/lit/ - Literature

Like any good philosophy book, I'd suggest reading slowly and deliberately.

I don't think anyone is too stupid for philosophy, but many people don't have the attention span

Yes and no. Thus Spoke Zarathustra is an incredible work and arguably his most accessible. I think an hour or so on Wikipedia reading about the book and its philosophical context will be enough to enjoy and get something from the book. It's a largely speculative work that seeks to propose an alternative philosophical and ethical system in lieu of the Christian one that dominated most of Western philosophy.

>>4068315
>Like any good philosophy book, I'd suggest reading slowly and deliberately.
Well said.

>I don't think anyone is too stupid for philosophy, but many people don't have the attention span
Ohh you'd be surprised...

>>4068308
Most of /lit/ seems to either misunderstand it or not get it at all.
In other words, you're fucked.

>>4068315
>>4068321
These Anons are pretty much spot-on. Zarathustra is Nietzsche's most accessible work because, in my opinion, it's his least philosophically dense, in regard to jargon and all that. His other, more scholarly, writings will be more difficult to understand, especially without a solid foundation in philosophy (ancient and modern).

Zarathustra reads like a mystical text, very much like the parables of Christ or certain books of the Hebrew bible (specifically the prophetic books). He wrote it as a "new" philosophy, in reaction against the Christian ideologies prevalent in his day.

Read it as poetry, not philosophy. Actually, I recommend this for most of Nietzsche's works, and he will often tell you that he's writing as a poet, not a philosopher (but you'll have to decide that for yourself). If you're interested in his other writings, I highly recommend Human, All-Too-Human. It's the first book he published after his break from Wagner and Schopenhauer, and it's very hopeful and uplifting. Unlike his later writings, which are more mature and darker, the tone of this book is really light. It's also much more aphoristic (by that I mean he writes shorter aphorisms; like I said, he was only just beginning to develop a philosophy of his own).

Any, that's my two cents.

>>4068361
Can you give me any small taste or takeaway of what I might get from this?

I really just want to read something that'll stay with me. That will bless me with a new, more enlightened perspective.

>>4068361
Awesome reply.

One thing I'll add is that the book is not necessarily meant to be read cover to cover, though you can certainly do that. It includes a table of contents that you can follow to different ideas on a variety of subjects.

>>4068374
Zarathustra is definitely a good choice then. Human, All-Too-Human really, seriously changed my outlook on the world. Everything Nietzsche wrote after HATH only served to enhance that effect. He's an amazing writer, and his philosophy, if you can learn to take it with a heaping spoonful of salt, will change your life.

Off the top of my head, you should read:

Zarathustra
HATH
The Gay Science
Beyond Good and Evil

A really excellent introduction to his entire opus is The Portable Nietzsche, edited and translated by Walter Kaufman (look for this name on your translations, he's the best English-speaking translator of Nietzsche). It provides excerpts from a huge number of his books, as well as complete texts of a few of them, Zarathustra included.

>>4068374
Shit, I forgot to address what you'll take away from him.

To me, Nietzsche's greatest worth is that he teaches you to really, truly take account of the things in your life. You learn to judge critically and for yourself. The man could see behind things, cutting through all the layers of bullshit in the way of a true, individual perspective. Even where I disagree with him I admire him for his acuity and bravery, traits which I hope to emulate in my own life and writing.

Reading Nietzsche is like taking a breath a fresh air, or like waking up and realizing you didn't even know you we're asleep.

>>4068374
Read the introduction, you're bound to pound your chest and get excited. It's a very refreshing and encouraging book.

>>4068439
>To me, Nietzsche's greatest worth is that he teaches you to really, truly take account of the things in your life. You learn to judge critically and for yourself. The man could see behind things, cutting through all the layers of bullshit in the way of a true, individual perspective. Even where I disagree with him I admire him for his acuity and bravery, traits which I hope to emulate in my own life and writing.

ITT: a guy who understands the crux of Nietzsche's work. 10/10 statement.

>>4068382
Would you happen to have such a table of contents in a digital form? I've read the book in a straight forward manner and now I want to go back to certain topics, but I don't want to read it all over again. It would be really helpful to have such a guide.

>>4068439
>a true, individual perspective.

