What would you guys say should be read before Nietzsche and Kierkegaard?
I've been taking an online course on Kierkegaard, and got a bit on Socrates through that. So I'm finally getting more into the Greeks with plays, Homeric epics and hymns, and Plato.
What's most important to read in the gap between the ancients and modern philosophers?
sages of Veeky Forums halp pls
Kierkegaard
>some understanding of Hegel, Descartes, Kant, the greeks, Spinoza, Fichte and Schlegel
>Socrates, specially early Plato's dialogues
>his thesis on Irony is REALLY important to understand his other books
>Goethe
Nietzsche
>Schopenhauer
>Dostoevsky
>Greeks
>Montaigne
>some understanding of Hegel, Descartes, Kant, Leibniz and Spinoza
>Goethe
any further knowledge is nice for both. But I think that's enough
And I guess it's implied you have to know some of the Bible too, for both.
thanks. the course is mostly on The Concept of Irony, so I have been getting into that with excepts and lectures and decided I'm going to read it all.
i know plenty from when i was Christian so i got that going for me
Thanks for the helpful list user.
if anyone wants the course, its on coursera, from the University of Copenhagen
I know this course. Jon Stewart's one, right?
You are in good hands. Kierkegaard and Nietzsche were just tired of systematic philosophy, so they both came up with a "pathos-philosophy".
I forgot to add Feuerbach (The Essence of Christianity) and Lessing to K's list.
yeah its Stewart's. Great!
Deleuze wrote a fantastic book on Nietzsche, probably on of the best philosophy books I've ever read, that you should read if you're really interested in understanding his system.
The thing with Nietzsche is that he was extremely well read, so his influences are pretty broad, it would be rather exhaustive to read everything he argues against, and everything that's shaped his arguments. If you go with the Deleuze book, you'll be fine to jump right into Nietzsche. I would recommend chronologically
>The thing with Nietzsche is that he was extremely well read
he wasn't, though. Not so much. He didn't read Hegel, for example. Or Kant.
But he, as a philologist, read deeply each book he had read.
>he didn't read Hegel
lmao the whole concept of genealogy is to counter Hegel's dialectic. Nietzsche's critique on the Last Men was an attack on Hegelian influenced nihilism and egoism, particularly Hegelian thinkers like Stirner. Nietzsche understood Hegelian dialectics very well, after all he spent most of his career attacking Hegel's system
>Or Kant
I can't say for certain, because I moved recently and only took a few of my books, but I'm pretty sure there's a section in the Gay Science where Nietzsche directly refers to the categorical imperative; at least if not naming it, refuting it.
soooo
should i read like an introductory sort of thing to Hegel and Kant or just pick up each of their most important works...which I've heard to be crazy difficult. How hard would you guys say they are in comparison to Kierkegaard, whom I've read a bit from so far?
How familiar are you with philosophy? It's probably better if you are familiar with their ideas, since they're the ideas Nietzsche and Kierkegaard are mainly reaction to. Deleuze will refer to Hegel and Kant directly when he thinks it relevant for Nietzsche, so if you read his introduction you might be able to understand which concepts you could directly link back to their thought. Stanford Internet Encyclopedia and a bit of patience could get you through it.
In terms of difficulty, Kant and Hegel are considered Western philosophy's most challenging thinkers to tackle directly, which means luckily there's no shortage in secondary material. Deleuze has even written a short book on Kant too. Kierkegaard and Nietzsche are both difficult in their own rights, but in very different ways than the way Hegel and Kant are difficult. When reading Nietzsche and Kierkegaard, you have to consider their works as much literature as philosophy. Probably the largest barrier for the two is deciphering Nietzsche's symbolism and disentangling Kierkegaard's irony. The simplest way to put it is that Nietzsche and Kierkegaard are philosophers that utilize rhetorical and poetical devices to their subtlest and fullest capabilities.
Kant and Hegel are hard because their philosophical systems are like learning a new language alongside the concepts. If you're not interested in the idealists for the sake of idealism, just try to get the general sense you need to understand Nietzsche. You'd understand almost all subsequent philosophers a bit better, but if you're not willing to sink in the time to really know the concepts, and to really understand the language, it'll just seem like abstract sophistry
I see. Not very familiar with philosophy yet. I'll seek out the Deleuze books, SEP, and search around for some good intro material on Kant/Hegel. Thanks again!
