Tfw you're reading and you suddenly start to feel the fabric of reality tearing

you're not impressing anyone with your posturing.

You're not a genius, you just misunderstand what's written. You connect pieces to reference points in your own life, as opposed to how philosophers tap into ideas of the past within the philosophical canon.

Go away, you arrogant shitposter.

yeah totally. Nietzsche's writings are so complex and his subject matter is so esoteric that you can only understand his work with plenty of the relevant reference material available! oh, and don't forget that if you understood it after one read that you actually DIDN'T! You're just posturing!

no that's not a hard one user, you might have accidentally drawn from your "responses to zarathustra threads" shitposting folder instead

you'd wash right the fuck out in any ivy league Philosophy programs..

Good lord... I'm lmaoing @ your existence.

Agreed! You need to spend thousands upon thousands of dollars earning a useless degree to even DARE to claim that you understand even ONE PAGE of Nietzsche's writings!

jokes aside, to fully understand Nietzsche - you have to be very well read, especially in philosophy and the germans

So you're saying that you haven't studied philosophy? That's probably why you experienced Nietzsche the way you did. The man was a scholar, you're out of your depth if you aren't already familiar with the Greeks and the socio-economic conditions prevalent in Germany in his time. Let alone the whole of modern thought.
Yes, Nietzsche actually is a complicated thinker, and no, you probably won't understand him on your first go-round. I'm not claiming to have access to his ideas--I'm pointing out that this shit is meant to be read by scholars because it was written by a scholar. Your ability to read qualifies you to follow roadsigns and follow the storylines in the New York Times. Your having studied philosophy would cause me to consider thinking twice about your opinions on Nietzsche.
>mfw I have a college degree, unlike some people ITT
OP is a fucking idiot or a troll who might actually understand Nietzsche. Probably an idiot.

Oh, now I get it. You're just arguing that it can't be understood easily because you wasted your time and money earning a philosophy degree so you're trying to justify your poor life choices.

I'm a new poster, you're arguing with multiple people who spent not only money but also time learning how to read this sort of stuff, or at least people who know that the way you claim to be going about it is asinine.
>mfw someone wants to study philosophy but mocks people who dedicated themselves to the study of philosophy as anything other than a hobby

What I said in my last post still applies here. Just because something can be studied behind a wall of money doesn't mean that it can't be understood without wasting money on it.

Did you miss the word "time" in my last post, or are you just pretending to be obtuse? I'm telling you that studying the man and his time and his forebears in depth is the only proper way to understand him. Are you seriously claiming that reading Beyond Good and Evil in a vaccuum is any way to go about this? You don't even know your own undertaking well enough to realize that you're starting out on the wrong foot. Maybe someday you'll study a bit and be able to speak of Nietzsche without resentment clouding your interactions with other people who have read him.
I really hope you're a troll.

>Did you miss the word "time" in my last post
Nope, but you seemed to miss me saying "What I said in my last post still applies here". If you read my last post you'd see that I mentioned wasting time.

>wasting
If it's a waste of time then why did you make this thread? Why did you read this book? Why not waste your time studying the Greeks and get more out of Nietzsche? Are you just lazy with a habit of self-aggrandizing?

don't bother, the ressentiment is too deep with this one

>Nietzsche is simplistic, any moron could get him. Most do.
>Nietzsche is so insanely complicated that you can't understand him unless you understand literally everything else about the history of philosophy and also the material conditions of late 19th century Germany. Oh, and his influences backwards and his influence forwards, too.

Both stupid positions. You should have read a little bit of Plato, though, just so that you have an idea of what "the faith in opposite values" looks like in action.

I said it's a waste of time to earn a philosophy degree. stop trying to twist what I said. I spend my time and money wisely by learning philosophy outside of the university setting.

>I spend my time and money wisely by learning philosophy outside of the university setting.
So have you read the Greeks, and are you familiar with at least the thinkers preceding Kant, if not Kant himself? Can you give me a quick rundown on how philosophy is done, what it is, of what it speaks?
>a little bit of Plato
To read a little bit of Plato you need to do more than read the pre-Socratics.
The way people ITT talk about 'reading' as if that's what philosophy amounts to ought to be castrated and lobotomized.

>>Nietzsche is simplistic, any moron could get him. Most do.
My position isn't that any moron can understand him. My position is that he's not complicated enough for you to need a truckload of philosophy in your head to understand him.

lmao. "do x, y, and z to prove yourself to me", no thanks. Didn't I already tell you that I spend my time wisely?

