>Try reading thus spoke zarathustra>Immediately filteredIs there any other good starting point for nietzche? I've always read chrono order otherwise but surely I can skip this one with the excuse of being retarded?
>>23299026Genealogy of Morals is sometimes recommended as a good starting point but I haven't worked through any Nietzsche so don't give my suggestion too much credence.
I asked ChatGPT:>Here’s a recommended reading order with justifications for each choice:>"The Birth of Tragedy" (1872)>Justification: This is Nietzsche’s first major work, where he discusses Greek art and tragedy. It introduces key themes like the Apollonian and Dionysian dichotomy, which recur throughout his later works. Starting here gives you a foundational understanding of his early thoughts and influences.>"Human, All Too Human" (1878)>Justification: This marks a shift in Nietzsche's style towards aphoristic and reflective writing. It begins his exploration of human psychology and morality, breaking from traditional philosophic forms and his own early Wagnerian influences.>"The Gay Science" (1882)>Justification: This book introduces the concept of "the eternal recurrence" and the famous declaration "God is dead." It represents a more mature and refined articulation of his philosophy of life and his critique of religion, morality, and modernity.>"Thus Spoke Zarathustra" (1883-1885)>Justification: Often considered Nietzsche’s masterpiece, this work uses a narrative format to explore complex ideas like the Übermensch (Overman), the will to power, and eternal recurrence. It synthesizes and extends the ideas presented in his earlier works.>"Beyond Good and Evil" (1886)>Justification: This book expands on the critiques of traditional morality presented in "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" and is more accessible in terms of its argumentative style. It provides a critical examination of philosophers and their pursuit of truth, making it a pivotal work for understanding his later thoughts.>"On the Genealogy of Morals" (1887)>Justification: This is a more systematic look at the themes introduced in "Beyond Good and Evil," specifically focusing on the origins and meanings of our moral values. It's essential for understanding Nietzsche's views on morality and power.>"Twilight of the Idols" (1888)>Justification: As one of his last works, it serves as a good recapitulation of his philosophical ideas. The book is concise and direct, critiquing many of Nietzsche’s previous targets, including Socrates and Christianity.>"Ecce Homo" (1888)>Justification: Written before his descent into madness, this autobiographical work provides insight into his own view of his work and philosophy. Reading it last gives readers a reflective perspective on all his previous works.>This sequence builds from Nietzsche's early explorations of aesthetic and tragic concepts to his mature philosophical critiques and theories. Each work introduces new ideas while building on or challenging previous concepts, offering a progressive deepening of his philosophical inquiry.
>>23299026>TSZ>Birth of Tragedy; Truth & Lies in the Nonmoral Sense>GoM >Antichrist, Twilight>TSZ, Dithyrambs of Dionysus>Gheyscience [Mirthmethod]>HATH. Daybreak>Pre-Platonics lectures>BGE>Antichrist, Twilight, EH, Filtered on first rodeo is to be expected. Zarathustra is a skeleton key for everything else, particularly the early and post-Beyond Good & Evil material. Follow the above and it will walk you through it in the way it needs to be done. We know he read Hegel from his library records, and many terminological and concept peculiarities are in dialogue with him over and above even Kant & Schopenhauer. At some point you will want to get acquainted; the Will To Power is more expressly laid out with & in Hegel, for instance, as well as his Perspectivalism [which he remarks "is not a phenomenology!"]>I've always read chronoI did this. It's sensible. But for a second go around, try the above. picunrel
Start with either Twilight of the Idols or Human All too Human. I started with the latter and it’s a pretty cool introduction to his ideas and not incredibly difficult, though you will spend some time of it because you will want to think on it.