Nietzsche heavily criticized the will to truth in his On The Genealogy of Morals, so this isn't correct. Nietzsche wasn't out to be 'true', he was trying to show you that such a thing rests upon ascetic ideals themselves. Nietzsche is more of a pragmatist and skeptic than someone who wants to show you the "truth".

>>4068471
I don't think you understood what he meant to say. The dude you quoted (I'm not him) surely meant that Nietzsche achieved a very individual perspective in his thoughts and ideas, not that he learned the metaphysical Truth he fought against his whole life.

>>4068308

Read Hollingdale's version though, Kaufmann is insufferable

>>4068471
Hmm I think I agree with your statement. Unfortunately Genealogy of Morals is a text I'm somewhat unfamiliar with.

My understanding was that Nietzsche was never trying to get at the True (in the classical sense). For him, truth is necessarily an individual experience and process. The definition of Truth changes according to the ages, and yet each age still expounds its (sometimes various) doctrines as the end-all-be-all Truth. So the very fact that we always look for truth (whatever that means) indicates that truth is; yet we must be careful about how we arrive at truth (thus his attention to scientific method) and how we share that truth (which apparently, we can't).

That's what I took away from Beyond Good and Evil, but perhaps I'm forgetting/misunderstanding. Can you say more about your previous comment?

A lot of the books is meant to be totally inscrutable, seriously. Just read it and enjoy it. Don't get frustrated if you don't "get it."

>>4068499

>'Truth' is a kind of error without which a living creature cannot go on living. The value for life decides.

I remember something along those lines.

>>4068499
>For him, truth is necessarily an individual experience and process.

In his On The Genealogy of Morals, he makes it quite clear that he is not concerned with finding "truth". He is concerned with what he calls "health", not truth. Never truth for Nietzsche because he is concerned with the very seeking of such a thing; he finds it to be asceticism 'in itself', or in what ascetic ideals seek to actually find-which he sees as an illusion. So there isn't truth for Nietzsche! Don't try to force it on him.

>>4068509
That quote sounds familiar.

But so what? Let it be an illusion, that doesn't change the fact that I feel that I must seek truth, or set up certain truths of my own for myself. There are only so many things we can really "know" in the world, and those things are limited to scientific laws, more or less. Outside of that sphere it's up to me to decide what is right and wrong, what true and false.

The truth is an illusion has no bearing on the meaning I attach to the search for truth. Plus, as an above anon noted, Nietzsche is absolutely opposed to any sort of metaphysical Truth. He couldn't have cared less if you agreed with him or not. That's not the point.

>>4068524
I think I'm following you, but your writing is sort of confusing.

I would ask you to recall that Zarathustra, Nietzsche's archetypal sage, was a devout ascetic. He left for years to the mountaintops to gain his wisdom. And even when he did return to the world, he eventually went back (if I'm remembering correctly).

I agree that Nietzsche was not a big fan of Christian asceticism, but at the same time he was a strong advocate of removing unnecessary hindrances in one's life. Certainly a "healthy" man knows what he does - and, perhaps more importantly, does NOT - need in his life.

See >>4068531 for my thoughts on Truth vs. truth.

>>4068562

I'll try to improve my writing because I'm enjoying this discussion.

>Nietzsche's archetypal sage, was a devout ascetic.

Zarathustra overcame asceticism.

>Outside of that sphere it's up to me to decide what is right and wrong, what true and false.

Exactly! That's primarily what Nietzsche was arguing for.

There can't be a "true" ideology in the sense of right/wrong, good/evil etc. Thus the Over-Man overcomes these false dichotomies and writes his own history with his own morals and whatnot.

>The truth is an illusion has no bearing on the meaning I attach to the search for truth.

I believe that Nietzsche would say that you are an ascetic for believing this.

There isn't any truth for Nietzsche; everything is only a phenomenal perspective. Hence his "perspectivism". I would advise you to read more Nietzsche before you comment on him.

>>4068308

here we go OP

>>4068524

Actually there is a truth for nietzsche, the problem is that we can't access it freely, nor would he want us to.

>>4068611
>Actually there is a truth for nietzsche, the problem is that we can't access it freely, nor would he want us to.

Where does he say this? "Everything is a perspective" = no objective ideology truth. He criticizes that which you attribute to him, if anything... Have you people actually read this guy?

>>4068573

>Zarathustra overcame asceticism.

