Want to read Nietzsche, but I haven't read any philosophy before

Want to read Nietzsche, but I haven't read any philosophy before.

What sort of stuff do I need to read in order to get to a level where I can comprehend it?

Pic unrelated

Start with the fucking Greeks you stupid fuck, the Greeks ,the fucking Greeks start with them you stupid cunt, read them and don't post here until you read enough of them you'll know when you fucking idiot

History of Philosophy.net and Kaufman is all you need.

This poster is a bitter lesbian and probably has read zero philosophy outside Nietzsche. The exact definition of an untermensch and the type of advice you don't want to listen to

Why the FUCK do you want to read Nietzsche as your first philosophy work?

>Why the FUCK do you want to read Nietzsche as your first philosophy work?
I don't want to read him first, I want to read him eventually because of his impact on modern history, politics, and philosophy.

Nietzsche is more like anti-philosophy.
It's like learning all about food and cooking only to read from a guy that says that food fucking sucks.

He appeals to two groups: those who've studied a lot of philosophy and those who've studied none

Is that a bad thing? Philosophy isn't immune from criticism.

Critizing philosophy usually uses philosophy to do so

That's because "philosophy" is such a broad term that it's almost meaningless.

How about instead of reading useless shit whixh doesnt help you you start doing something productive for soxiety and enjoy your life

you have to start at the top and go down my boy

t. people who don't read philosophy

>doing something productive for society
Spooky.

>AND enjoy your life
Woah woah hold on there buddy. How do you expect anyone to "enjoy their life" when most of their time is eaten up by sitting in an office all day "doing something productive for society"?

Read some Emerson works. Self Reliance and Conduct of Life we're what inspired Nietzsche in the first place

You'll be reading works that only are pointed in context of critiquing modern philosophy. It would be like jumping into post-modern art without knowing what they're replying to. Especially for a writer like Neitzche, who leans heavily on figurative language and poetic prose, you'd be like a bird lost at sea, unable to figure out where you are since you can't see the land.

I'm not bitter, though I have every reason to be, I simply don't bother with it much these day. I've reached a sort of Epicurean stoicism. Ataraxia.

I have read The Ego and It's Own and of course plenty of anarchist philosophy

>The exact definition of an untermensch and the type of advice you don't want to listen to
What does this mean though?

This, and I would also recommend studying the names of anyone Nietzsche mentions, and maybe finding a reading group or forum. If any criticism Nietzsche provides seems odd or interesting to you then you ought to familiarize yourself with that philosopher / philosophy.

>Epicurean stoicism

Just dive in user! If you want to start at his apex, read Zarathustra first, and if you want to start at his more modest beginnings, best to begin with Daybreak.

For supplementary reading for a first timer, for context I'd say Diogenes Laertius' "Eminent Lives", Goethe's "Faust", and Byron's "Manfred" would be the most helpful, and for work on Nietzsche, the Kaufmann book "Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist" is fairly essential (for all its faults), but I would also highly recommend that you get yourself a copy of Lou Salome's "Nietzsche" (really the most essential book written about Nietzsche imo) and also the short work by Peter Sloterdijk, "Nietzsche Apostle".

But Fuck tha hatez: Nietzsche is a great place to start with philosophy. You can read him over and over and always find another meaning, a further hint and glancing wink. There may be much that you don't grasp at first, but there will certainly be some and if you keep at it, more will become clear in time.

It's ataraxia, user. Don't blow a gasket.

You do know that Epicurus was against Stoicism, and the Stoics against Epicureanism, right?

It's the study of life. It's not meaningless, it's the most meaningful practice there is.

This. Stop coming up with autistic reading plans and just dig in and read. That's what you would be doing already if you were ACTUALLY interested in Nietzsche.

If you were not a brainlet you couldve come up with a better argument that at least i could debunke it something that hasnt become a meme

Yes, and for good reason. Their method was flawed. The state they want is a sort of toughness, to be a rock, unphased.
Epicurus was about the calmness of a human.

But what state was Nietzsche getting at?
I've made my own of it.
Pardon the poetic license.

Then why not just say you're an Epicurean, instead of something nonsensical?

Why the fuck are German writers so fucking hard to read? Nietzsche, Hegel, Heidegger, Spengler, and Goethe, they all seem to be unable to write a sentence without pulling out a thesaurus and using grammar so complicated you need to draw out a fucking truth table to untangle the triple negatives and subordinate clauses within subordinate clauses within subordinate clauses. Am I the only one that's noticed this?

no h8 but a professor of mine said nietzsche was like that because he didn't want his work to be understood too concretely and used as an ideology. sort of to lead people to their own conclusions.

Because German translates terribly into English, I assume.

Thats a good thing loser

>needing prerequisite read
Why are guys so afraid to read and think for yourselves?

I know you're being ironic, but probably something about them being intellectually insecure and needing to prove themselves by "correctly" reading big boy books, instead of simply engaging in the hobby of reading because they enjoy it, find it enriching, etc.

I see it's done wonders for you

"bingo", said a dog wearing the mirror dog tag


was his name-o

that makes sense but how about hegel, heidegger and spengler
honestly kant is also impossible to read