>>23299026Maybe you just don't have a dark side OPhttps://youtu.be/CUqW6AZnN9k?si=Bx0dER-I1n9tpMFM&t=47
>>23299026First, Thus Spake Zarathustra is rated by Nietzsche himself as the most profound, original, meaningful, beautiful, and poetic of his own works. This is NOT necessarily agreed on by ALL of academia, scholars, and the audience and readership of Nietzsche. I myself have an almost sentimental and fawning part of me that gives into Nietzsche and admits, “Yes, it’s indeed one of your best work, more profound, mysterious, and subtle than the other ones.” IT IS IN AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT STYLE FROM NIETZSCHE’S OTHER WORKS. It’s even more poetic, literary, aphoristic and imagistic than his other works. He’s trying to include and summate his philosophical insights in this poetic, scriptural, almost mystical-style, mirroring ancient works from the Christian Scriptures to the Zoroastrian Gathas (obviously — it’s named after fucking Zoroaster or ‘Zarathustra’, also including him as the main figure of the work), except redone in German and with Nietzsche’s ‘transvaluation of values’. One of my personal favorites of his is The Gay Science. Also loved by Camus, if you give a fuck about that. And it is a great (and easier) introduction to him, also including his lauded aphoristic and poetic style, which shines through even in translation. Roughly in order, Beyond Good and Evil, The Genealogy of Morality, and The Anti-Christ are also great (and, again, easier to read, parse and interpret) works of his that also can function as introductions. If you were going chronologically, you’d start with The Birth of Tragedy, but this is itself a strange one and which Nietzsche later discounts. For all that, it’s still the early work of a genius, and the Apollonian/Dionysian dichotomy of his still a wonderfully thought-provoking dichotomy in the context of Western continental philosophy and literary and artistic criticism. Nietzsche even later came to dub himself ‘Dionysus’ (besides ‘the Crucified One’!) in his post Jena/Turin letters with his nervous breakdown! Showing how much influence Dionysus, at least (and hence ‘the Dionysian’), continued to exert on his later thought, even if only largely subconsciously, before it burst into his addled consciousness with his infamously tragic nervous breakdown.And no … I am not a ‘Nietzschean’! (Whatever the fuck that means, and as if Nietzsche even wanted that or conceived of that.)
>>23299026I'd read the four Untimely Meditations long-form essays first, particularly the essays on Schopenhauer as Educator, and The Use and Abuse of History. Nietzsche is as creative as ever here but in a normal, scholarly mode.
>>23299026Genealogy of Morals is pretty good and readable in my opinion
>>23299136I make this clear (meaningless or redundant as it may seem to some) because there are legitimately some mentally, socially, emotionally, and/or spiritually retarded people here who don’t actually care about serious thought, the history&canon of serious thought, and figures thereof like Nietzsche beyond … le MEMES. E.g. “Nietzsche was LE PHYSICALLY WEAK AND DISABLED RETARD WHO HAD A MENTAL BREAKDOWN AND DIED OF SYPHILIS (LIKELY)???!!! YET HE URGED LE MASTER MORALITY???!!! LMAO!!! WHAT A CHUD AND INCEL YOU MUST BE TO LISTEN OR CARE ABOUT THIS MADMAN’S RAMBLINGS! KEK!!!” (Of course, all said while not even having enough brain-stem capacity to realize Nietzsche’s philosophy was many times significantly different from and obviously diverged from ideologies like Social Darwinism and the National Socialism of the Third Reich.)Basically … YOU ARE FUCKING RETARDED. How??? … just watch this short video!!! Happy hunting and cheers. (Heidegger, luckily, was even MORE intelligent and well-read, yet simultaneously more obscure in meaning than Nietzsche, such that people can’t even easily latch onto some coherent stereotype and caricature of him they can hence use to dismiss him, besides the cheap silly potshots of his being ‘yet another Continental-philosophy obscurantist and typical German philosophical babbler’ or even ‘le Nazi’ [which he was not, or far from, anyway], which hence means it’s harder to ‘make fun of’ Heidegger and hence idiotically bring him into semi-public purview on shitholes and cesspools like /lit/, opening him to the mockery of ‘they “They”’, as he would call it, as even KNOWING something of Heidegger, and enough to make fun of or insult/caricature him, is actually already more intelligent and somewhat dull and time-consuming than what the masses can even bear bearing through for their dopamine-hits. But even a goddamn retard can understand what some caricature of what Nietzsche is saying, and then themselves caricature this caricature, is what I’m saying.)Anyway, I try not to be as resentful as I might sound like I am. As Zarathustra himself might say,’Thus I WILLED it!’ (in response to the suffering of dealing with people’s retardation.) ‘Amor fati’and all that. The impulse of revenge (and closely allied sentiments of resentment and ressentiment) as one of the vices Nietzsche maligns the most (surprising as that may sound to you, with your possible simplified caricaturized view of Nietzsche), his idea of retroactively interpreting one’s own personal history and biography to wipe out this sentiment, instead retroactively redeeming and justifying everything, from the sufferings, injuries and insults one has faced, to the misdeeds and vices one has guilt over, with a ‘love of (one’s) fate.’ There is some really great stuff you can take out of Nietzsche, and you can even take these bits and use them for yourself without being some caricature of a ‘Nietzschean’.
