I'm reading pic related and it's the first time i've ready anything by nietzsche

don't. neechee is when you graduate from being an edgelord.

this isnt an introduction to his philosophy... its the endpoint

So where's the beginning?

I thought Kirkegaard was the supreme edgelord.

>I thought Kirkegaard was the supreme edgelord.
Why would you think that?

>literally created the idea of angst
>writes about endlessly laughing at the "true nature of the world"
>believes life is inherently pointless and everyone else is absurd and only he understands reality

You watched the school of life video on Kierkegaard

Most of the parables are straight forward as long as you put a little thought into it. Though there are some parts, such as the chapter on the eternal recurrence, that are quite abstract. Just read it like you'd read the bible. If all else fails, look up a chapter analysis guide to help you along.

>using Der Wanderer über dem Nebelmeer as a cover for a nietzsche book

jesus fucking christ. that publishing house should quit.

Why?

It's an excellent painting and captures much of the Nietzschean spirit.

yes, its an excellent painting and its artistic and philisophical merit is not comparable to "nietzsches spirit" in my opinion.

It's great but it's also a reference piece for german romanticism. See the problem?

>Freedom
>Climbing alone to the top of the mountain and seeing the wast chaos under you
>The civilized man, ripped out of civilization, brought face2face with the giants (nature, nihilism, and so on)
Literally a very decent choice. There are better paintings, but Der Wanderer really fits the theme and is quite recognizable.
Außerdem, halt die Fresse, Bernd, keiner mag dich.

Why do people always insinuate that being an edgelord is immature somehow?

Implying edgelords aren't right about literally everything

I like the book, but Nietzsche was nuts thinking this book was the highest point in literature.

>I'm nearly done with part one and I don't understand any of it
Just read his philosophical books. Zarathustra is an expression of that.

Hmm, reads better in German. German prose never translates well to English.

>Just read it like you'd read the bible.
I haven't read that yet, so how does that go?

>Just read his philosophical books. Zarathustra is an expression of that.
Which one(s)?

Beyond good and evil

What do I need to read beforehand? Or is it understandable enough to dive right in? After reading that can I read Zarathustra?

Fuck, I'll have to listen to the audiobook. When reading it it seemed a bit funny, but I didn't even think of how hilarious the audiobook could be.

>I want to be able to appreciate his work but I'm a philosophy noob

First thing, you need to stop being a philosophy noob.

Study deeply Schopenhauer, the tragic greek plays and Plato.

At least have a notion of what these guys were talking about and their context:
Kant
Hegel
Descartes
Aristotle
St. Paul
Bible
Luther
(I may have forgotten someone, but in short, beware what the west philosophy cannon was about until XIX century)

It's good if you read Montaigne, Machiavel and Dostoevsky, but not interely necessary (they are fun, though).

Then, start with Beyond Good and Evil and The Geneology of Morals. After that, it doesn't matter the other, but keep Ecce Homo and Zaratustra for last.

And finally, that's just my opinion.

I have a PHI 101 level understanding of the broad picture, but I've basically only read Plato's writings from that list. Are there some philosophers that really need to be read directly before others?

Not really necessary, actually. You could just dive in. With second hand book about N.'s phislophy and some lectures on youtube, you could be alright.

But having read Schoppy and the greek plays, it's easier "to get" Nietzsche.

I said "could be alright" but forgot to state that probably not...

Oh I see, you're saying Schopenhauer for Nietzsche specifically. I was asking if there are philosophers who are so vastly influential they just have to be read before anyone else. I suppose Plato might qualify as one (I've only read Republic so far), but are there others?

leostrausscenter.uchicago.edu/courses/page/1/0
in some of his nietzsche lectures strauss went through zarathustra, i think it was 1959. if you're completely disoriented, his interpretation of some details is a good example of how an exegesis of nietzsche can be done. heideggers nietzsche lectures are another such example, but much broader..

Well, it depends where you wanna get at... Politics, Religion, Epistemology, Language etc.