Did he? It's been a while since I've read Zarathustra, but I thought he returns to the mountain in between visits with the people. I'm probably wrong though. Still, I think I agree with you in the end. I just wonder if asceticism ever really ends, even for the healthy man. One must still choose which things to surround oneself with.

>There can't be a "true" ideology...

Right, we agree on this point. But the Over-Man must still decide at the end of the day what he believes, no? Can't we can his choices his "truths", even while keeping in mind what Nietzsche says about truth being an illusion? I always thought he was talking about capital-T metaphysical Truth in that sense.

>I believe that Nietzsche would say that you are an ascetic for believing this.

Haha, perhaps I am then. I've always had difficulty throwing off that Catholic upbringing. But what do you think about the instinctive drive for truth? Thinking of the Over-Man again: couldn't his personal choices/morality be seen as his "truths"? I'm repeating myself here though.

And hey man, I've read plenty of Nietzsche. I've never claimed to be an expert on the man, I'm simply here providing my opinion on the matter. I don't appreciate you telling me off because you think you know more about him than I do, especially when we're having a really interesting discussion. I'm sure we could find a third party who feels the same way about your comments as you do about mine. No such thing as truth, right?

>>4068611
This is outright incorrect.

>>4068630
>Still, I think I agree with you in the end. I just wonder if asceticism ever really ends, even for the healthy man.
I don't believe that we can overcome asceticism, and I don't think that asceticism is necessarily a bad thing if it is done for pragmatic reasons.

>Can't we can his choices his "truths", even while keeping in mind what Nietzsche says about truth being an illusion?

I don't think that they are "truths". They're simply expressions of his will-to-power. Power isn't truth in an ideological sense of the word 'truth', which is primarily what Nietzsche attacks (in my readings).

>And hey man, I've read plenty of Nietzsche

Sorry, it's just that your comments in some areas seem quite mislead.

>>4068663
>I don't believe that we can overcome asceticism...

Well said.

>Power isn't truth in an ideological sense of the word 'truth'...

Thanks for clearing that up, I've always had difficulty getting a handle on will-to-power. I am, however, still interested in the relation between truth and the will-to-power. Would you say that the will-to-power completely kills truth? That talking about truth is simply an inherent error on man's part, that really we ought to focus on the will-to-power?

>>4068619
>He criticizes that which you attribute to him, if anything... Have you people actually read this guy?

This guy right here ^ gets it.

>>4068696
>Would you say that the will-to-power completely kills truth?

In my opinion? It doesn't kill truth, it IS "truth". I agree with Nietzsche that everything is indeed a perspective and the where a perspective is dominant, there must be a will-to-power backing it or enforcing it. That's my 'perspective', hehe.

>>4068619
>there is a truth for nietzsche

Please, go away.

>>4068308

I made the mistake of reading 'Zaruthastra' before any of Nietzsche's other works. I'd recommend starting with 'The Birth of Tragedy', 'Genealogy of Morality', 'Human, All Too Human', 'Beyond Good and Evil' and 'Twilight of the Idols'. Then read 'Zarathustra' alongside Marcus Aurelius' 'Meditations'.

Übermensch: man must create the overman. The overman is a goal. God is nihilistic as god creates man, limiting man to being a creation and not creator. Overman is life affirming.

Eternal recurrence/amor fati: man is incable of rectifying the mistakes of his past, but he is at his most life-affirming as a creator. He cannot create the past. Imagine then that you will die and imagine you will come to exist again and every choice you had made before will be made again, exactly. You have created your life then, even the past, but you must say 'yes, to life; the eternal yes. This is love of fate and the ultimate affirmation of life.

Those are just some attempts at short explanations of nietzschean concepts. Feel free to add/correct/expand. I don't think anyone will deny that a good portion of Zarathustra is philosophically superfluous and poetic/aesthetic.

Pls respond

>>4068460
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1998

>>4069103
Why Meditations? I've read almost all of Nietzsche's works (except the Will to Power) and the Meditations and I can't quite see what they have in common. Marcus Aurelius is still very much fond of a metaphysical world view separating both the "soul" and the body, and he actually shows a bit of despise for the earthly matters and focus on the "soul". Nietzsche is quite the opposite of that, always criticising these metaphysical notions and calling the people who follow them "body despisers".

