/lit/ - Literature

>>10924699
The greeks

>>10924704
/thread

>>10924704
Guide me

>>10924699
Just read it. I read Nietzsche when i was 16 and had almost no prior knowledge to it and understood most of his points by just reading more of him.

>>10924710

>>10924716
much appreciated

It actually isn't super demanding to jump right in depending on what work by Nietzsche you pick. Maybe take up Twilight Of The Idols, it's my favorite work of his, very readable, stylistically great, short and comprehensible without lots of context (especially the first half, in the second half he speaks a lot about writers and politicians of his own time). Another one that I like is Genealogy of Morals. Antichrist and Zarathustra are IMO overrated as fuck, the first one is him going on an excessively long fedora-tier rant without a lot of argumentation, the second one is incomprehensible poetic trippiness. Also I tried reading The Birth of Tragedy but found that one absolutely underwhelming.
If anything, you could do some general Stanford/Wikipedia reading on the history of philosophy (including Plato, Kant, Schopenhauer) if you know next to nothing about it. Imo it's definitely not necessary to plough through his predecessors' works to understand what Nietzsche is getting at. Just like >>10924712 I managed to read him when I was barely 16, he was the first philosopher I read except for Plato.

>>10924723
>the second one is incomprehensible poetic trippiness.

>>10924728
>I posted a brainlet pic so that makes me a philosophical genius

>>10924731
who are you quoting

>>10924734
haha epic meme!

>>10924699
Art of War by suntzu
The Prince by McIavelli
48 Laws of Power
Dangerous by Milo

>>10924776
>Dangerous by Milo

>>10924699
God delusion
Koran
How to win friends and influence people ( influence them under your will that is)
Wuthering heights ( hockliff is nietzche)
Jordan p vs Kathy video reactions by a liberal and conservative
The Iliad
The hungry caterpillar is probably the best illustration of nietzches becoming a free spirit idea in beyond g&e
Garfield classics 3-7

>>10924805
>Garfield classics 3-7
Seconded

>>10924807
I would argue adding number 2 and removing 4, as #4 seems to really promote inverse nietzschean life affirmation

>>10924723
>Zarathustra are IMO overrated as fuck
you haven't read it or understood it

Read some Ralph Waldo Emerson. Nietzsche ripped him off!

Read a better philosopher

>>10924869
jfc, do you think youre funny? is this your first time on this board? trying to stand out by going against the grain of this community and insulting the prophet? why are you inserting some fucking transcendentalist hippie which has nothing to do with Nietzsche into the dialogue? Probably because you just read about him in your Intro to Lit 101 class for your freshman year course at Northeast Alabama Community College and want to try and sound smart, you fucking pleb. Grow some fucking balls and fuck off with that shit or go back to reading Sylvia Plath

>>10924699
'You wouldn't like him, Sir, he's fundamentally unsound.'

>>10924897
stale pasta, my friend

>>10924887
Legit question, what do I need to read to understand Stirner?

>>10924926
I was memeing I haven't even read him :DDDD
But maybe Hegel and/or Feuerbach

>>10924926
Hegel, Feuerbach and Proudhon.

>>10924699
Outside of greeks and others already mentioned ITT:
Kant
Schopenhauer
J.S. Mill
Goethe
Tartuffe
Hafiz
Rousseau
Voltaire
J. Sand
G. Eliott
Thomas Kempis
Petronius
Sagas
A. Schtifter
G. Keller

itt: people who have never read x say you must read x to understand y

>>10924955
>>10924962
Wew lads. What do I need to read to understand those guys?

>>10925012
just read feuerbach

>>10924723
>the second one is incomprehensible poetic trippiness.

I don't know, Zarathustra was the first Nietzsche thing I read and I found it the easiest to understand, on the basis that the whole work was an "anti-Bible" that used the same parable-based and symbolic format as the New Testament to embody the Zarathustra character's philosophy as a Jesus figure within the text. If anything I'd say it's the best one for someone unfamiliar with philosophy (and all the dense cross-references it usually entails) because the only prerequisites for "getting it" are being familiar with the NT (which virtually everyone in the western world is), and having some basic critical thinking ability.

>>10925018
you didn't understand it, you only t

STOP using the word "deconstruct" RIGHT NOW

Nietzsche was the first philosopher I read and I found him pretty easy from the start. You just have to get used to his esoteric language and his habit of making very broad statements without attempting to justify them. I started with The Gay Science, maybe that would be a good introduction.

I recently read Beyond Good and Evil. I'd taken a couple intro to philosophy courses at school, including an ancient Greek philosophy course. It would help if I'd known Kant, Schoppenhauer and various others but honestly I felt that, for an undergraduate reading a translation for the first time, that I had a pretty DECENT understanding of many of its portions. There were some that just totally went over my head but if you read CAREFULLY and annotate like crazy you'll probably get something out of it

>>10924699
nah you are low iq, N is easy shit, ive never met an intelligent person who didn’t at least follow what he was saying

>>10924699
Understand "God is Dead, We have killed Him." where We = "You're a Jew" and modernity = Death Cult.

