/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13675982]

Can we have an actual Nietszche thread? What of his work have you read, and what do you make of it or get out of it?

[Anonymous No.13675996]

Where do I start with him

[Anonymous No.13676004]

>>13675996
AntiChrist or Geneology, Then Beyond Good and Evil then choose your own adventure.

[Anonymous No.13676020]

>>13675996
I started with The Gay Science and am currently reading the Portable Nietszche, which I think would have been a better start: especially so if you don't really know what aspects of his thought you find the most interesting

[Anonymous No.13676025]

>>13675982
read Beyond good and evil, the genealogy of morals, his first book about ancient greek shit, forget the name, ecce homo, the antichrist, bits of the gay science, tried zarathustra but the format is not for me, The case of Wagner(a ridiculous book)

Id find it impossible to summarize his work into a central idea, there are so many ideas that don't fit clearly together in my head because I never really tried to analyze Nietzsche's philosophy as a whole. I like the dionysus/appollo split, slave morality is an interesting idea, i dont understand what the ubermensch is supposed to be really. Most of these books I read over 5 years ago so ive forgotten a lot about them.

He is exceptionally entertaining as a writer, but I feel kind of ill after reading his stuff, there is this weird hostility and despair lurking behind the comedy and the beautiful bits of prose. Though i could be projecting that, but given how much he suffered idk.

[Anonymous No.13676047]

Reading Zarathustra right now as I have recently inherited it. Reading it and the background history of Nietzche himself (exploding into his web of reality with figures like Wagner and Schopenhauer) around it, making connections, experiencing new ways to see the world all at once... not to sound pretentious/fedorous, but I feel as though I am drugged. It's an intoxicating euphoria. And I haven't even begun to read into the book proper.

The book's timeline mentions Freud, but I am not yet sure what he has to do with this.

[Anonymous No.13676063]

>>13676047
Nietzsche anticipated some of Freud's theories about the unconscious mind.

[Anonymous No.13676081]

>>13675996
Why don't people just go with the chronological order and read everything.

[Anonymous No.13676104]

Any Nietzsche autists lurking?

[Anonymous No.13676112]

>>13676047
What are you using as a resource for his history?

[Anonymous No.13676148]

>>13676112
I'm on the road right now so I'm restricted to Wikipedia. But I remember well that my grandfather made it very important to look at the circumstances that were writing the content itself in order to understand the content itself. That being said now I have to read up on and listen to Wagner, I have to read Nietzche and Schopenhauer, I have found myself tripping off a cliff into a maze I must now navigate.

[Anonymous No.13676203]

>>13676104
Yes, resident nietzsche autist here reporting in.

Nietzsche is my life.

[Anonymous No.13676243]

>>13676148
Your granfather sounds like a wise and honest man. You said you inherited your book. Assuming it was your grandfather’s, it must’ve been a pleasure having a figure like that in your life. If it wasn’t your grandfather’s disregard my last. In any case, you don’t need to fall down rabbit holes. It’s a marathon, not a sprint. Take notes on Nietzsche’s main points. Do the same with other philosophers and organize them together. You start to develop a better feel for the web of ideas this way. Discern the fine points as you learn and develop your knowledge. This is my advice to you; it worked wonders for me.

>>13676203
Can you make it clear to me why Nietzsche was so opposed to Kant? I plainly see the difference in their ethical standpoints. Can their general positions (general with regard to Nietzsche) be reconciled?

[Anonymous No.13676302]

What do you guys think he would have to say were Nietzsche alive today?

[Anonymous No.13676313]

>>13676302
take me back

[Anonymous No.13676323]

>>13676302
What's more or less said on orgyofthewill.net

[Anonymous No.13676331]

>>13675982
Doing a uni subject on Nietzsche AMA

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13676337]

>>13676302
“Fuck Nazis!! —where’s the loo?”

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hNu6FmaUIB0

[Anonymous No.13676350]

>>13676323
Orgy is what happens when you just take a guy with NPD and get him into philosophy. I wouldn't take him too seriously even if he occasionally makes good points.

[Anonymous No.13676353]

>>13676243
It's pretty easy to read Nietzsche's entire body of work as a reaction against Kant. If Kant believes something then Nietzsche does not.

Kant's entire philosophical project was to try to look at experience, knowledge, morality and using logical reasoning put them into tiny boxes and categories in which they can be understood and tease out some truth about them.

Nietzsche doesn't even begin to entertain this idea. Not only does he not think we cannot understand reality he doesn't even really believe in the concepts of truth or logic. One of his most profound quotes is that the truth is "a mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms—in short, a sum of human relations which have been enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people: truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that this is what they are; metaphors which are worn out and without sensuous power; coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins."

