're a complete newbie.

>> No.2425729

>>2425724
>Nozick
No.

>> No.2425733

>>2425729
>Sophie's World

No. At least Robert Nozick is a real philosopher.

>> No.2425738

>>2425655

They did ruin philosophy by reducing it's problems to academic fields like linguistics and math. Jokes on them, they're neither doing math and linguistics nor philosophy.

>> No.2425739

>>2425733
Nozick is like babby's first introduction to Tea Party thinking. Only far right, Ayn Rand reading libertarians disagree.

>> No.2425742

>>2425739

The Examined Life has nothing to do with Ayn Rand and the Right.

And Nozick was never right-wing or even on Ayn Rand's side.

And the American Right has never claimed Ayn Rand.

0/10.

>> No.2425748
File: 30 KB, 398x241, girls_laughing.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2425748

>>2425742
>Ayn Rand institute
>Nozick vs Rawls

>> No.2425762

>>2425733
>Nozick
>real philosopher
Ehhhh... I'm inclined to agree just based on the fact that he can use some sound rationales for his points of view, but I wouldn't trust him with an introduction to philosophy, frankly. You'd run into the same problem with him that people complain about with Russell, but with a very different sort of slant present and probably much more noticeable. It's like asking for a Fascist's introduction to philosophy, you're getting ideology from the get-go and it's insinuated with varying degrees of guile.

Sophie's World is a perfectly acceptable introduction for the very beginner. I'd say The Story of Philosophy by Durant's a good, probably better, alternative.
If you have some understanding of philosophy and/or you've read and understood some of the "big names" and their major premises, you can probably skip it and move on to stuff like Nozick or Russell. I just don't think it's very fair to put works like theirs directly into the hands of someone who doesn't really know how to differentiate, analyze, and critically inspect philosophical judgments as opposed to lessons.

>> No.2425767

>>2425762
>The Story of Philosophy by Durant
This is a good suggestion for sure. He even does cute little qutotations, and has some nice signposting.

>> No.2425776

>>2425762

I'll grant this. Well said.

>>2425748

>retard who doesn't read philosophy

If I put your name on my blog, does that mean you endorse my viewpoints and are part of my movement?

>> No.2425782

>>2425776
>If I put your name on my blog, does that mean you endorse my viewpoints and are part of my movement?
Don't try and claim the Rand Institute is like the Adam Smith institute.

>> No.2425784

>>2425762

Nozick is not a fascist. In fact, I'd he's a pretty sensible libertarian who started questioning the ideology of it all in his later work. Having said that, I wouldn't recommend The Examined Life as an introduction. Hamlyn's History of Western Philosophy is what I would recommend OP.

>> No.2425787

>>2425782

I couldn't care less about these Institutes. I don't follow them. Don't care. It's a red herring.

>> No.2425796

>>2425787
>Be Ayn Rand
>Create Objectivism
>Die
>Have your money used to fund an Institute based on Objectivism
>Have some retard claim that this institute has nothing to do with you or your philosophy
>Also has no idea about what he's talking about
>Not surprised, despite dead and on 4chan.

>> No.2425807

>>2425796

We were talking about Robert Nozick and I told you Robert Nozick is not in any way related to Ayn Rand or her Institute. Is English your first language? How good are you at following English writing?

>> No.2425814

>>2425807
>Libertarian philosophers are not related

>> No.2425828

>>2425814

They're not, actually. Ayn Rand never wanted to represent libertarians. Robert Nozick was never part of any party or movement. He was a thinker, and as one tripfag pointed out, had the dispassion to revise his views from the orthodox when he thought them wrong or incomplete.

You seem to think Nozick is some kind of talking-head Rush Limbaugh on paper or something. You do know he's dead too, right?

>> No.2425847

>>2425807
Read Socratic Puzzles.

>>2425828
>doesn't know the author's dead
But seriously, the guy's a libertarian. Surprise surprise, people disagree even within a particular ideology or whatever you want to call it. You also mention he "had the dispassion to revise his views from the orthodox", only if you mean by "orthodox" "orthodox libertarian".

Again, Nozick was a libertarian, get with the program or some equally shitty American phrase.

>> No.2425849

Can you guys give me more names of philosophers who played or had anything interesting to say about sport [besides camus] ?

>> No.2425851

>>2425784
I'm not at all saying Nozick is a fascist, my point was
>It's _like_ asking for a Fascist's introduction to philosophy
I am saying this only based on a pretty cursory reading of Anarchy, State, and Utopia, but while he's certainly not the absolutist and polemicist that Rand is, he does have a distinct tone to his arguments and even his questions. Nozick was an earnest thinker; Rand was simply a vehement one.
If I were to pick up an introduction of philosophy written by him, I would immediately be expecting a point of view based upon what I know of his work. This same thing is true of Bertrand Russell, who is definitely not a fascist either, and the prediction holds up pretty well while reading his History of Western Philosophy.
There are other writers and philosophers who do not do this, or at least not to the extent where it distorts positions or inadequately explains a topic without in some way saying, "This is not my area of expertise, and I don't quite understand it fully."
I would not expect this from Nozick. What I would expect is some interesting points with extrapolation from real-world theories or applicable practices, but not impartiality, or at least not a successful attempt at it, even if the attempt were sincere.