His early lectures/notes on the Greeks are available "The PrePlatonic..." Shouldn't be hard to find + Birth of Tragedy and maybe Schopenhauer's Essays/some Goethe. The epigrammatic books would be fine to slowly immerse. Geneaology of Morals and Zarathustra the more straighforward of the prose works (Gay Science of the epigrammatic ones.) Antichrist and Beyond Good and Evil do not offer much to the new reader that hasn't done 2/3 of those aforementioned minimum. The Will To Power even less.

Always Hollingdale translations over Kaufmann.

Really, a focused reading of multiple translations of one work (TSZ, BGE) + BoT, Jung's TSZ lectures, and Heidegger's FN books should sate your curiosity.

Otherwise, Geneaology of Morals and the Pre-Platonics is probably the most efficient, content and economics-wise. (Kaczinski articulates the Last Man worldview extremely well, pic related. Heidegger's Technology essays would be worthwhile if he ended up being at all elucidating.)

Don't read, act.

>>10926182
you didnt get shit about nietzsche if he was the first philosopher you ever read

>needing prior knowledge for Nietzche
Hardly anything really. Maybe brush up on ancient Greek mythology but otherwise he is very concise

>>10925018
>parable-based
Aphorisms are not the same as parables

>>10926388
what the fuck, are you all trolling?
every second aphorism is "this philosopher before me was retarded"

>>10926398
And
>This is why

He concisely explains the positions of the philosopher and why it's wrong. You don't need to read through their entire collected works

>>10926416
no he doesnt, he just shitposts
one aphorism is literally just saying that hes never heard of something as disgusting as kants categorical imperative and doesnt explain why

you need to understand what kant is saying and then synthesize it with kants writings to see what nietzsche is getting at

>>10926428
>no he doesnt
Yes he does

>>10926428
with nietzsches writings*
its difficult to pinpoint why nietzsche is put off by kantian ethics, any guess though requires an understanding of kant first and then an understanding of nietzsche

>>10926435
“A nation goes to pieces when it confounds its duty with the general concept of duty. Nothing works a more complete and penetrating disaster than every "impersonal" duty, every sacrifice before the Moloch of abstraction.--To think that no one has thought of Kant's categorical imperative as dangerous to life!...”

so tell me what insight you have gaiend into kants categorical imperative here, and how nietzsche attacks it without mentioning other writings of nietzsche or looking at kants moral philosophy

>>10926447
>...
Might want to post the rest of it my dude , and even with that small bit you should be able to gather what the categorical imperative generally is

>>10926469
you are fucking stupid and have never read nietzsche, youd need an essay to summarize the CI to have nietzsches critique keep any weight, you ALSOOOO!!!!! need to understand nietzsches philosophy before being able to comprehend this quote

nietzsches most extensive reproduction of kant is when he criticizes kants pursuit of a justification for synthetic a priori propositions, good luck fucking understanding what a synthetic a priori proposition is on half a page, im sure you can just bypass the critique of pure reason by reading nietzsche aphorisms you baboon

>>10926447
I mean just from that
>general concept of duty
Universalism is obviously implied and then the quote continues to mock this categorical imperative as being too abstract

So a universalist abstraction about duty of the average person... That goes by the name "categorical imperative". Yeah it's easy to get the gist of the argument here

>>10926489
>good luck fucking understanding what a synthetic a priori proposition is on half a page
Good thing there is entire books and paragraphs that then go on to explain exactly that in the same manner he clues us into how the categorical imperative functions lmaaaooooooo

This is hilarious. Why are namefags always so retarded?

>>10926489
>ALSOOOO!!!!!
>good luck knowing what a synthetic a priori proposition is when I only give you this quote while Nietzche gives us whole books
>Implying this quote is the only time Nietzche brings up Kant

So much brainlet

>>10926493
nietzsches problem isnt that abstract moral philosophy isnt palpable enough for the common folk, the relevant part is "dangerous to life!", this is why the consequences of the CI and nietzsches general philosophy are required to read these aphorisms

in this thought a nation adopts kantian ethics and it kills them, the problem isnt having to convince a nation to believe in these ethics

i could present you any half-assed critique of any other philosopher, any attribution will then, according to your methodology, give you the general gist of it, hegel is too obscurantist!

>>10926500
what the fuck are you even saying, taht you can read secondary literature to get nietzsche? the original claim was that someone just read nietzsche and understood anything

>>10926508
its the only time he invests time into kants autism regarding synthetic a prior propositions in the genealogy of morals, if you think you will get any meaningful understanding of kant beyond what one gets from school of life videos you are retarded

you dont read philosophy stop acting as if you do

>>10924699


The Portable Greek & Roman Readers, or a comprehensive reading course in the Greeks and Romans.

The King James Bible in its entirety.

Norton Anthology of World Religions, Vol. 2 JUDAISM, CHRISTIANITY, ISLAM.

A history of philosophy such as Anthony Kenny's.