But I'd like to know why you think those two are related.

>>4069152
>God is nihilistic as god creates man, limiting man to being a creation and not creator.

God is nihilistic because it represents life-negation. God brings about restrictions, rules, guilt, fear, etc. These are all things which Nietzsche would have likely believed to be anti-life.

>Eternal recurrence/amor fati:

Man, your conception of these two are really misguided. First of all, the eternal recurrence is Nietzsche's question to us on how we want to live our lives. It's a question which states: Are you living the way you would want to live if every event of your life would be lived by you in an eternal recurrence? It's more of a myth, than anything. The idea at the heart of it is to bring about the goal of living in such a way that you can be satisfied with living the same life twice, thrice or perhaps for eternity.

As for amor fati, this is loving one's fate. Nietzsche doesn't want us to complain about the cards that we have been dealt, but rather to LOVE them and to bring about with them the utmost life-affirmation that we can fathom. So in a sense, it is simply loving the aspects of your existence that you cannot change.

>>4069878

The ones that come to mind almost instantly eternal recurrence and the ubermensch (which Aurelius describes as the divine/the god inherent to man, which has to be discovered). Aurelius also seems to advocate for a form of virtue ethics, instead of a rigid system of morality based on absolute truths/principles.

>>4069979
>The ones that come to mind almost instantly eternal recurrence and the ubermensch (which Aurelius describes as the divine/the god inherent to man, which has to be discovered).

I highly doubt that Aurelius wrote about the myth of the eternal recurrence or over-coming the state of modern "mensch" by defining one's own morality and whatnot. Would you like to elaborate?

>>4069979

Amor fati is also a recurrent theme in Meditations. Aurelius states that fate is for the most part out of man's grasp (e.g. where you are born, to what parents) and should be embraced, as the present, the only state of time we truly live and experience, is maleable, it is subject to our will.

Also, Aurelius certainly views the body as vastly inferior to the soul, as in aphorism 10.38, but somewhere else he emphasizes on the importance of following one's natural inclinations, as long as they are reasonable. It is certainly far from Nietzsche's ejaculatory response to passions and instincts, though.

Also, Aurelius holds the common good as superior to that of the individual, and views it as the task of the good man to work towards it.

So I recently became obsessed with Spengler and doomed.jpg and my knowledgeable friend told me to read Nietzsche

y/n

>>4069983

> Recurrence
Aurelius' 'recurrence' is certainly not as farfetched and even whimsical as Nietzsche's is. In most cases Aurelius talks about the recurrence of events in our lives, the concept that everything we may, will or have done has already been done and will be done numerous times. But amid those come some more Nietzschean examples, such as aphorism 2.14. Though different in their logistics, both Nietzsche and Aurelius seem to take a stance to the effect of 'live each day as if it were your last'.

> Ubermensch
Both Nietzsche's ubermensch and Aurelius' 'god in man' are idealized concepts one has to find in oneself. Granted, Aurelius' divinity has more to do with the individual's reconciliation with nature, in contrast with Nietzsche's vague descriptions of the Ubermensch and his goals.

>>4070080
y
>>4070084
Cool. Thanks for clearing that up.

>>4068308
It's not a blunt or straight-forward book. It certainly isn't too tough a read, though. Nietzsche was an amazing philosophical thinker, but not the best writer. He wrote in long, drawn-out chunks and used (sometimes bad or unclear) metaphors. He was also writing in 19th century syle German, so the translation makes it even more fucked-up. Kaufmann's translations are the best, especially for "Thus Spoke".
You have to read it VERY SLOWLY and turn over the ideas in your head. Challenge most things he claims so as to not become a blind swallower of an ideology. Kaufmann has notes for each chapter at the front of the book. Use them. Use online guides. Buy "The Portable Nietzsche". I don't have it, but I have heard good things. ALWAYS look up words or ideas you don't understand (this goes for almost every piece of literature).
Good luck. In the future, I would suggest you start with a more dry book like "Beyond Good And Evil".

>>4069978

You merely restated what was already said in the other post. You also simplify the concepts. You stay that God is life-negating, but unlike the other poster you don't seem to have a clear idea aas of why.