>> No.2425852
File: 106 KB, 500x374, godard.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2425852

>alright, a nietzsche thread!
>math
>ayn rand
>rawls
>mfw

Read Beyond Good and Evil, OP. Then Zarathustra. Then go through his stuff chronologically if you want the whole ride, or just read from Genealogy of Morals to the end if you want his most famous/important stuff. Skip the Wagner stuff.

>> No.2425862

>>2425847
>equally shitty American phrase

Oh, another yuro-peein socialist who hates any writer that even remotely tries to assert the importance of the individual.

>You also mention he "had the dispassion to revise his views from the orthodox", only if you mean by "orthodox" "orthodox libertarian".

Okay? In any case, the point is, he began to appreciate more the role of the state in securing rights and liberties. It's not bad to change your opinion. I would be an insufferable chimp of a man if I stubbornly held the same opinions since college.

>Surprise surprise, people disagree even within a particular ideology or whatever you want to call it

Yeah.

>But seriously, the guy's a libertarian.

You remind of my redneck neighbors and the word "socialist." As if simply stating someone is something, I'm supposed to put the back of my hand on my forehead and wail. As if libertarians are bad, bad people.

>> No.2425868

>>2425862
>It's not bad to change your opinion. I would be an insufferable chimp of a man if I stubbornly held the same opinions since college.
You are tragically alone in this sentiment on /lit/.

>> No.2425892

>>2425868

All I did was recommend ONE Nozick book that got me into philosophy and why I preferred it over Sophie's World. I'm not even a libertarian and don't even care for Ayn Rand. These guys just started throwing all this libertarian, Ayn Rand Institute stuff out of nowhere. So insecure.

>> No.2425908

>>2425862
>You remind of my redneck neighbors and the word "socialist." As if simply stating someone is something, I'm supposed to put the back of my hand on my forehead and wail. As if libertarians are bad, bad people.
That's not what's being said at all. Nozick just isn't good for an intro to philosophy due to having such a heavy ideological bias.

>> No.2425924

>>2425908

But he doesn't have a "heavy" ideological basis. At least not any more than Sophie's World or whatever other ones that are out there. You can't find anything written by a human that doesn't have the marks of a weltanschauung to some degree.

>> No.2425929

*bias

>> No.2425945

>>2425924
Weltanschauung is not the same as ideological bias.

>> No.2425965

>>2425945

Well then Nozick's work definitely doesn't exhibit any ideological bias if you're going to by Marxist definitions.

>> No.2425978

>>2425965
>Well then Nozick's work definitely doesn't exhibit any ideological bias if you're going to by Marxist definitions.
I'm not joining in on your fantasy where you know what you're talking about.

>> No.2425988

>>2425978

Good. I win. I don't even think you've read any Nozick. You skimmed wikipedia and had an Asperger's fit about libertarians. Stay ignorant and afflicted.

>> No.2425998

>>2425988
>I don't even think you've read any Nozick.
>From the guy who hasn't even read Socratic Puzzles
I'm not joining in on the fantasy where you've read one book of Nozick's and you're an expert either

>> No.2426005

>>2425998

No, I've never read Socratic Puzzles. Even if there's some libertarian stuff in there, that's Socratic Puzzles. I'm talking the Examined Life. Two different books. You know how that works, right hipster? Do I have to define "book"?

>> No.2426014

>>2426005
>I'm talking the Examined Life.
That one book you've read.

>> No.2426015

>>2426014

And there wasn't anything about libertarianism in it. Follow me, Captain?

>> No.2426036

>>2426015
>doesn't know what libertarianism is
His position is clearly libertarian in Examined life. Engage copy past Julian Sanchez interview:
JS: In The Examined Life, you reported that you had come to see the libertarian position that you’d advanced in Anarchy, State and Utopia as “seriously inadequate.” But there are several places in Invariances where you seem to suggest that you consider the view advanced there, broadly speaking, at least, a libertarian one. Would you now, again, self-apply the L-word?

RN: Yes. But I never stopped self-applying. What I was really saying in The Examined Life was that I was no longer as hardcore a libertarian as I had been before. But the rumors of my deviation (or apostasy!) from libertarianism were much exaggerated. I think this book makes clear the extent to which I still am within the general framework of libertarianism, especially the ethics chapter and its section on the “Core Principle of Ethics.”

>> No.2426042

>>2426036
>>2426015
Ooooh. inb4 no reply

>> No.2426050

>>2426042
Reply.

>> No.2426052

>>2426050
>implying reply

>> No.2428184

inb4 Nietzsche was a cunt

>> No.2428327

>>2428184
Nietzsche was a libertarian.

>> No.2428437

>>2424930
I love Nietzsche! I read the Antichrist first then Zarthrusta and then The Gay Science. Which was not about homosex as I initially thought.

I got a picture of Nietzsche and then read some of his shit and masturbated to it.