[ 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]
12854807 No.12854807 [Reply] [Original]

is it a bad idea to start with him?

>> No.12854816

>>12854807
No he is right about lot of thing.

>> No.12854817

>>12854807
yes

>> No.12854819

nah

>> No.12854840

>>12854816
>>12854817
>>12854819
I've heard he shit talks alot of other philosophers so it colours your perception of them. Is this true?

>> No.12854849

>>12854840
Dude many philosophers shit talk about other philosopher like Stirner and Hengel. Just do your own advice !

>> No.12854857

>>12854840
he had his opinions on Plato and Aristotle but appreciated the pre-socratic philosophers so it's up to you whether to agree or disagree.

>> No.12854902

>>12854807
The fact that you have to ask justifies the answer 'no, read him'.

>> No.12854978

I started with him myself and I'm still safe and sound, the key is to take him as a madman and laugh at every page

>> No.12855528

>>12854807
He's self-contained, so you're good to go.

>> No.12855677

>>12854807
No. He solved philosophy.

No point in reading anyone else.

>> No.12855682

>>12854807
Not if you mean "of philosophers", since he's the most literary of them, not a poet in himself but the most accepting of their creative supremacy.

>> No.12855684

>>12854807
read what you're spontaneously interested in, everything else is a meme

>> No.12855735
File: 121 KB, 720x683, 1553698552432.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12855735

>>12854807
The thing about FN is you have to be thorough about reading his stuff. Try the Kaufmann translation, btw, I think his background in philosophy helps him make FN's ideas more clear. Before starting in on this, you might wanna read Kaufmann's Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist. It gives a good overview that might help you decide if you want to dig any deeper into FN's work.

>> No.12855764

>>12855684
This.

But if you are interested in reading other authors in the future, read Plato and Nietzsche simultaneously, to prevent this >>12854840

You will still miss all his references when he criticizes but he is in any case offering new perspectives which you can understand without previous preparation.

>> No.12855794

>>12854807
Having read other authors always helps but you have to start somewhere I guess

>> No.12855808

Okay... You wanna read Nietzsche. Do it. Read On the Genealogy of Morality. Read motherfucking On the Genealogy of Morality. Reread On the Genealogy of Morality. Read it again. Rereread On the Genealogy of Morality. Read it a lot of times. Read it. Rerefuckingread it. You must be fucking strong guy. Like D. Trump. Or Kanye. Or smth.

>> No.12855819

>>12855808
reddit

>> No.12855909

>>12855735
Thanks lad, good advice

>> No.12855917

>>12854807
You will not understand 90% of what he's talking about.

>> No.12855924

>>12855808
This is why NEETchuh must be destroyed.

>> No.12857025

I struggled with NEECH. I am NOT a smart person, so I had to try quite hard…

Tried BG&E first, failed, then TWTP, failed again, then BoT and I kind of got it, but decided that I wasn’t ready for it…

SO I started with some Schopenhauer instead (essays & aphorisms), then read a Penguin Nietzsche reader I got in a second hand bookstore published in the 60’s, then I read him from start to finish with no problems.

This was also super helpful https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche/

Best of luck my guy!

>> No.12857054
File: 177 KB, 623x702, 1553602677843.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12857054

>>12854807
Do not start with Nietzsche unless you want to falsely comprehend nearly all of the core of his philosophy. Some of his aphorisms are extremely easy to misunderstand, because you'll think you get it, and either interpret the idea wrong, miss a part of the idea which influences your final perception of the idea, or just skip over large chunks of what he's saying. This is why there is so little discussion of Nietzsche's actual philosophy on this board. This is also why he has been so misunderstood en masse nearly everywhere else, down to the SIMPLEST OF HIS IDEAS. don't expect to properly capture what he is saying if you know nothing about philosophy.

>> No.12857077 [DELETED] 

>>12857025
What he's saying isn't even remotely difficult to understand. The reason you think it's complex is because it's 'aphoristic'

>> No.12857079

>>12857054
What should i read if i want to understand him "properly" then?