I do not believe anyone's account of himself. We are the worst judges of ourselves. I would believe you if you gave me a decent /quickrundown/.

no thanks

why are people om this board so intellectually lazy

>You can't do x without having done w.
>You can't do w without having done v.
>You can't do v without having done u.

You have to start somewhere, Jesus Christ. It's both true that you can't really understand Nietzsche without having read what he's responding to and also that it's possible just to start with Nietzsche. Like, school has really warped your minds, you can start anywhere and move backwards and forwards because this isn't progressive. But also, Veeky Forums (read: not-school) has warped your minds, because understanding depends on rigorous study. It just doesn't have to happen like motherfucking math class (first arithmetic, then algebra, then geometry, than calculus, etc. etc.) Nietzsche becomes deeper after you've read Hegel and Kant, but you're allowed to read a book more than once, so you can always go back and read Nietzsche again after you've read Hegel and Kant. And vice versa.

And, finally, for maybe the only time in history, the meme is right, but it really is better to start with the Greeks. Just don't give me shit that you can't understand Aristotle without Plato, and you can't do Plato without having read Parmenides' shit poem, which also doesn't make sense until you've drunk ayahuasca and read Heraclitus in the middle of a moonless night.

It's such a fucking tragedy that serious study is impossible outside of the academy, while the academy itself is more focused on perpetuating itself than on serious study.

Serious study is possible. The amount of secondary sources scatted about the internet is crazy. It's just overwhelming to some people to try and find what's good.

Anyone remember that Ivy League user who had that private library of IL-approved sources on a motley of subjects? I regret not saving those photos.

People everywhere are lazy. Imagine pressing people in random conversations to actually back up the ideas they express offhand, or give you a quick overview of why they actually felt that way about a book/show/movie/person. It makes people uncomfortable SO quickly. People generally only allow themselves to be asked those questions in therapy, because then it's ok to find out how full of shit you are.

Fuck off with this meme that Nietzsche is somehow deep or a decent philosopher. He is an absolute hack. I bet you also think Hume and Freud are genius as well, you faggot.

>the philosophical canon
Come back when you've finished your introductory courses, undergrad.

Sorry to interrupt, but should I read anything (of Nietzsche) before reading this?
So far I only read Twilight of the Idols.

human all too human is decent

Everyone in this topic is misunderstanding Nietzsche

Working memory and associative structures of the human brain don't work like a 4 gig DRAM. Especially considering random conversations, unless they happen to be in an academic setting on a specific topic, people's minds are not locked into rational analysis. Which indicates an intelligent, quick-witted, present and non-autistic brain as opposed to what you are proposing to be ideal -- some sort of awkward monstrosity, forcing other people to explain themselves to you at inappropriate times.

PS I'm fairly confident that you posted this exact line of shitty reasoning a couple of months ago on here. Now you don't have to admit it or anything but I just want to say: let it go mate. You are most likely insecure about your intellect and misinformed as well. Wish you all the best.

Too many strong feelings about Nietzsche on litty. Fact of the matter is he's the abstract art of philosophy while someone like Kant is Raffael. Highly intelligent people have and will dedicate their career to both, with the difference being that Nietzsche is far more open to interpretation. There's literally a much cited and fairly recent book about Nietzsche's "Kantian Foundation" despite his blatant antagonism towards Kant.

I was explaining to the user I responded to why his expectations were extreme. But I didn't say the justification of tastes needed to be a photographic memory. It could (and perhaps should) be values and future based. Don't be so quick to build your strawmen.

This is such an old book that anyone familiar with modern atheism or even science wouldn't react like that to its contents.

You sound like some sheltered Catholic from the 19th century.

I have this feel while reading Nabokov. Lushzin defence and Pale fire were last things I have read.

so how do you understand him?

What about his position on stoic? On protestantism? Give me a quick rundown, navigate me to a good critique of his.

weak bait

I found BGE life affirming and helped me overcome overwhelming guilt and anxiety. How does it make you feel reality is tearing? Are you a diehard christian or something?

>Pff, everything Nietzsche ever said was completely self evident to me. Can't believe anyone thinks he was a genius or that his works are in any way profound. I'm way smarter than everyone here and probably Nietzsche himself. Probably 200 IQ at least. Nietzsche is just a hack and a fraud.

