[ 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: 26 KB, 274x300, Nietzsche-274x300.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4682323 No.4682323[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

I'm a pleb. What's the best entry-level Nietzsche.

>> No.4682332

Start with the Greeks (have some understanding of Western philosophy, its major issues, its state & development 1600-1850)

Have some awareness of German idealism + Schopenhauer

Optionally have some understanding of the 19th century's intellectual milieu but meh

Read chronologically if you intend to read everything he wrote, Zarathustra always last

>> No.4682344

http://www.amazon.com/Writings-Nietzsche-Modern-Library-Classics/dp/0679783393

>> No.4682369

>>4682332
>Start with the Greeks
Never gets old.

>> No.4682400

Kaufmann has something like the Portable Nietszche that mighh help, I dont like excerpts personally but Kaufmann is the fag u want so

>> No.4682406

Beyond Good and Evil + The Genealogy of Morals

Read them together.

>> No.4682408

Heinrich Mann - Essential Nietzsche

>> No.4682646

Thus Spoke Zarathustra, unless if you want to save the best for last.

>> No.4684053

>>4682323
I tried Beyond Good and Evil and I struggled through the preface. Philosophy is hard, man.

>> No.4684085

>>4682406
In succession, not together.

You don't need to read the Greeks, OP. Nietzsche was a philosopher, that is to be sure, but he was someone very interested specifically in morality, linguistics and it's effect on morality, and sociology in general. A very interesting author and every single one of his works is different. Beyond good and evil has this epic, grandiose-sounding prose and The Genealogy of Morals has a rather objective, scientific tone to it, as blasphemous as it is to call Nietzsche a scientist.

>> No.4684108

>>4684053
You're kind of jumping in the middle if you're starting there. Philosophy is successive and every philosopher is responding to everyone before him at least in some way.

Keep going though, it's very rewarding.

>> No.4684109

>>4682400
his book titled Nietszche is pretty good. mix of summary of his thoughts and a bit or bio thrown in.

>> No.4684121

>>4684053
'Supposing truth is a woman -- what then?'

That is the best preface ever man, love it. It's basically a book of hate for objective morality.

Beyond Good and Evil, if you read it correctly, is the perfect book to pop your Nietzsche cherry.

>> No.4684115

>>4684053
>. Philosophy is hard, man.

Fuck, thank you. It's like I get disregarded out of hand.

>> No.4684133

its official

after a few weeks of browsing this board I've come to the conclusion that Nietzsche is your ITAOTS

>> No.4684135

Human, all too human is what i would recommend.

Nicely composed aphorisms that you don't have to have a lot of philosophical knowledge to understand, and its easy to read.

>> No.4684139

>>4684133
I just love it when people mention Nietzsche in the bible worship threads. It's like their kryptonite.

>> No.4684166

>>4684139
Only for the weak.

>> No.4684169

Why has nobody mentioned Deleuze's Nietzsche and Philosophy?

It doubles as a great introduction to both Nietzsche and Deleuze imo.

>> No.4684206

>>4684133

That's a good comparison to make. I'd say that it's hard for one's presuppositions not to be challenged when first encountering Nietzsche. He's a very provocative writer. His language is intentionally combative and subversive. He would rather be suggestive than clear. He didn't set out to construct any sort of systematic philosophy, nor did he seek to replace the priests in telling people how to live life. It's easy to see how Nietzsche has become such a misunderstood philosopher. He really has no one but himself to blame for that.

I think that once you actually start to understand him though (not as the proto-Rayndian or immoral fascist like he's made out to be) you'll see that the core of his thought is actually pretty positive and life affirming. Nietzsche was apparently a lighthearted person outside of his intellectual pursuits. He loved music and dance. He appreciates free-play and humor. He was just deadly serious as a thinker and truly knew how to philosophize with a hammer.

>> No.4684259

>>4684108
>>4684115
>>4684121
Maybe I just need to pick it up with a clearer head. I don't get it. I mean I can read and comprehend some pretty complex fiction (Joyce, Melville, etc., etc.) but philosophy always seems to go above me.

>> No.4684263

everything, Nietzsche was a pleb

>> No.4684267

>>4684133
you are clearly new and you don't know what you are talking about, if anything Nietzsche is our Sunbather. Shitty, but still discussed all the time.

>> No.4684273

>>4684206
This is actually a fantastic and incredibly accurate description of Nietzsche.

>> No.4684270

>>4684206
I love both ITAOTS and Nietzsche, no need to convert me. He's a lovely writer and says many interesting things, if in the end it all comes tumbling down through its wild ramblings.

>> No.4684278

>>4684267
>after a few weeks
>you are clearly new
Your powers of deduction amaze me.

Sunbather isn't apt. Its disrespected in every thread it appears in by different camps of people. Nietzsche has a constant presence, people asking how to get into him and why he's good, and a lot of praise.