>> No.12857253

>>12857079
Start_with_the_greeks.jpg

>> No.12857261

>>12857054
>>12857079
You don't have to listen to this faggot, just make sure that you're doing research as you read, secondary sources will give you all the relevant background information you need.

>> No.12857270

Start with him and work backwards, that would be a very Nietzschean thing to do.

>> No.12857289

>>12854807
Start with subjects, not authors. If you want to start organizing your reading, read The Modern Researcher by Jaques Barzan first.

>> No.12857738

No, OP. You need to read all people who are explicitly or, as in most cases, implicitly referenced in literally all of Nietzsche's works, and they are:
Homer, Hesiod, Sappho, Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Xenophanes, Heraclitus, Pythagoras, Anaxagoras, Melissus, Parmenides, Zeno, Protagoras, Aeschylus, Empedocles, Sophocles, Herodotus, Aristophanes, Democritus, Crates, Plato, Euripides, Thucydides, Aristippus, Aristotle, Epicurus, Pyrrho, Menander, Seneca, Epictetus, Lucretius, Cicero, Apollonius, Alcinous, Plotinus, Proclus, Boethius, St. Augustine, Anselm, Scotus, Occam, Bonaventure, Aquinas, Rodriguez, Montaigne, Shakespeare, Gracian, Bacon, Descartes, Suarez, Spinoza, Pascal, Geulincx, Leibniz, Arnould, Lancelot, Newton, Gassendi, Malebranche, Locke, Voltaire, Rousseau, Berkeley, Hume, Wolff, Kant, Herder, Hamann, Lessing, Strauss, Jacobi, Fichte, Schelling, Hölderlin, Stirner, Goethe, Schiller, Hegel, Mendelssohn, Schleiermacher, Humboldt, Winckelmann, Schlegel, Novalis, Heine, Schopenhauer, Mainlander, Wagner, Darwin, Emerson, Lotze and Ritschl, at least.

>> No.12858183

>>12857261
Your "research" will only help with aphorisms that explicitly cite other philosophers and philosophies - in which case, have fun losing all essential ideas (which are the ideas which come from the author himself). In any case, listen to >>12857289 if you want to at least try to effectively comprehend him early.
>>12857077
>What he's saying isn't even remotely difficult to understand
though he was very good at presenting complex ideas simply, his most valuable ideas were nevertheless terrifically complex. The fact that you thought it was "simple" means you only comprehended his "simple" ideas. Witness Alain Badiou telling us that doctors create a disease by naming it, then being chased off stage by doctors laughing at his pathetic attempts to explain what that means. The idea is correct, but you have to be a fucking genius to understand it, much less explain it to people, especially to doctors, who will roast your ass over hot coals, as they should, if you are not a complete and total master of the idea. These are such complex conceptions that non-geniuses simply have no hope with them. At best, they grasp one part here, a corollary there, some application to their daily life; but the essence of the idea, and its relationship to all others, remains forever beyond them. Deleuze, Artaud, Bataille: they each grasped some things, and Baudrillard by far the most. The mess of gibberish produced on the continent is the result of their sometimes sincere, sometimes dishonest grasping with these terrifically complex conceptions that Nietzsche bequeathed us, just as the simplistic stupidities of the "analytic" morons is how they dealt with the same stuff.

>> No.12858274

>>12858183
al dente

>> No.12858886

>>12857253
Start with the Greeks.
Sojourn with the Pseuds.

>> No.12859105

>>12854807
I did

>> No.12859117

>>12854807
having read most of the western canon of philosophers i think nietsczhe is the easiest to start with minus the greeks. he's very straightforward

>> No.12859123

>>12857738
bro you put so much effort into this shit hahahahaha just close your eyes

>> No.12859586

>>12857253
>>12857054
This. He's not a bad place to start, he's what got me interested in philosophy, but I feel like you should start somewhere else (the greeks) to get the most of out of it. After I returned to Nietzsche after reading more Ancient and Modern philosophy I read him in a completely different way.