Seriously reddit?

>getting a useless philosophy degree
>not getting a maths degree and understanding nietzche anyway because of your superior IQ

philosophy majors are pathetic, lol.

t. 162 IQ studying maths at princeton

>tfw you just copy stirner but don't have the balls to go as far as he did

Yeah, it's simple and unoriginal. Wherever it is original, it's obviously wrong

>Just don't give me shit that you can't understand Aristotle without Plato, and you can't do Plato without having read Parmenides' shit poem, which also doesn't make sense until you've drunk ayahuasca and read Heraclitus in the middle of a moonless night.
This is true, though, anyone who thinks that a casual reading of a book about the pre-Socratics is adequate for understanding Greek philosophy is a fool.
I don't understand him.

I agree that the other guy is a sham, but philosophy is not meant to be read by scholars. Scholars are bookworms with little worldly experience. Philosophy is about the world. Scholars are often some of the worst people to listen to when it comes to philosophy.

Nietzsche fits roughly a books worth of information into every paragraph of that book. Understanding Nietzsche correctly is a feat that few philosophy professors can sincerely boast about. But somehow an arrogant internet hero like you could manage it. On the .01% chance that you completely understood all of Beyond Good and Evil from a single reading I tip my fedora to you, faggot

youtube.com/watch?v=MCOw0eJ84d8

afaik people study for math degree because they want to make a fortune and attract whores, not because they have superior IQ

Just because your old ideas stop holding water for you does not mean reality itself is any different.

>implying the personal is relevant

>It's so dense, every single sentence has so many things going on.
Being incapable of articulating your points clearly and orderly, or at least not being capable of doing so provisionally, makes you a bad philosopher, no matter how good your points might be.

>philosophers tap into ideas of the past within the philosophical canon.
Except they don't do that you goddamn ad verecundiam academic leming. Get a working knowledge or shut the hell up.

Is this book actually any good? I have it on my shelf for years but didn't touch it once

Tried reading the Penguin Classics edition but I found it really hard to follow along. Anyone know how to get into it?

First Nietzsche I've read

>Penguin Classics

w-what's wrong with them?

>Philosophy is about the world
This statement is astoundingly vague.
Philosophy is of almost no practical value and it isn't supposed to be.
Your post makes little or no sense to me because I know that not all scholars are bookworms, having read a few books.

god, everytime I see a smug anime picture posted i know 99% of time its some ugly neckbeard behind the screen. The other 1% are cute twink fembois that make my cock shoot up. Just thought you'd like to know this.

All of this half-knowledge on Veeky Forums. Not even bothering about all the other posts. Atleast be aware of what Nietzsche antagonized in Kant. The Kantian foundation of his thought is blatant.

Can I have the August West zip

I find it charming that Nietzsche predicted the resentment of brainlets directed at his work. A bit of historical and cultural education would help you quite a bit with not embarrassing yourself in regards to important people of the past. Nietzsche was dynamite, and will remain dynamite. All the philosophers drawing heavily from him, have never reached such a wide, all-encompassing vision of the world and existence, as to make him obsolete or reduce him to a predecessor. You may not agree with what he says, but to disregard his historical importance and relevance is simply ignorance and a sign of plebeian origins.

is this what an expert sounds like? i'm 15 minutes in and he's spent the whole time absolutely struggling to articulate what nietzche "meant", which seems paradoxical because if you wanted to understand it just read the fucking section and think about it. it would take less time than it took for him to """explain it""" to just read the paragraph and mull it over yourself.

is that all being a modern philosopher is? just stating the significance of books written by people smarter than you and justifying your own profession by insinuating that you need some sort of academic medium to understand it, as opposed to just reading the material and applying it to your own life?

i got one audible credit and i need some nietzsche in my phone, what is the best version of beyond good and evil? my copy of geneology of morals has some fag with an asspained british affectation reading it trying to sound "noble" or something, fuck off with that, just talk normal, dickhead

>is this what an expert sounds like?

he's a psychologist, not an expert on anything nietzsche related

>Jordan Peterson
Literally a bigger hack than any Lacanian could ever possibly be.

There is nothing vague about it. "The world" as in the physical world, full of people and their actions and creations, not just walls of text and works of fiction.

>Philosophy is of almost no practical value and it isn't supposed to be.

Practical value? Maybe not, but it doesn't need to be for it to still have worldly value.

