Lurk lit

>lurk lit
>decide to read some nietzsche
>buy "beyond good and evil"
>don't understand a single sentence

Anyone else 70 IQ here? How can I learn to understand this style of writing?

Start with the

G R E E K S
R K
E E
E E
K R
S K E E R G

Start with the...

Practice. Consistent effort. Multiple readings. SparkNotes/cliff notes for guidance. Read other people's thoughts on Nietzsche's work.

It takes times. Eventually his writing flows in your mind and you can follow his metaphors and bombastic aphorisms in a coherent manner.

Power through, try to think what it is he's trying to say. Read the entire thing.

Speed read him.

Is beyond good and evil the best starting point? I'm looking to get into Nietzsche, but a friend of mine said twilight of the idols would be better.

>start with the greeks
nietzche references his influences (literally Dionysus in his case) as well as comtemporary christian philosophy
modern philosophers reference nietzche
if you begin at the beginning (in this case, the greeks are as close as we can get) you'll have a good foundation to understanding western philosophy

>Is beyond good and evil the best starting point?
No, well in a way yes, but you need to read at least the pre-socratics and Plato, and have a general understanding of the history of philosophy/christianity. Nietzsche taught Greek philosophy for years before he published his own work, and when he did it was on the Greeks (also happens to be his best imo, BGE is fun but structurally a mess). There is no point in reading a lot of his work without an understanding of what he responds to, the beginning of BGE if I remember is a polemic on Plato. Don't be that moron who started philosophy with Nietzsche, the guy who deconstructs philosophy and religion, it's so fucking dumb, none of it will have any impact on you, for instance
from the first chapter "On the prejudices of philosophers"

>The will to truth that still seduces us into taking so many risks, this famous truthfulness that all philosophers so far have talked about with veneration: what questions this will to truth has already laid before us!
or
>Suppose that truth is a woman – and why not? Aren’t there reasons for suspecting that all philosophers, to the extent that they have been dogmatists, have not really understood women? That the grotesque seriousness of their approach towards the truth and the clumsy advances they have made so far are unsuitable ways of pressing their suit with a woman?
or from the next page
>The stiff yet demure tartuffery used by the old Kant to lure us along the clandestine, dialectical path that leads the way (or rather: astray) to his “categorical imperative” – this spectacle provides no small amusement for discriminating spectators like us, who keep a close eye on the cunning tricks of the old moralists and preachers of morals. Or even that hocus pocus of a mathematical form used by Spinoza to arm and outfit his philosophy (a term which, when all is said and done, really means “his love of wisdom”) and thus, from the very start, to strike terror into the heart of the attacker who would dare to cast a glance at the unconquerable maiden and Pallas Athena:

If you aren't familiar with philosophers then this doesn't mean anything to you, so don't read it.

You cant start there, go with something easy that interests you, maybe some fiction that is constantly mocked here.

This desu