I want to read Nietzsche

Why?

The philosophy of Nietzsche is misinterpreted since his first books. This happens due to the prejudgement that obstruct the mind of "critics" and "historians" of philosophy. Nietzsche is a difficult mind for those who don't dare to question the values on which civilization is based.

They shoudln't read Nietzsche, the so called christians, so the philosopher of [Thus spoke Zarathustra] highlights Christ, but rejects christians, who have been putting in jail the spirit of multitudes with [life]opposing laws.

They shoudln't read Nietzsche, the so called socialist revolutionists, so they put their beliefs on two severe illusions: democratization and [State]. The direct participation of the ignorant masses on the political trascendent decision-making is a horrible error, because the masses are brainless and passable of falling for the demagogy of any "tschandala" speaker; Nietzsche isn't an anarchist, but he considers that the state is a monster so only the Übermensch's [will to power] is able to tame.

They shoudln't read Nietzsche, the so called pacifists, so in war times it's demonstrated the tenacity and determination of those who have the [will to power] and the "sheep for the slaughter"'s luck that will be sacrificed.

They shoudln't read Nietzsche, the so called artists who aim to make his art comprehensible for majorities, but disregard the spiritual elevation and the nakedness of the soul.

The birth of Tragedy helped me a bit to get in his philosophy.

Yeah, some have told me the same. Also, Zarathustra.

Everything NEET-che writes about is a spook and the only thing that really matters is your ego.

>your ego
Who's what, exactly?

I'm not a NEET tho. I just wanted to read him since highschool. Now is the moment.

They shoudln't read Nietzsche, the so called feminists, so these "strange creatures" aim to tangle the social equality of both sexes matter on a sterile discussion. All equality craveness is a tschandala-based degeneration.

They shoudln't read Nietzsche, the so called homosexuals, who are busy craving for social recognition instead of recognizing the tschandala behavior of "more" inclusion. Seeking acceptance is neglecting or lacking self-assertion, it's being decadent.

They shoudln't read Nietzsche, the so called intelectuals, who are used to stay inside the fold and eat the same grass everyday.

They shoudln't read Nietzsche, those who wish for a hint on his mind, to think that the Übermensche is a racial matter. The element who distinguish the Übermensch from the others is not the race, but the transvaluation of consuetudinary values; then, the Übermensche is a matter of [vitalist](Nietzsche edition) actions and [will to power] behavior, instead of racial nor sexual basis.

They shoudln't read Nietzsche, those who aren't determined to be a part of the minority and just look for approval from the majority.

Since the "The birth of Tragedy"'s publication, philosophers only had tried to criticize Nietzsche with decadent arguments, as expected of mental mediocrity, and haven't thought of the possibility of looking from the eyes of Zarathustra to the whole humanity, and end the centuries of lies accepted as immutable truth.

Stirner is just a fucking Veeky Forums meme, ignore the memes.

The problem with Nietzsche is that there is so much philosophic-historic context that reading him on your own is basically a waste of time but he's also the most controversial philospher ever so there's no agreed upon standard and people are still arguing over what the fucker actually meant, so any commentary is just going to be a point of view among many.

I'm not a Nietzsche expert but Deleuze wrote what it is maybe the most famous Nietzsche commentary (Nietzsche and Philosophy). Maybe start there?

>he's also the most controversial philospher
>so much philosophic-historic context
>waste of time
Really?

Do you mean, there are a lot of concepts and elements which are based on past philosophers right?

>Do you mean, there are a lot of concepts and elements which are based on past philosophers right?

Yes, nobody develops ideas out of a vacuum and there often is an implicit context that the readership (at the time) is just assumed to know but most of it is probably not obvious to you. This really goes for reading most philosophical texts on your own but especially for Nietzsche, I think. Maybe some other user can recommend some other commentary. You're not going to get the full picture at once anyways, so I don't think it really matters which one.

You said Deleuze's analysis is the way to go?

I don't know which one is more accurate. I want to avoid the generalization authors, which tend to prejudge his writings.

>The problem with Nietzsche is that there is so much philosophic-historic context that reading him on your own is basically a waste of time

Nah, not a waste of time. Plus, most modern editions of his books have a chapter explaining the historical context, where certain ideas first emerged and so on. Stirner is a Veeky Forums meme, but he and Nietzsche have basically the same gist, especially EcceHomo-Nietzsche. If you want to understand Nietzsche, the actual order in which his books came out is pretty good, but in hindsight I'd read The Gay Science after Zarathustra since it helps clarify a lot of the ideas exposed there and explains certain others even better.

Sure, you could read Deleuze's stuff, but that's like reading about how football developed instead of just going out and playing. So just go for it senpai. Personally I'm a bit biased since he's one of my favorites and his works actually changed my whole life, but his stuff is definitely worth reading, even though it may be a bit confusing at first.

The Genealogy of Morals is probably your best bet.

That said, you should be very careful when reading it. It's easy to miss or fail to appreciate some very key ideas - in part because Nietzsche occasionally mentions them in a very passing manner.

As to why, part of the reason is that it's a book he didn't really want to write. Beyond Good and Evil only sold around 100 copies at the beginning - his publisher said that people just weren't "getting" his ideas/work, and encouraged him to write a sort of introductory work. There are times when Nietzsche loses sight of this, and writes as if he's addressing people who know what he's talking about, or who are familiar with his terminology/phrases/etc.

It was a very easy read for me, but then the Genealogy of Morals was actually one of his last works that I read.

>The problem with Nietzsche is that there is so much philosophic-historic context that reading him on your own is basically a waste of time

People who insist upon secondary texts are the fucking worst. In general, it's a stupid trend. Not only do you imply/presuppose the reader's stupidity, but you also create a culture whereby people feel they absolutely *must* have their hands held as they read great works.