Philosophy is "love of wisdom"; wisdom is not just the accumulation of analytical data (knowledge) but something that is gained through experience and the keen and clever reflection of it, that is personal to the one who designs it. Good philosophy is valuable like a respectable peer's advice while growing up is. It should challenge you and encourage you to grow and reach the level of the person who bestows it upon you.

Scholars are people who accumulate a lot of knowledge but their writing is sterile and useless, because it lacks wisdom from being in the world. You can tell this pretty quickly when you read someone whose writings have little bearing on anything and are also full of errors, like Wittgenstein, vs. someone whose writings actually influence the minds of others on a grand scale and are much more demanding in their incensing of one's readers, like Nietzsche. The former may have some tiny tidbits of wisdom from reading a lot of books, but that isn't very valuable to anyone aside from other bookworms, because it is based on the experience of reading books and nothing more.

>"The world" as in the physical world, full of people and their actions and creations, not just walls of text and works of fiction.
Philosophy is a form of discourse, it has no existence at all outside of discourse. Wisdom =/= philosophy.
>Scholars are people who accumulate a lot of knowledge but their writing is sterile and useless, because it lacks wisdom from being in the world.
I don't see why you think that books are literally not things that exist or matter in the world. Your gross generalizations about 'scholars' are descriptions of bad scholars, not descriptions of scholars in general. You do not understand the significance of the scholar and you do not understand what goes into the activity typical of a 'man of action.'
>ou can tell this pretty quickly when you read someone whose writings have little bearing on anything and are also full of errors, like Wittgenstein,
You should probably gouge out your own eyes and stab needles through your ears--you aren't cut out for literacy.

>Philosophy is a form of discourse, it has no existence at all outside of discourse.
This is the scholar's interpretation of it. It's not how philosophy originated, scholars have managed to bastardize it into this through routine dismantling of it in lifeless safe zones called academies.

>Wisdom =/= philosophy.
The Greek word for sage in fact is etymologically connected to the word for "to taste". It has more to do with wisdom and values than discourse, knowledge or even truth. If you've read any Pre-Socratic philosophy, you should already be familiar with this.

>I don't see why you think that books are literally not things that exist or matter in the world.
But I don't think that. Books would be part of man's creations. It's the idle fool with no wisdom of his own who looks at these creations and separates them from their creators. This is what leads to useless, erroneous thoughts. Not to say that scholars are completely useless; they're just entirely unphilosophical people, and you'll do much better reading philosophy the sooner you realize this.

>The Greek word for sage in fact is etymologically connected to the word for "to taste". It has more to do with wisdom and values than discourse, knowledge or even truth. If you've read any Pre-Socratic philosophy, you should already be familiar with this.
And if you'd read your Plato you'd know that the philosopher is never a wise man and always a man pursuing wisdom.
>It's the idle fool with no wisdom of his own who looks at these creations and separates them from their creators.
I don't even understand what this is supposed to mean--you're talking about dilettantes and sophists, not scholars.
>and you'll do much better reading philosophy the sooner you realize this.
Again, I don't understand what this is supposed to mean. I'm genuinely confused. What do you think that philosophy is?
If you know how philosophy originated then please tell me. I've been curious for some time.

stop slobbering on his dead dong, user. It's not going to earn you any internet cool points. It's just a book. With a few exceptions, books are written to be understood.

>What do you think that philosophy is?
Are you not reading the posts you're responding to?

>If you know how philosophy originated then please tell me.
Thales. Start there.

>Thales
Wrong fucking answer, bozo. Go suck an egg.

How is that wrong? I said to start there.

>Implying Eve wasn't the first philosopher in the Garden of Eden

>tfw Neechee has so thoroughly wormed his way into western thought that you can't even figure out whether you came to the same conclusions as him independently or if he burrowed into you through someone else you read before him

>tfw you can no longer identify the discrete point where you end and Nietzsche begins

>tfw your sense of self is slowly disintegrating

He went farther than Stirner, idk why people on this board meme this faggot so hard.

lol my reality fabric is synthetic so it doesn't rip even if you use two semi-trucks to pull it apart like they try to do sometimes with two phonebooks stuck together

You need to know at least Plato, Kant, and Voltaire to understand half of what he's saying and I'm only like 50 pages in.

In Zarthustra, the part with the dying acrobat opened my eyes to the idea of life serving an objective rather than seeing life as an experience.

>tfw neechee became God and crates people in his own image

Bump