But I guess the most common name in the different areas are: Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Kant and Nietzsche. Nietzsche for contemporary philosophy, especially.

I wouldn't read all of their work, though, unless it's fun for you. Nevertheless, knowing what these guys were saying keeps you a little ahead to read other philosophers.

or if it isnt in main database yet, the preliminary version was floating around anyway
scribd.com/doc/267247548/Leo-Strauss-Seminar-on-Nietzsche-s-Zarathustra-1959

I plan on reading Aristotle's Rhetoric just because it seems like a topic I could benefit knowing a bit more about, but does he have any other seminal works I should check out? I've also seen Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, which seems like a beast to get through. I'm not sure I'm prepared for that yet.

Overall, I'm interested in learning a bit more about language's influence on our thoughts (I'd like to get to Wittgenstein at some point, not sure where), and liberty/privacy in the context of political systems. Mill is on my list to read (On Liberty).

I'm also interested in the contrast of empiricism and rationalism. I guess Descartes is the one to read first here, and then Hume? Any recommended starting points?

>I've also seen Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, which seems like a beast to get through. I'm not sure I'm prepared for that yet.

It's a drag.

> but does he (Aristotle) have any other seminal works I should check out?

I don't know much about Aristotle, maybe another user can help you. I also started with Rhetoric, and found it a drag as well, like Kant.

Can't help you with Language area as well...

>liberty/privacy in the context of political systems. Mill is on my list to read (On Liberty).
Try Locke as well. And Hobbes. And Politics by Aristotle.

>I'm also interested in the contrast of empiricism and rationalism

Meditations on First Philosophy and Discourse of the Method by Descartes, Ethics by Spinoza and Monodalogie by Leibniz for rationalism.

An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding by Hume, A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge by Berkeley.

Sorry, user, if I couldn't help you more.

Sorry for my fucking English.

youtu.be/BGmpmMTRw-E

Zarathustra is pointless to start with if you're clueless.

Go in chronological order. Be sure to read his unpublished works too, like Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks (being his 2nd book), and his letters. This isn't someone you can grasp in just a week, or a month, or even a year's worth of time. Prepare to spend many years reading and absorbing his works and uncovering their meanings as you live your life. It's impossible to get Nietzsche if you just live the life of a basement dwelling scholar.

start with the birth of tragedy, or read an introduction somewhere, Michael Tanner's was pretty good.

First of all, get the Hollingdale translation. It's not perfect but it's better than most of the others. Second, as others have already said, you need to go into it with some familiarity of the Western philosophical tradition; you need to understand that the philosophy of Nietzsche is largely a response to the tradition rather than an assertion of a systematic doctrine. With Zarathustra, he wants to rethink and reinvent philosophy--the love of wisdom--against Platonic-Christian metaphysics, in favor of a different relationship to wisdom. The work begins with a Platonic image: Zarathustra leaves his cave believing that he is now wise, announcing to the sun that he wishes to distribute it like honey. He remains in metaphysics, for he thinks that his 10 years up in the mountains, up in his head, away from society, has given him possession of wisdom--though he acknowledges the sun's recurring rising and setting, which symbolizes eternal recurrence, he thinks it in the Apollonian, agapic understanding of wisdom, as something elevated, from a higher realm, that can be had and given away out of selfless love. The entire book follows Zarathustra as he experiences his untergang/down-going, learning that he must speak in a new way and a new language to bring wisdom down from the Platonic/metaphysical realm and wed it with life, so that wisdom becomes earthly, bodily, and irrational--Zarathustra will learn a Dionysian wisdom, which cannot be spoken but must be sung, or take form in dreams, parables, and dancing.

I could go on forever about it so let me know if you have any questions. I had the wonderful fortune of reading the book under one of the best philosophers writing today. Basically, eternal recurrence and Dionysus appear on every page, not in name but in images and allusions. There's also a lot going in the German that you lose if you're reading a translation by yourself. I could explain some of that too.