does anyone have any advice for reading Nietzsche?
i tried reading Birth of Tragedy and it went over my head, not being familiar with ancient Greek culture
also tried Thus Spake Zarathustra and felt like it presupposed familiarity with his other writings
any advice for what to read and in what order?
Zarathustra is literally the last thing of his you should read. Not in terms of quality, but reading everything else will help you lots.
kill yourself, marketing scum
so what should i read first?
Don't read this mopey faggot, read Evola
"Arma toddlers with guns! It's what Nietzsche would do!"
why though? maybe its the wrong time for you to read him.
i had a similar experience my first time with birth of tragedy too, but something of it lingered, and years later when i was crawling out of a low, i read the gay science, and it went from there.
with regards to birth of tragedy (just read it recently myself), start with:
>Aristotle - Poetics
then read
>Nietzsche Birth of Tragedy
also go over this:
en.wikipedia.org
and maybe a basic primer on greek mythology/history. you basically need a foundational background knowledge of greek culture, but it doesn't have to be that extensive to be helpful, just superficial is enough to start. but by all means, go back at some point.
Also get a good version with tons of footnotes and translation help, and READ ALL THAT shit. if you aren't reading it in the original german (and original greek respectively), you need the help of the translator's
Jung gave a seminar on Zarahustra you can download the notes and read it alongside. Maybe you find it useful.
Start with the Iliad, and then work your way up through all of Western literature and philosophy, you lazy faggot.
you can't actually understand nietzche if you don't know european history, especially history of ideas (going back to at least late bronze age collapse) and the changes that modernity brought. schools don't teach that anymore so you would have to learn it on your own. it baffles me why any westerner would not want to do that in the first place.
The birth of tragedy isn't terribly important in his overal writings. I'd suggest starting with Beyond good and evil and following up with the Genealogy of morality.
His philosophy overall is totally impractical and/or inapplicable in most cases. Nothing but vain, self-indulgent nonsense. Like most philosophy, it’s ultimately a degenerate waste of time that will NEVER actually assist you in improving your life. Learn a new skill or start working out instead. The deluded monologues of dead men who had significantly less access to societal facts than the average modern person is not going to help you.
wrong.
how unenlightened and blue-pilled do you have to be to make such an ignorant statement. Yes, it's self-indulgent at time. Yes, it's "vain" at times. Yes, it's "impractical," etc.
So is the cathedral at Notre Dame, or Westminster Abbey, the paintings of the Renaissance master have no "practical" value, the symphonies of Beethoven and the operas of Mozart and Wagner and the novels of Dostoevsky or Dickens of Shakespeare's poetry...all worthless garbage because they don't teach you practical, concrete skills.
there are different kinds of people in the world with different roles to play in society. if someone doesn't have an innate interest in studying philosophy there is no point of trying convince them otherwise.
This.
Nietzsche is bad but not for the reasons you mention. He's awful because he tries to escape Nihilism by positing more Nihilism (Heroic Subjectivism). He's ridiculous.
Who's a good philosopher then?
I read Neitzsche in the original German.
Thomas Aquinas, Plotinus, Plato, Aristotle, basically anything pre-modern.
Aquinas is an overly pious hack
An opinion one can maintain only at one's own peril.
Oh no no no...
ask /lit/
>if someone doesn't have an innate interest in studying philosophy there is no point of trying convince them otherwise.
yes, agreed, but what user was doing is just the opposite. he was trying to convince someone who DOES have an interest in philosophy that is pointless. OP implied he does have an interest in philosophy by virtue of the content of his post.
don't do this. they will just reply with smarmy inside jokes about how everyone is an evil nazi and only some retarded flavor of the week hipster author is any good. complete garbage board, worse than mu
Honestly though, it really isn’t taught at all in burgerland. My historical knowledge is beyond subpar and I just started going into world history in my 30’s. I’ve always wanted to learn Latin and it pisses me off that they stopped teaching it in schools.
Literally all of high school history was WWII, the Shoah, some civil war history to go over slavery and then onto 80’s history / Cold War and how Reagan was evil. It was total bullshit.
Start with "Twilight of the Idols" (Maxims and Arrows). Short, sweet, and to the point.
Just read "A History of Philosophy Volumes 1, 5, 6 and 7" by Frederick Copleston, it's like really good summaries of western philosophy. Then read some Schopenhauer and then everything by Nietzsche. Shouldn't take you longer than a few months.
Just read John Locke and Hitler. All you need.
I forgot to add that you probably should go back and read volumes 2 - 4 after that and 8 + after that. Then you can read the actual materials of most philosophers and kind of sort of get what's going on rather than reading them like a retard. If you ever want to read Kant I recommend buying the Kant Dictionary for reference.