>> No.12859601

>>12854807
Yes and I say this as someone who loves Nietzsche
Try to get into Kant and dabble in Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, and Hume before N would be my advice

>> No.12859610

>>12854840
Banter and bickering are aspects of being a philosopher.

>> No.12859614

>>12859601
Throw out Aquinas I'm drunk
My reason is that it is a good idea to have a sense of the 'standard vision' of western philosophy before Nietzsche tries to impose Nietzsche-valuation on it or else N-vision will color your view to the point of probably crippling your ability to engage with others

>> No.12859616

>>12854807
He brought depression and existential dread into my life. But goddamn it was worth it.

>> No.12859619

excuse me but what the fuck is this "Like!" shit next to our post numbers

>> No.12859624

>>12859619
I just noticed that too what the flying fuck

>> No.12859628

>>12859624
you got a like

>> No.12859635

>>12859601
Starting with Kant is just as hard in my opinion, especially having no foundations to philosophy.

I gotta say to start with Plato honestly, then something modern like Hume or Kant, then FN but that's if you want to take a really fast route and skip a lot of important stuff.

>> No.12859641

>>12859628
>>12859624
I get it, it's motherfucking april's fools

>> No.12859651

>>12859641
I wanna like but can only do it ever 2 minutes or some shit >:(

>> No.12859719

>>12859635
Fair enough this is true

>> No.12860599

>>12854807
it's even a bad idea to read him<div class="like-perk-cnt">&#x1F494;</div>

>> No.12861652

>>12860599
Why is that? The Birth of Tragedy is very, very entertaining to read, for example.

>> No.12861658

>>12854807
its bad to even read him desu

>> No.12861667

>>12861652
Don't listen to them, they're Platonists ressentivising.

>> No.12861671

>>12861658
my guy
Here have a like<div class="like-perk-cnt">&#x2764;&#xFE0F;</div>

>> No.12861689

>>12855909
De nada, anon. Glad if I can help.
:-)

>> No.12861698

>>12854807<div class="like-perk-cnt">&#x1F641;</div>

>> No.12861721

>>12861667
Well, I would have liked a reason regardless..

Anyway, one of my favourite quotes in there may resonate with the fourth channel a bit:

> “Suffering creature, born for a day, child of accident and toil, why are you forcing me to say what would give you the greatest pleasure not to hear? The very best thing for you is totally unreachable: not to have been born, not to exist, to be nothing. The second best thing for you, however, is this — to die soon.”

>> No.12861793

>>12854807
If you feel you need others to tell you what to read, you should start with Nietzsche.

>> No.12861807

>>12854807
If you want to, start with Ecce Homo and his notes to avoid the abyss

>> No.12861817

>>12854807
No one knows the right answer. After starting with him, you will only gain a perspective that you did not have before.

>> No.12861877

The best idea is to read philosophy in the order they were published.

>> No.12861923
File: 71 KB, 500x590, rppy-nietzche-your-co-acept-f-ood-boy-9-is-22240177.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12861923

>> No.12862157

>>12861923
this is the worst thing I have ever seen

>> No.12862161

>>12861923
Heheheehheehehhehehehehehdhdehehehehdh pooooie hehsshhssge

>> No.12862199

>>12861877
Great. What's the first title we should pick up in this ordering?

>> No.12862451
File: 43 KB, 300x216, 300pxMultitrack.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12862451

>>12855764
>read Plato and Nietzsche simultaneously

>> No.12862574

>>12862199
The pre-Socratics in terms of philosophy. But you could make an argument that you should start with Homer as his work had a moral/ biblical standing in Ancient Greek society. After that Plato and Aristotle.

>> No.12862598

>>12862574
The earliest I have in my bookshelf is Plotin. How about that?

>> No.12863280

>>12857738
first of all that's not all that's explicitly referenced in his works

second who the fuck is Lancelot

>> No.12864462

If you do, start with The Birth of Tragedy. It's sloppy--he even admits it in the Preface--but I think it puts forward some interesting ideas on how to reach the sublime and the reason why people make art/how they make it.

>> No.12864641

>>12855735
>Try the Kaufmann translation
Bad idea, just read it in german