This is why Nietzsche doesn't use logic. He uses metaphor, aphorism, stories, and myth to demonstrate his point of view. So where does that leave all these other "philosophers" who believe they have some real peak at a definitive morality?
He thinks the Kants and Platos of the world pretend to be object thinkers offering cool headed rationality but really they twist everything to support their presuppositions usually to benefit themselves. Nietzsche thought Kant was just a Christian masquerading as an atheist to use logical proofs to reinstate a secular conception of Christianity.

That being said I read Nietzsche before Kant and trying to read Kant now after Nietzsche causes me to wretch so I may not have a solid grasp of Kant's ideas. I would suspect that Nick Land probably attempts to pick and choose between the two but I have to admit once again I haven't read either thoroughly. Any Kant autists to offer a critique?

[Anonymous No.13676367]

>>13676350
Nietzsche said future philosophers would be harsher than humane people would like, however.

[Anonymous No.13676393]

>>13676367
His harshness doesn't subtract from the apparent observation of his pathology. I too was infatuated with Icy because when I first encountered him, I had no philosophical background whatsoever. But now I see him for what he is.

[Anonymous No.13676397]

>>13676331
How do you reconcile Nietzsche's rejection of the concept of truth with his praise of master morality's honesty? Surely if truth doesn't exist then telling the truth and telling a lie is the same thing?

Similarly in On Truth and Lies in an Extra-moral sense he disdains the "will to truth" but then in later works he says the only measure of a man is how far is willing to peel back the curtains of reality and look at the stark and horrible truths of the world. What did he mean by this? Does this mark a change in his epistemology or just a different way of looking at it?

[Anonymous No.13676400]

>>13676353
Anon this was an incredibly good post, thank you.

[Anonymous No.13676420]

>>13676081
You wouldn't ask that question if you had actually read everything. You most likely read his most famous works in order of publication while also exuding Birth of Tragedy.

BGE and Geneology are his most profound books and if you aren't absolutely gripped by that point then don't bother continuing

[Anonymous No.13676425]

>>13676353
>>13676400
i'm a layman but if what you said is true it was very well said. thanks anon

[Anonymous No.13676426]

>>13676393
>But now I see him for what he is.
Well, it's not hard to see him as the devil. He himself calls himself as such. Nietzsche paved the way for the devil though.

[Anonymous No.13676433]

>>13676337
People can tell your pathological when you think everyone is on your side.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13676446]

>>13676433
You want that pink cat thread, anon.

[Anonymous No.13676460]

>>13676426
Not the devil. I don't see him as some higher, powerful being. Just a man with a worldview shockingly similar to - and curiously different (for indeed he further sparked my interest in philosophy)

[Anonymous No.13676466]

>>13676460
(Simillar to) Mine*

[Anonymous No.13676471]

>>13676397
not that anon but
>please respond

[Anonymous No.13676481]

>>13676302
He’d beg for forgiveness upon realizing he’s alive in the time of the last persecution.

[Anonymous No.13676482]

>>13676397
Haven't even reached the Genealogy of Morals yet but I'll try and answer with what I've got.

In Beyond Good and Evil - particularly section 34 - he talks about how although the world of appearances (ie our perceptible world) is full of "errors" - however, if you abolished and dismissed the "apparent" world, then there would be nothing left of truth. There are *values* of true and false. I don't think he dismisses truth outright, he thinks that relying on our conscious alone to discern truth is riddled with problems.

I think that you're second question can be answered with the response above. It's probably consistent with his idea of moving "beyond" ideas and morality.

[Anonymous No.13676488]

>>13676353
Great post anon.

[Anonymous No.13676529]

>>13676353
I’m not necessarily a Kant autist because I’m still fighting thorugh his ideas. Kant was before Nietzsche’s time. Nietzsche and his contemporaries suffered through a societal metamorphosis in a religious sense in that their conception of “God” ans the meaning it held were not as pronounced or as varied (vibrant) as in Kant’s time. Kant focused on the logical and methodological aspects of religion that contributed to people’s wellbeing. He systematically looked at the best aspects of religion and stripped them down to the principle essentials. In short, he saw something good; something that contained great promise in promoting social welfare and other righteous ends, and incorporated this goodness into a standalone philosophical framework. Granted, his metaphysical analysis can get hefty very fast (as he is very articulate) it exists only as his long-list of reasons for doing what he did.

This is my opinion, but I feel like Nietzsche in some sense may have admired Kant and is, in some ways, a spiritual successor.

[Anonymous No.13676555]

His aforisms are a blow right in the jaw.

[Anonymous No.13676582]

>>13676482
This is a very good answer

[Anonymous No.13676663]

He is the greatest German writer bar none. No historian, philosopher, novelist, poet, or critic even compares, I mean this with absolute sincerity

[Anonymous No.13676682]

>>13676663
I can't even imagine how he was received in his time, he must've been looked at like an alien.

[Anonymous No.13676718]

>>13676555
>aforisms
aphorisms
jeez