The only hate is similar to the provocative hate ITAOTS gets.

>> No.4684279

It's all entry-level, though. By the way, "best" and "Nietzsche" don't really go together too well, as you will soon discover.

>> No.4684280

>>4684259
Of course philosophy goes over your head and fiction doesn't. You've spent your entire life digesting and learning to understand the style of fiction. I'd wager short of a couple classes in college you never read much philosophy. You have to learn how to read it and learn its conventions and learn its predecessors. You will work, but if you appreciate quality fiction then you will appreciate quality philosophy eventually.

>> No.4684283

>>4684278
>few weeks
>not new
fuck off retard

and only newfaggots like you give Nietzsche praise

>> No.4684286

>>4684280
Thanks for actually being so understandable. Most people on /lit/ would've just resorted to name-calling and belittling at this point. Any advice you can give me on approaching philosophy?

>> No.4684291

>>4684283
The point was that a few weeks is new. The mocking was aimed at your framing that as some kind of revelation.

Many people give Nietzsche praise, tempered though it may be.

>> No.4684299
File: 6 KB, 125x72, 1372705897317.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4684299

>The mocking was aimed at your framing that as some kind of revelation.
your clever wordplay is too much for an untermensch like me, good sir

>> No.4684300

>>4684286

>start with the Greeks

No but actually read Bertrand Russell's The Problems of Philosophy, and then start reading the shit on its (short) recommended reading list at the back based on what interests you. That'll get you started on the right foot.

>> No.4684302

>>4684286
If people say "start with the greeks" which they likely will either before I finish typing this reply, it's that everything in philosophy is a connection. Plato responded to the pre-socratics. Aristotle responded to Plato. Epicureans responded to Aristotle/Plato. Stoics responded to Aristotle/Plato/Epicureans. It just adds up. My advice is just start reading somewhere (I recommend Descartes because he kind of ignores all previous philosophy and almost all subsequent philosophy responds to him). Regardless of where you start, work to understand what you can. You won't understand it all, no matter where you start. Then read other stuff. The pieces will eventually, after quite some time, fall into place and you'll read an SEP article on Kant or whomever and realize you understand most of it and feel so fucking comfy bro goddamn.

>> No.4684306

>>4684299
It's only light-hearted banter. Do you have anything to add about the comparison?

>> No.4684312

>>4684300
>>4684302
>start with the Greeks
Phew, I only missed it by one minute.

But actually I'll add on to this guy's post and say Russell's The History of Western Philosophy is great. Not because it gives you a perfect account of philosophers' thoughts (it doesn't) but because it gives you a general outline of the questions philosophers ask, and how they've been answered throughout history. Plus it's readable.

Historyofphilosophy.net is a surprisingly great accompaniment to the book, at least until he started going into Islamic philosophy.

>> No.4684314

>>4684259

I think it's just that philosophy abstracts what good fiction does discreetly. I find having a firm grasp of philosophy helps me get the most out of reading fiction, and having a firm grasp of fiction helps me better relate abstract philosophy to concrete ideas.

(I guess what I'm saying is maybe try and relate whatever philosophy you're reading to the fiction you enjoy.)

>> No.4684334
File: 134 KB, 936x1200, martin-luther-1532.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4684334

Does anyone else see some similarities between Nietzsche and Martin Luther?

Maybe it's the German-ness of both of them coming through, or maybe it's their intense criticisms of the prevailing thought systems of the day. But I've read the both of them (translated, admittedly), and looking back now, I feel there's a sort of kinship between them. I think they were ultimately seeking the same thing, though separated by centuries and totally different paradigms of thought.

>> No.4684337

>>4684312

Frankly I've always preferred tPoP over tHoWP, because it presents each major philosophical issue worth talking about in a very clear cut, orderly format - it'll get you thinking like an Analytic in no time, which I, as a staunch Analytic, of course find most appealing.

>> No.4684346

>>4684337
And I guess as a Continental I prefer having a framework where one can quickly have the necessary grounding to be able to read post-Cartesians and get to delicious ambiguity.

>> No.4684356

>>4684346

But tPoP itself frames things in a primarily post-Cartesian fashion, which I think is a good thing, because it in a way throws you right into the action of early 20th century philosophy, although of course in a very introductory fashion. Also, OP, if someone begins talking about "delicious ambiguity" in philosophy, I would strongly recommend staying away.

>> No.4684381

>>4684356
I mean I haven't read TPoP, I was just stating what I like about THoWP in that it gives a pretty decent overview if you don't take the specifics to heart.

>Also, OP, if someone begins talking about "delicious ambiguity" in philosophy, I would strongly recommend staying away.
Jesus christ dude, it was just a joke about continental philosophy.

>> No.4684410

>>4684381

We don't "joke" about the fall of western civilization here.

>> No.4684572

>>4682323
Don't even start. It doesn't go anywhere.