The trouble arises when you consider that, once upon a time, the authors of these secondary works did not have that luxury - luxury being the operative term, not one in the same with necessity.

Start with The Gay Science

Wow, thanks. This will help me.

I'll read it.

Thanks guys.

Deleuze's analysis is radically different from most people's readings. He wrote several books concerning the history of philosophy (one on Hume, Spinoza, Leibniz, etc.) and purposefully introduced interpretations of the works that were radically different from anything before seen. The book on Nietzsche is the best example of this, and it is truly a very difficult book because of it. Nietzsche and Philosophy was not written as a secondary source for helping new readers understand Nietzsche; it is its own work of philosophy and will not be enjoyable or educational without first understanding the philosophy with which it engages. Instead, read the first thing Nietzsche published: The Birth of Tragedy. The middle portion is the best. While his thinking changed and matured through time, this is the book that brought Nietzsche into the limelight and contains themes that are important to his work until the end. Not only that, but its subject is Nietzsche's first passion, Greek tragedy and philology, and it shows in the writing. There are many ways to read Nietzsche, but why not save the abstract parts for when you have a better understanding of the writer himself?

It's not a stupid trend, it's the reality of not living in the 19th century (or whenever) and knowing all the context that was obvious to the audience of the time, which was other academics with both classic training in literature, philosophy, indepth knowledge of the romans, greeks etc. and the literature that was the hot new shit at the time. Just as an example I encountered recently, Wolf was really fundamental for Kant's philosophy and it is implied that the reader is familiar with his works but few people have read Wolf and without secondary literature you wouldn't even know that context.

The authors of the secondary texts, unlike the reader, also went through years of academic training and probably spent years, maybe decades, of their life just working with that one particular author. Unless you are also investing that time, how are you going to understand the text as well as them?

What are some more "mainstream" readings of Nietzsche then? Genuinly curious, haven't really gotten into him.

I just want to add, philosophy is also always a dialogue, even spergs like Nietzsche didn't come up with their stuff in a vacuum. If you aren't reading it in a class with other people (or discuss it on /li/), secondary literature is the only way to get someone else's (who spent far more time on the text than you) perspective on the text. Acting like you can just "get" a highly dense, abstract, complex work that someone spent years on in one reading without context or secondary input just seems incredibly arrogant to me. Of course, on the internet there's race where everyone reads the Phenomenology in one go, but in real life everyone that has spent more than 5 minutes on philosophy will tell you to get some commentary.

Nice. I was planning to do that.

Maybe, I should try reading him, then read the comments?

As with anything, I recommend reading side by side, maybe even going back and forth between the original and the commentary. Yes, it takes time and is cumbersome but that's the nature of working (not just reading the words but putting them to work in your mind) with highly abstract texts.

What I meant is that if you read the scholarship of people like Kaufmann or Hollingdale you are not going to see anything close to what Deleuze has to say. There are certain "concepts," as Deleuze would say, that stand out from reading Nietzsche; it can be regressive to use buzzwords too much but a main one in Nietzsche and Philosophy is the Eternal Return (Deleuze's reading of the Eternal Return takes some liberties, let's just say). Deleuze believed that a philosopher is someone who actively creates "concepts" as reactions to problems with society (which are always there.) Someone who merely spouts opinions about pre-existing concepts is not doing philosophy, he is rattling about nothing. So what is means to be Nietzschean is to believe that there are problems in todays world which, once you've dealt with the transferal of the concepts into todays times and language, can be dealt with and thought about using Nietzsche's concepts. All that to say that when the average, intelligent person reads Nietzsche, there are certain aspects that become immediately apparent. But Deleuze compares the process of becoming a philosopher to that of a painter; the young Van Gogh mainly painted portraits and used earth tones before he established his own style, when he started using color and painting landscapes. Nietzsche and Philosophy is one of Deleuze's many attempts to paint a portrait, his masterworks and "style" come later when he has developed. Therefore, his work on Nietzsche was not necessarily expected to be as successful as it was, but (in my own opinion) that is merely a foretelling of the genius of Deleuze. Even his groundworks are challenging and fresh.

Sorry to digress so much, if you want to see mainstream interpretations of Nietzsche just look at mainstream sources. There is a lot to cover, but what I meant by "mainstream" are the parts of Nietzsche that trickle down into society's greater consciousness, the parts that have been influential in their own right.

Disregard all French post-modern/psychoanalytical hacks.

Is this true?
I skipped everything post-Nietzsche, but Ortega y Gasset, and I felt like most of those post-modernist are like this.
It's mostly axiom basis, wordplaying about psychological implication mind worlds.

Yes. You can comfortably ignore Deleuze/Lacan/Sartre/Derrida/Foucault/etc and not be any poorer for it. On the contrary, you can even end up richer.

Historically, the French were pretty good at philosophy. Several of Nietzsche's key influences are French.

That stops being true from the 20th century onward, however.

>skip what i don't like, u will even become more smar just like me
Well that's like your opinion man.
I've found great "rich" things in Deleuze, Lacan and Foucault. You wouldn't know though, you've skipped them.

>I've found great "rich" things in Deleuze, Lacan and Foucault.

If continental obscurantism qualifies as "rich" in your world, then I dread to think of what qualifies as "poor."

I didn't try to say it like that.

It just felt like that as a highschooler.

Is it not enriching to see through what you once thought to be simply obscure?

Poverty is dread of it.

>I've found great "rich" things in Deleuze, Lacan and Foucault.
The 20th century marked the death of philosophy.

If you are so triggered, pull that trigger froggy.

You know I'm right. There haven't been any significant developments over the past 100 years other than Wittgenstein.