>>23299026Ecce homo and then start in chronological order
>>23299177Heidegger is neither so easy nor nearly so (therefore) 'fun to read' as Nietzsche; and that Nietzsche's philosophy is every bit as difficult is beside the point. The fact is that Nietzsche, like Emerson, has an intimate, sermonizing style of writing; he makes his readers feel as if he addresses them directly (whereas with Heidegger one feels as if one *observes* a weird little man wrestling with an incredibly abstract problem-- by himself, through himself, and for himself), ..perhaps on a porch somewhere after dinner, wildly gesticulating into the evening, very sure about what he feels he *must* impart, etc. And, as (you) say>There is some really great stuff you can take out of NietzscheAnd this is precisely what people have done and continue to do, from trans-activists to neo-Nazis, and whoever's in-between or even beyond those margins. *Because* he's so widely read he's 'fated' as a public character often to be the subject of memes, cheap shots, and (let's face it) 'timely' historical speculations (race, sexual orientation, diet, psychological reduction, etc.) and this is not at all because he's not read; in fact, he is read, very much 'in general,' unlike Heidegger. What protects Heidegger from such treatment is that hardly anybody reads him.
>>23299026
>>23299026You won't understand Nietzsche if you don't under Schopenhauer, which, in turn, you also need to learn about German idealism.And before German idealism, you need to understand Christian philosophy. And guess what? Before you read that you need to know ancient philosophy, too. That's right, you fucking start with the Greeks.
>>23299026>read the gay science, alright I get this, nice little concise overview of his burgeoning views>start the will to power>what in the fuck is this guy talking about >alright slowly get it>starts to repeat himself over and over again>read blurb>it's a collection of notes his sister put togethershould I drop it and read zarathustra or twilight of the idols or something?
>>23299026Nope, reading Zarathustra is THE Nietzsche test.
>>23299136>>23299177>>23299312I enjoyed reading these posts.
>>23299026Birth Of Tragedy.By all means do not start with Thus Spake Zarathustra
>>23299544Shit. okay recs for the greeks?
>>23299892You should check out the archives (warosu). Read Homer and Plato's dialogues, or at least the shorter ones + republic and an intro to the history of philosophy (Peter Adamson is comfy, you can also listen to his podcasts).Also, please don't turn insufferable after reading Nietzsche and know that you probably will overlook much on your first readings. I would also recommend to get familiar with his background as philologist.
Skip Nietzsche and just read Girard
>>23299892For the sake of understanding Neitzsche? Absolutely the tragedies of Sophocles. Neitzsche assumed you have actual experience of tragedy as an art form, and wrote the Birth to address an audience assumed to have some familiarity with it.
>>23299807;-)
>>23299026I started with Geneology of Morals, a lot of people say you shouldn't start with that or Beyond Good and Evil (currently reading), but I did and I still find him enjoyable. Twilight of the Idols is a great alternative starting point though.