As for eternal recurrence; it is fairly obvious that it is a thought experiment of sorts and you did add much or provide an insightful conception of it. Amor fati and eternal recurrence are obviously quite tied together, yet you seem to want to divorce these two concepts. The language you use is also not very professional; 'Nietzsche doesn't want us to...', etc.

Why is amor fati life affirming? The other poster at least gives the clues. To conclude...

>"Twice, thice or perhaps for eternity."

Trope lel.

>>4068308
not even smart people understand it. it's one of those books you have to dedicate your life to understand.

>>4070290
>You stay that God is life-negating, but unlike the other poster you don't seem to have a clear idea aas of why.

I thought that I had made it clear that this life-negation was a result of God restricting mensch from his ability to affirm himself; restrictions, rules, guilt and whatnot are all expressions of power which seek to inhibit life, hence making the concept of God life-negating. Your criticism seems more like a cognitive bias than anything substantial.

>Amor fati and eternal recurrence are obviously quite tied together, yet you seem to want to divorce these two concepts.

They are separate concepts in themselves. One concerns loving one's "facts" of life they one cannot change. The other (eternal recurrence) concerns living a life that you can be satisfied with living over and over again for all eternity. Those are not tied together.

>The language you use is also not very professional; 'Nietzsche doesn't want us to...', etc.

top lel. Why is this even here? I'm on 4chan /lit/ you dunce. I'm not trying to come off as "very professional".

>Why is amor fati life affirming? The other poster at least gives the clues. To conclude...

Love of one's fate is life affirming because it leads to further action and over-coming oneself. If you're stuck in a mode of being in which you hate your fate and constantly complain about it, are you going to be in good shape to over-come yourself and try to live life to it's fullest?

>Trope lel.

You should try actually reading Nietzsche. It might broaden your narrow little mind.

At what age did you guys read this book?

Do you think you got it the first time? AKA do you think you read it too early?

>>4068308
Nietszsche was a brilliant polemicist who is still completely a mystery to this day.

>>4068611
>HOW THE "TRUE WORLD" FINALLY BECAME A FABLE. The History of an Error

>1. The true world--attainable for the sage, the pious, the virtuous man; he lives in it, he is it.
(The oldest form of the idea, relatively sensible, simple, and persuasive. A circumlocution for the sentence, "I, Plato, am the truth.")

>2. The true world--unattainable for now, but promised for the sage, the pious, the virtuous man ("for the sinner who repents").
(Progress of the idea: it becomes more subtle, insidious, incomprehensible--it becomes female, it becomes Christian. )

>3. The true world--unattainable, indemonstrable, unpromisable; but the very thought of it--a consolation, an obligation, an imperative.
(At bottom, the old sun, but seen through mist and skepticism. The idea has become elusive, pale, Nordic, Königsbergian.)

>4. The true world--unattainable? At any rate, unattained. And being unattained, also unknown. Consequently, not consoling, redeeming, or obligating: how could something unknown obligate us?
(Gray morning. The first yawn of reason. The cockcrow of positivism.)

>5. The "true" world--an idea which is no longer good for anything, not even obligating--an idea which has become useless and superfluous--consequently, a refuted idea: let us abolish it!
(Bright day; breakfast; return of bon sens and cheerfulness; Plato's embarrassed blush; pandemonium of all free spirits.)

>6. The true world--we have abolished. What world has remained? The apparent one perhaps? But no! With the truAnnotatee world we have also abolished the apparent one.
(Noon; moment of the briefest shadow; end of the longest error; high point of humanity; INCIPIT ZARATHUSTRA.)

Wenn man ein Wozu des Lebens hat, erträgt man jedes Wie.

>>4068308
>will I even be able to understand what the fuck is being said within it's pages
>within it's pages

No, you won't.

>>4070568
I haven't read it personally but a friend of mine read it when he was 17. Dunno if he got it or not though.

(unrelated) captcha: pain Givestab
No kidding

FUCK! A thread about Nietzsche where people aren't getting at each others throats!
Now, to say say something relevant other than my personal projection about his board, it really is a beautiful bookOP, read Twilight of the Idols, it's his introduction to his works, then go on to read Zarathustra and just keep going if you want.
Life becomes very light after you've read him, things start to lose their weight and you get to enjoy things a lot more and start putting your own bullshit into check.

>>4070852
>Twilight of the Idols
How exactly does life become very light?