The only philosopher I find interesting is Nietzsche. Will I be well read if I only read his stuff?

I'm not even sure it makes sense to call Nietzsche a philosopher. He had little to say about being or consciousness. Most of his work was social criticism and psychology.

Virgin detected

Chad detected

>little to say about Being
LOL
>little to say about consciousness
my god is that what people really think the goal of philosophy is now?

>Will I be well read if I only read his stuff?
By definition of that phrase, no, you won't be. To be well read means to have read and be informed of a variety.

>He had little to say about being or consciousness.
Are you kidding? He says an immense amount on this.

>my god is that what people really think the goal of philosophy is now?
What else would it be, other than the great mysteries which science cannot get at: being, consciousness, time, why there is anything instead of nothing, and so on?
>Are you kidding? He says an immense amount on this.
Not from what I recall, and I read pretty much everything he ever published.

Okay, i feel like most people commenting on this thread are retarded and the few people that are smart on lit took this as bait, so they aren't commenting. Nietzsche was more of a philologist than a philosopher. He wasn't well read on a lot of contemporary philosophical discussions for his time, instead he was more interested in the greeks and trying to analyze western society through its greek roots. If you don't have a notion of philosophers like Plato, and the greek tragedies you probably won't get why Nietzsche is so great like most of the brainlets in this thread. If you still want to read Nietzsche after what you just read, try to at least read a book that can give you context with the two topics mentioned above.

>the great mysteries which science cannot get at: being, consciousness, time, why there is anything instead of nothing, and so on?
This "head in the clouds" philosophy is not relevant for two reasons:
1. Impossible to prove/disprove or test in any way
2. Has no impact on life

It's basically mental masturbation that allows you to sound smart without ever saying anything controversial, without ever taking a stance on anything important.

>the chamber of consciousness is very small
He wasn't doing analytic philosophy of mind if that's what you mean, but he had plenty to say about the power of drives and forces in the constitution of the subject. As you said above, he did plenty of psychology. Freud said he had to stop reading N so as to avoid plagiarizing. Sure the words "consciousness" or "mental states" or "qualia" don't come up, but it's there

You clearly haven't read it or weren't able to understand it and if you want a response to your question, just look at the philosophy page in wikipedia, that type of reading is more your speed.

Oh and after you do, start with the birth of tragedy

start with the Greeks faggot

>calls other people retarded
>doesn't know Nietzsche read Kant extensively and lectured on him in his early years
>regularly writes about the Cartesian subject and blows it out of the water
>signficant portions of BGE and TI are directed at major figures throughout the history of philosophy
>doesn't agree with Deleuze's claim that the measure of a philosopher's interaction with other thinkers is not based on references in footnotes, but rather the polemical direction of the concepts (i.e., Nietzsche was writing directly against Hegel)

>Not from what I recall, and I read pretty much everything he ever published.
Stop lying through your teeth. You don't have a fucking clue about Nietzsche. Go read his Will to Power and everything he ever wrote about eternal recurrence, will to power, the thing-in-itself, morality etc.

What are you going on about, exactly? Scientists are not philosophers. Philosophers reign supreme when it comes to matters of addressing and understanding ideas.

>a philosopher

Pure ideology.

10/10

Reading Kant and knowing about the Cartesian subject doesn't make Nietzsche well read in the philosophical discussions of his time. I don't disagree with Deleuze on that claim at all, I agree completely, i'm not trying to slender Nietzsche's name and idgaf about footnotes or references. I don't agree completely about the Hegel claim but it is known that Nietzsche read Hegel and maybe he was writing directly against him but still, my claim that Nietzsche wasn't well read on the philosophical discussions of his time still stands. The purpose of my comment is that the most relevant philosophy to understand Nietzsche is the ancient greek one, retard.

>everything he ever wrote about eternal recurrence, will to power, the thing-in-itself
A small fraction of his overall output, and from what I can tell he didn't come up with any great ideas along these lines. If I'm wrong, I'd unironically like to hear what he innovated. Who knows, maybe I just didn't get it.
>morality
Most of his work on morality approached it from a historical and psychological perspective, not a philosophical one.

>Will to Power
Why do people shill this book when it is universally agreed upon that it intentionally distorts his thought.

the philosophical discussions of his time were almost entirely centered around Hegelian philosophy (and by extension Kantian). He also attacks socialism which was a major movement at the time he was writing, and he was clearly engaging with Darwin and Lamarck. Not to mention his essay On Truth and Lies was heavily influenced by some contemporary essay he read a the time whose name I'm forgetting right now. Yeah of course the Greeks are essential for Nietzsche, but he was well read on the major figures of the 19th century and the conversations that were going on in the academy.

>the core concepts of his philosophy that culminate everything he writes about
>A small fraction of his overall output
>he didn't come up with any great ideas along these lines
Why are you in a philosophy thread when you don't read philosophy?

That hasn't been "universally agreed upon" for decades. You are making a big mistake by not reading it.

the destruction of the thing in itself, or the two world view more generally, would completely alter your way of approaching metaphysics and morality if you accepted it. The will to power offers a completely new way of understanding being/becoming and the its relation to the process of value creation (especially if you accept a Deleuzian reading of active and passive forces).

>destruction of the thing in itself
>dude transcendental idealism is life-denying
truly a great mind to be reconned with

All idealism is mendacity in the face of what is necessary.

so you're that faggot that feels pompously smug after reading off a Nietzsche aphorism

sorry but I don't think you're serious going to be able to get into a real protracted engagement with any worthwhile ideas

>Scientists are not philosophers.
The scientific method was invented by philosophers, and already the Greeks were introducing some rudimentary physical theories, not to mention astronomy and mathematics.