I just bought Two Treatises of Government. Is Locke that much different from Rousseau?
why do you recommend reading a history of e.g. the greek philosophers rather than the works themselves?
yes
also why do you recommend reading that History out of sequence?
Been a while since i read both, but pretty sure Rousseau is the originator of leftism / socialism as we know it.
Simple point:
>Founding fathers were Lockean, they talked about "The Rights of Men"
>French Revolutionaries were Rousseauian, they talked about "The Rights of Man"
You'll notice the latter refers to us as a collective, whereas the former as a group of individuals.
Start with genealogy of morals.
Checked and second this question.
I recommend both.
ZARATHUSTRA IS WRITTEN IN THE PAST PRESENT AND FUTURE TENSE IN EVERY SENTENCE. ITS THE ONLY BOOK ANYONE EVER NEEDS TO READ.
have you read siege?
You could read them all, of course that would be ideal, I just thought in order to understand Nietzsche you should be aware of the history of philosophy going back a few hundred years prior to get the context that he was writing within. Mostly Kant and Schopenhauer, some of the people preceding them, etc..
What the fuck are mods doing to combat all of this blatant viral marketing cock sucker kikes?
I can see why. Rousseau makes the point that "possession" (original appropriation) is theft and can only become legitimate after the institution of property by the government. Then, to conclude his thought, he argues that the social order only is possible to the extent that every citizen has something and none of them have nothing, because when a system of government protects property, without most of its population having possessions, this system is then malefic to these citizens and beneficial only to the minority that has property.
He's also hellbent on democracy and equality. I hope when I'm done with Locke I can identify more with his ideas.
I also forgot to mention that you can read his works in any order from what I remember. I don't recall any specific order. I just bought them based on their cover and title and read them. I also did free audiobooks libravox recordings.
His later works when he was going insane are the funniest. But I think the most Jow Forums book would be On the Genealogy of Morality...I think. I haven't read anything of his in like 15 years, I read them all too even the obscure stuff.
Beyond good and evil/the gay science
I don't know about you, but I consider not being a nigger to be practical
Skip to the end and read "Industrial Society and it's Future" by Ted Kaczynski
Read Plato's Republic as a start. Zarathustra is gonna be impossible to read for a long time. He specifically wrote Beyond Good and Evil after Zarathustra to give a less literary explanation of his views.
Honestly it's going to be difficult for you depending on what you already know. I spent a couple years reading history and philosophy and I still struggled with Beyond Good and Evil the first time. I came back 6 months later and I was able to make it through the book feeling like I understood what he was saying on a non-trivial level.
Good luck. After you read BGE, try reading Carl Jung. It's such a breathtakingly beautiful synthesis and extension of the themes Nietzsche was expressing.
>does anyone have any advice for reading Nietzsche?
yeah, don't. Neitzsche is for narcissistic wankers. Read real philosophy like aristotle, kant, des cartes, etc
fuck off faggot, the only good movie that Sacha had was "Borat" and I was expecting to see something like Borat 2 but it looks like its not like he used to be anymore I fucking miss Borat
kike shill
>Don't learn how to think goyim, watch youtube!
>Thomas Aquinas, Plotinus, Plato, Aristotle, basically anything pre-modern.
Agree. Neitzsche is the red line. on one side is philosophy and on the other is sophistry
Definitely leave Zarathustra and Will to Power for last. I would start with Genealogy of Morals. It will rock your world.
>tfw too intelligent for nietzche
You're a deeply retarded faggot
Just read things like Human, all too Human. His shorter ideas and thoughts are easier to take in than his longer texts.
There is no philosophy after Nietzsche.
After learning more about him and his thought, I have come to realize that he is immeasurably important in understanding the modern world.
This comes into conflict with the fact that I have been an admirer of Platonism and Christianity for the longest time. Since reading Nietzsche, I've shed much of my idealism.
>Like most philosophy, it’s ultimately a degenerate waste of time that will NEVER actually assist you in improving your life
Literally philosophy is concerned with what it _means_ to improve your life
Read Carl Jung my man
Realize as you read the Genealogy that his entire project was to reject nihilism, and yet all it amounts to is to erect rickety scaffolding somewhere deep in the bottomless well of nihilism - from where the top and escape cannot be seen - that splinters and falls the moment you look too closely at it.
Just because he uses mentally retarded sentence structure and trick words doesn't mean he's smart. All philosophers write the same way and it doesn't make sense. If you don't believe in God, just say God doesnt exist and give reasons why you think he doesn't exist. It's amazing how atheist philosophers can criticize the bible for being written a certain way for people to take it out of context. Yet you have to re read "Beyond Good and Evil" 5 times just to see what point he's trying to make. Is it not common knowledge that Nietzsche was known to write "sarcastically"? Why? What's the point? Say what you want to say, give a detailed explanation, and finally a conclusion.