About Nietzsche, before reading Nietzsche, his concepts are interesting, even before reading his work, although Nietzsche is a cliché in the academic branch, everyone knows him, so much so that the eternal superman is first understood. return, the Dionysian vision, his illusions of Dionysian and Apollon. In this sense one understands Nietzsche with the death of God and nihilism in which nothing replaces a dead god but the gap, the axiological void, that is to say, nihilism

>le you can understand neetchan without any prior knowledge because he's easy meme
nope, you won't get the full extent of what he's saying until you become aquainted with the phisosophical tradition up until him
you also need to have a good grasp of the culture of the time and the evolution that led to it to being that way
you can of course read him without any prior knowledge, but you'll only understand the most superficial level

>>10926516
>nietzsches problem isnt that abstract moral philosophy isnt palpable enough for the common folk,
Hmm which I never said. Interesting
>Forgetting that he is basing his entire summary of Nietzche vs Kant via half a quote when I was originally talking about how if you read through all of Nietzche he is concise enough to represent himself and his opponent fairly
Wew fucking lad, reaching autism levels that shouldn't even be possible. Keep attacking that straw tho
>Secondary literature
Okay so the issue here is that you don't know how to read. Makes sense I guess
>The only time Nietzche mentions Kant is in this one quote
Umm "no"
>School of life
Oh great thanks for making me google that autism Anon

>>10926553
i wasnt strawmanning, i mistunderstood what you were saying, still then you havent understood shit of kantian ethics going by that quote alone, again according to your standards id get the general gist of hegel reading the back of the phenomenology of spirit

nice memes btw i thought this reaching X levels that shouldnt even be possible stopped being a meme years ago

read philosophy before discussing it

>>10926541
>Read Nietzche
>Get him just fine
>Read who he criticized
>Understand them and him more
>Durr but you'll never understand Nietzche fully until you read the whole of the works of the people he criticized

No it's more like read more learn more, and it's that way with any philosopher? You don't need a lot of background reading to understand Nietzche , you need a lot of knowledge to understand him in context with his influence on others and the scope through which you understand those he was responding to in general. You don't have to read one before the other, you just need to read.

The Stanford Encyclopaedia articles on anything related to him. Way less hassle

>>10926578
>Durr but you'll never understand Nietzche fully until you read the whole of the works of the people he criticized
yep, you won't get the full weight of "god is dead" until you completely understand the zeitgest of the time
there's a reason people like heidegger wrote tomes and tomes on him

>>10926577
>still then you havent understood shit of kantian ethics
You're not meant to be given the full scope of Kant by Nietzche but neither do you need to read Kant before Nietzche to understand Nietzche. You need to have read both to understand each and their influences on contemporary philosophy but the order which you read them in is not important.

Many would argue that you can't understand Kant until you read Nietzche mind you, because his rebuttal is that importsnt. Nietzche gets into far more dialogue about Kantian ethics than just one quote out of Zarathustra as well.

>Read philosophy before discussing it
I have

>>10926585
>yep
*Nope as a explained already

>>10926587
say the will of power or his shift from good/evil to good/bad or whatever concepts interest you are easily digested, nevertheless nietzsches philosophy is massively dialectic, you dont need to read pre-kantian philosophy to understanad kants copernican turn, but you definitely need to get a grasp on pre-nietzsche philosophy to be able to read ecce homo and the genealogy, i dont understand how this is controversial at all considering half the book is shitting on other philosophers, now all knowledge you have gained is knowing that nietzsche disliked these philosophers but not what conceptual knowledge is hiding behind these attacks

Many would argue that you can't understand Kant until you read Nietzche mind you, because his rebuttal is that importsnt.

what? who the fuck has said something this fucking stupid?

>>10926593
ok dude

>>10926607
>now all knowledge you have gained is knowing that nietzsche disliked these philosophers but not what conceptual knowledge is hiding behind these attacks
>Implying that via Nietzche' criticisms you can't ascertain what he is criticizing or why
I don't even think you realize this is what you're asserting.

>What who the fuck who disagree with me
Probably a non-brainlet who doesn't namefag on 4chins

>>10926610
Hey if you're not actually going through read and rebut what I'm saying why should I do the same for you, eh?

>>10926628
yes i dont think you do, i think im justified in my elitism that you cant just pick up a handful of aphorisms to see what a philosopher is about, again, i can read the back of a hegel book or watch school of life videos for that level of understanding

give me one name who claims nietzsche is somewhat important for an understanding of kant, this is a retarded claim and i doubt anyone worth shit subscribes to this view
hard mode name an academic and not some dummy on tumblr

>>10924699
Nothing really. As long as you're not idiot, you should be able to get him.

>>10924723
Zarathustra is a poetic masterpiece. While Antichrist could be considered a fedora-tier rant today, when placed in the time he wrote it, it really isn't.

>>10924699

Poet not philosopher.

>>10926747
well, the majority of people are idiots. lets not lie to ourselves, his philosophy is a bit esoteric when it comes to the brainlet pleb

>>10924699
Spinoza.

>>10924699
ITT : ubermensch larping shitslingers

>>10924926
The back of a cereal box.

>>10924722
OP, I wish you luck on your travels, the greeks have consumed my life. I started on this journey very much like you, in an attempt to get a better grasp on what Nietzsche said, and I can tell you, as long of a journey as this has been, it has been worth it.