Also there are many branches of understanding outside of hard science - history, sociology, psychology, morality - that philosophers wrote about. Not all philosophy is
>why is there something instead of nothing???
mental masturbation.

>The scientific method was invented by philosophers
Okay, but scientists are not philosophers. They do not deal with the same things. Scientists are specialized.

>Not all philosophy is >why is there something instead of nothing??? mental masturbation.
Are you really implying this is what Nietzsche is?

You are the one criticising Nietzsche for being too "down to earth" (or "not philosophical enough") with his social commentary and psychology.

You're mistaking me for someone else. I'm

If you find Nietzsche interesting, you will necessarily find a good chunk of the Greeks interesting.

OK. Anyway, my point is that philosophers can touch many interesting subjects that are between hard science and "head in the clouds".

1. He talks about Consciousness in The Gay Science, in the section entitled "on the genius of the species.
2. Most modern philosophers up until Heidigger had little to say on the topic of being.

You should familiarize yourself with Hegelian and Kantian philosophy. Throw some Descartes and sprinkle some Plato on top and you should be able to understand his references.

There's only four legit branches of philosophy:
1 - Mind
2 - Language
3 - Aesthetics
4 - Ontology
everything else comes from there

Nietzsche only really contributed to 3 and even that's debatable

> What else would it be, other than the great mysteries which science cannot get at: being, consciousness, time, why there is anything instead of nothing, and so on?
> science cannot get: time, why there is anything instead of nothing, and so on?
> What is physics? What is astronomy?

People who only read Nietzsche are among the most insufferable cunts around.

For a large part because they can't understand him because they have no context and go full nothin personell

In short, start with cave paintings.

It's a fun book but not the best starting point with Nietzsche. Daybreak or The Gay Science are best if you want to start with him.

Embarrassing post

>Greeks
>Nietzsche
>Heidegger
>Leo Strauss

LEL, I really hope your b8ing

Please elaborate.

Yeah, but why is there something rather than nothing?

The beginning of Beyond Good and Evil is pretty sick. Read it while stoned.

That's what I love about Nietzsche, his description of his ideas of adopting virtuousness as an ethical axiomatic foundation...rather than outdated and lesser moralities like christian concepts of "good and evil" and so forth.

I'm still on the Greeks but from what I've gleemed they seem very different from each other

Nietzsche had a love/hate relationship with Schopenhauer. So go read Schopenhauer. You can skip most of the first volume en read the second. He wrote that later in life. Nietzsche on the other hand is the big YES to life.

Schopenhauer was a pessimist who imported Buddhism into western culture. He sad NO to life and thought nirvana was something to strive for. Something Nietzsche thought a denial of the will to live.

No, of course you won't.

You won't be anywhere close to well read.

In fact, you won't even comprehend his works - though you'll believe you did - just like the rest of the pseuds.

Only someone who has no idea what it took to become a man like Nietzsche could ever say that.

They are. They are essentially the dual-founders of Existentialism, however. I recommend William Barret's, "Irrational Man," as an excellent, easy-read summary of Existentialism up to, roughly, Sartre's time. The Kierkegaard and Nietzsche chapters are among the best.

If you want to understand Nietzsche then his personal life is interesting. He couldn’t write sitting down at a table like normal people or for that matter write at all because of constant headache or something. And wrote when walking about town. His fragmented writing style is perhaps a consequence of his ill health.

...

this is complete bullshit

You might like Ernst Junger, he's an outsider and builds upon Nietzsche.
And fuck the poltards appropriating him, Junger hated stormfags.

yes he legit had a 250 iq and even predicted the bugman epidemic of today with his writings on the last man

Icy Calm, the most important thinker of this generation. He single handedly fixed and surpassed all Nietzsche s work

come on op, is this your 1st day here
this is all you need to survive

>implying you could understand what the fuck N-dog is doing without having passing understanding of Christianity and a pretty good handle on Ancient Greek culture.

>got most of the way through my film theory major through, most philosophy pretends to be deep but is easily comprehended in about five sentences
i feel it

Exactly, that's why he is a philosopher and not an autismo contemplating about ontological categories and diluting the most mundane shit

what's a bugman? some sort of nu-male? a soy boy? a cuck?

i can't keep up with the kids

Albert camus

sounds like it, i haven't heard it before though, very likely hes trying to force new terminology.

You'll become fedora at best. He's literally just an introduction to real philosophy for edgy teenagers.

The first reception of Nietzsche was a poet or literary.

Short answer: no.
But if you are truly interested in the ideas that Nietzsche wrestle with in his writings, it's hard to see how you'll not find other thinkers interesting. Unless you are only attracted to the cult of Nietzsche's persona, that is. The association with Nietzsche as 'the grand overthrower' that feed into some (mostly angsty teens) peoples image of 'that cool person I want to be'

>Only someone who has no idea what it took to become a man like Nietzsche could ever say that.

A man who wrote philosophy just to feed his delusions so he didn't kill himself only to end up a useless broken man anyway?

bazinga

I think it's a testament to N. importance that hundreds of years later he still elecits such strong reactions.
>A man who wrote philosophy just to feed his delusions so he didn't kill himself
Like every other writer/philosopher. And a good number of them ends up killing themselves anyway.