>lmao the whole concept of genealogy is to counter Hegel's dialectic. Nietzsche's critique on the Last Men was an attack on Hegelian influenced nihilism and egoism, particularly Hegelian thinkers like Stirner. Nietzsche understood Hegelian dialectics very well, after all he spent most of his career attacking Hegel's system
That's all correct, except he only knew his philosophy by other authors (Kant by Schopenhauer, for example). Of course, we can never know for sure what he did in fact read, but he didn't have any Hegel's books. Unless he borrowed, and there is no record of this.
I guess Kant he did read little, but he main critics were based in what Kant and Hegel influenced, not in their philosophy per se.
Just like Kierkegaard didn't attack Hegel's philosophy, but only the hegelians.
My point is, N. can have read Hegel's work, or Kant's, but probably very little.
If you think N.'s attacks are for people such as Paul, Socrates, Plato, Hegel and Kant, I suggest you read him again. Pay more attetion this time. N. never attacks people, only the 'type' (I don't know how it was translated in English), how these figures were represented (and their philosophy representation and reception).
That is fucking wrong. He read Hegel but not deeply and he read Kant. He read actually lots of shit. His library was pretty big.
I hadn't read this post.
So, I guess you understand that N. attacked more the other's philosphers main ideas than their books?
That said, I guarantee you there is no need to read Hegel's, or Kant's, or Descarte's works to refute them, because you are not refuting them, you are refuting their ideas around you, their representation.
Based on N.'s bookshelf (For what I remember he had only the first Kant's Critic, and there is no record of him reading it - only very little notes, like he had only read the prefaces. And there is no Hegel's book and no record of N. borrowing it), it's concluded that he had never studied their books, only their ideas by second source.
Of course, you may be right that he was well read on those, but, due to the data we have, probably not.
I can be wrong, no doubt of that. Just saying what I remember from a course I attended in University.
If you have the source for that, I would gladly look at it.
You don't need to be FUCKING mad about it.
:)
His letters for one.
>Hmm interesting.
>The data suggests that Nietzsche may have taken 2 shits on the day of August 18th, 1871.
>This is vitally important to TRULY forming a holistic understanding of his Apollonian and Dionysian division.
Is there anything more retarded than exegesis?
You read the book, you get the message. I can't believe how hard you guys fall for the "you have to read book A to understand book B" meme. Keep spending thousands at uni, tools.
If you read TGS you would have read some of his explicit comments on Hegel. I believe it is in book five. His comments make it clear that he did have some decent familiarity with Hegel (beyond what I personally would expect of a secondary source reading) but one of the points he makes against Hegel is actually covered in the preface to phenomenology of the spirit. So either he skipped the preface or didn't read carefully, or both. I'd assume he skimmed phenomenology of the spirit at best.
I'm almost certain that Nietzsche read the critique of pure reason mostly because Schopenhauer fucking tells you to and he was all over Schop's cock for the early part of his productive life. I doubt he delved into Kant past that though. His criticism of Kant is relentless and deep but not comprehensive, he takes very broad sweeps at the foundations rather than needling away at each peripheral point. And half of the time he just calls him a Chink from Konigsberg.
Honestly for Nietzsche all you need is Heraclitus, Plato, Aristotle and the Bible plus secondary source understanding of the Enlightenment and the Idealists. Almost all of his attacks are aimed at the foundations of philosophy (namely Plato) so when he strikes other philosophers it's kind of collateral damage.
I have read TGS, specially book 5, and didn't feel this decent familiarity with Hegel you say. For what I remember he says Hegel's name to talk about the german, their "can do great, but stil doesn't do it" thing. Just like with Kant and Luthero, as it is in 357 and 370, I think.
I'll check it, though. Always nice to see someone with a different perspective
>So either he skipped the preface or didn't read carefully, or both. I'd assume he skimmed phenomenology of the spirit at best.
That sounds very plausible. What I meant (sorry if it wasn't so clear) is that his knowledge on both Kant and Hegel was mostly due to second source. Not excluding the idea of him reading some or little of both work's. But again, I can be wrong.
>Heraclitus
Forgot to add this too, OP.