>>23301975Twilight is a great starting option, indeed!
what parts did the nazis take from Nietzche?
>>23299544>You won't understand Nietzsche if...Pseud cope
>>23304353>zoomer who just needs constant gratification >thinks all things should be understood in a 1 minute tiktok >trying to have a deeper understanding is “a pseud”
>>23301975I just found GoM and BG&E a bit hard but yeah I think you can start multiple places
>>23299991>Skip one of the most influential philosophers of all timeBad advice.
>>23299026>>23299026Start with the antichrist, it's working for me.I dropped into anti-christ from nothing and I'm doing pretty good. But, to be pretty honest. I have a cliff notes version of what his terms roughly mean.Although he already tells you everything you need to know in the book itself.
>>23299136>The Gay ScienceQue surprise!
>>23304490Seconded.
>>23299026Read the New Testament with an open mind and realize Nietzsche did not have any genuinely worthwhile insights as to faith and that his works amount to amateur commentary on what greater minds have said before him.
>>23304696He literally proved why Christianity is obsolete and buried it. Christianity hasn't recovered and nobody made a worthwhile rebuttal.
>>23304702All he did was affirm his own idiosyncratic values and pointed out the impotence of cultural Christianity (which anyone with an honest mind will not deny).
>>23304696Lmao none of his work his commentary. He rarely sources anything at all. The only people he talks about are Schopenhauer and Wagner, oh and SOCRATES. And that is mostly in BGE.>>23299026If you don't like TSZ, then do BGE and GM, maybe AC after.Nietzsche is a brilliant philosopher and one that is only becoming more relevant as thought progresses.
>>23304747That's underselling it severely.
>>23304696>Nietzsche did not have any genuinely worthwhile insights as to faithNietzsche understood the consequences of what Jesus did better than almost every theologian in Church history. He knew the Christ he rejected, and he was honest and explicit in his rejection of Christ. Nietzsche rejected Christ because he couldn’t believe in a God who offers universal forgiveness. For a lot of Christians, it's easy to just dismiss him outright because of that rejection, but he saw clearly what they fail to recognize or willfully ignore. They can demonize Nietzsche all they want, but as Christians, they agree with his definitions of Jesus Christ and his sacrifice for us more than they disagree with him. While Nietzsche would ultimately reject Christ because of such definitions, as Christians, they confess them (or at least should confess them) as true more than we disagree with him.Nietzsche locates the violence not coming to us from God’s side of the house but to God from our side of the house. We killed him. We stabbed him with our steely knives. We invented new rituals and traditions, new atonement festivals, and cleansing waters of atonement. Jesus was killed by us. Jesus was OUR sacrificial victim. Jesus provided an alternative to the whole history of human sacrifices. Instead of more violence and death, he offered himself as a one-time, all-time atoning sacrifice for the sin of the world; past, present, and always. Instead of violence, he pronounced forgiveness, and so we killed him for it.Nietzsche didn’t reject Jesus Christ’s sacrifice. He rejected the forgiveness that accompanied Jesus’ sacrifice. Nietzsche could not accept that Jesus died to convert murderers into forgivers. That’s why Nietzsche rejected Christ. Therefore, Nietzsche has much to teach us about the reality of being baptized sinners. We confess our belief in a Christ that we simultaneously reject because he takes from us the very thing we assume we cannot live without, our sacrifices. And yet, despite our refusal to accept Jesus as the Christ, he shows us grace and mercy, setting us free so that we may confess: Yes, I pulled my knife out too. I drove the blade up to the hilt. And yes, it’s true; I reject your forgiveness of others even while I beg you to forgive me. But because you sent your Spirit wrapped in words that converted my heart, I believe.Nietzsche was so close to Christ that he stood in the shadow of the cross. But he rejected the divine victim because the forgiveness stretched out on Golgotha was an unacceptable alternative to human history, to our sacred violence and deicidal sacrifice in particular.