Handwriting like an autistic child means shit.
>All philosophers write the same way
Good God have mercy on my expectations of my fellow man.
>Twilight of the Idols
>Thus Spoke Zarathustra
>Beyond Good and Evil
just keep reading, doesnt matter if you dont understand everything, you will undertand enough to learn something
this, so fucking obvious
hahaha, hurr durr you will not understand anything hurr durr never read zarathustra user your head will explode oy vey.
you burgers are all niggers.
Prove me wrong.
recently got a copy of the unexpurgated Mein Kampf, my reading list is pretty big right now. What should I expect
This, but ignore the parts about ritual crowlean buttsex.
Evola critique of modernity is top tier though
>utter retardation
>meme flag
Cheks out
>t. euronigger
I never said don't read it you dumb nigger
You have to read a lot of philosophy and literature to understand Nietzsche. Nietzsche himself spent his entire youth and career reading and learning all these things and his works articulate an abstraction of those things he read.
this. you will need to know your greek. read diogenes laertius lives (on wikisource), wiki every philosopher in there, and read further, e.g. actually go read plato's books. I don't know how you can claim to understand nietzsche without greek because he constantly references it.
its like saying you understand darkthrone but never listened to celtic frost or bathory
You can prove it to yourself by reading any two given philosophers.
Any two.
Any.
Pick ANY TWO.
years of work though. not saying it shouldn't be done. I've been doing this. its taking me years
Plato reads much different than Nietzsche
t. 30 year old boomer.
you sound like my dad. not wrong. some one who has worked their entire lives for a career, house and a job will be wondering why the fuck you are reading philosophy. philosophy does move history though. history is not shaped but some home owner that yells at his children. usually the strangest people end up shaping history. rousseau and marx come to mind. they lived total freak lives that the average dad would be disgusted by
No shit.
>breathtakingly
just stop man. you sound like you know what you are talking about and I want people to listen to you but they are going to stop once they hear you use phrases like "breathtaking synthesis." I hope you don't talk like that out loud in front of other people.
Ask Spencer. I'm pretty sure Beyond Good and Evil is the only book he's ever actually read cover to cover.
hahaha, you sound like a nigger again.
jesus fucking christ just read nietzsche, you dont need a license for that. dont try to create this retarded myth that he was the second coming or whatnot. he just talks a lot of crap about what he likes and what he hates, religion, women, society, education. everybody is able to understand this stuff.
now if you dont know who some of the philosophers are he likes or dislikes it couldnt be less important. maybe its easier to understand nietzsche if you can read it in german. i think he even says something about that, that you have to read a book in its original language or you will never really understand the author. hahaha now you are truely fucked burgers
psychology is more applicable than philosophy. I was surprised by this because I used to talk shit on psychology
jung believed in divinatory dreams, thats kinda messed up desu. also he very hard sucked freuds cock, lets not forget that (((fraud))) was a filthy cocaine sniffing kike.
>youtube.com
Great video of his last presentation before his death.
I never said you need a license. I'm saying it's mostly a waste of time unless you have a familiarity with the concrete examples from which he's abstracting.
>he hates religion, he hates women
Thank you for confirming with absolute clarity you didn't understand Nietzsche.
Ever notice how rarely europeans actually contribute anything to these threads? They mostly just shit them up with their braindead faggotry. It's really sad.
Same dude. same.
Dreams are divinatory in the same way that existence is divine. Divine = irreducible under rationality
Yeah, not terribly dissimilar from "Democratic" Socialists today. Now inspired to re-read that stuff, thanks and good luck user.
nono i meant he writes about things he hates AND religion AND woman etc etc. id say he has no respect for the christcucks. he doesnt likes jews and he said something like: the best solution for every problem a woman will ever have is to get a child. so even if i said he hates these things it wouldnt be so wrong.
whatever. he said someone was dreaming about a fire and later someone died of a fever, so the dream predicted the death. thats just stupid. i stopped to read jung at this point.
I see, my bad. His views on Christianity are more reactionary than are warranted in general but they are understandable in the context of his age.
According to Jung, Christianity as a philosophical movement represented the divine respect for the individual (slavery is immoral because we all have immortal souls) but with that came the subjugation of the other functions of the psyche. In Greece the Helots were slaves that served the "ubermensch" free Greeks which allowed the free Greeks to develop all aspects of their psyche because they had people doing the work required to keep an economy/civilization functioning. They (the free Greeks) were more developed in their internal psyche and less dependent on one another because of the slaves they had to free them from menial labor and specialization. This is what Nietzsche was yearning for according to Jung. Modern civilization is characterized by specialization and atrophy of the other aspects of our psyche. Nietzsche wanted a return to a ruling aristocracy with an underclass to do the specialized work.
