Nietzche

i wouldnt recommend reading the bible without any background

Fault In Our Stars

Das Nibelungenlied

Why would you recommend Kierkegaard before Nietzsche. Nietzsche never got the chance to read him so wasn't influenced by him. Kierkegaard is what you read after Nietzsche to realise what he got wrong.

In a letter to Georg Bandes
>During my next journey to Germany I plan to study the psychological problem of Kierkegaard, also to renew my acquaintance with your earlier writings. This will be, in the best sense of the word, useful to me - and will serve to "bring home" to me the severity and arrogance of my own judgments." [Nietzsche, Selected Letters, trans. Christopher Middleton, pg. 285]

I'm not sure what you're trying to do. Back me up or prove me wrong? IIRC Nietzsche came down with some serious intestinal ailment and couldn't fulfil his plans to read him. I am fascinated by what might have happened if he did.

There's too many similarities between the two concerning the psychologism explored in TSUD and TSZ to really doubt it imo.

I disagree, I think they were just both on the right track and the time was ripe for this kind of psychology to arise.

There are a lot more similarities than that though. Both had heroic figures in their philosophy (Knight of Faith and Zarathustra), Nietzsche tried to go beyond good and evil and Kierkegaard discusses the teleological suspension of the ethical in the Abraham story and both were individualists.

Seems too convenient to me for them to both be so close but not at all related. Kierk's couldn't read Nietzsche but Nietzsche, in playing in Kierk's pond, could have (and most certainly did) read him.

>Brandes, who had started to teach the philosophy of Soren Kierkegaard in the 1870s, wrote to Nietzsche asking him to read Kierkegaard, to which Nietzsche replied that he would come to Copenhagen and read Kierkegaard with him. However, before fulfilling this promise, he slipped too far into illness.

This is from Nietzsche's Wiki page. I know its only Wiki but I really can't be fucked to find a better source.

Lets just say it was the holy spirit working its magic.

Go on Nietzche's wikipedia

>influences, read them
go to their influences, read them

keep going until wikipedia runs out of influences, most likley you would end up on an obscure Sumerian or Greek philosopher

shit i started with Rainbow Fish by Marcus Pfister yall are geniuses

>9843237
Stirner, very similar. Many comparisons have been made.

If I just read 2ndary lit on Nietzsche do I need to read other philosophers to prepare for him?

how is this the first post to mention stirner?

This guy is a joke, the overman doesn't exist. Please tell me you autsists don't believe this drivel.

Spinoza, Kant and Schopenhauer have all been correctly mentioned. Add Emerson (whom Nietzsche loved) and his best friend Overbeck (if you can find a text) very different, but also very good- Nietzsche respected him deeply.

nothing

he is everything you will need

>the overman doesn't exist
not yet, you pleb.

Spinoza, Marx, Freud.

>the overman doesn't exist

This is your brain on positivism.

Pretty irrelevant to Nietzsche's work, and only loosely connected to Wagner, since Wagner's operas on the subject are essentially society people discussing Schopenhauer

>the overman doesn't exist
yeah, because of apes like you

What background do you need to read the bible?

>the overman doesn't exist
>still denying tenzing norgay
monolingual anglo inferiority complex detected.

Reading everything on this list is the minimum

>They don't realize that the age of the Overman ended 70 years ago and that we're currently living among the last men

At minimum Paul's Espistles and something to familiarize yourself with the early church fathers (especially Tertullian) and the origins of Christianity.

Nietzsche rarely engages with contemporary philosophers in his work, more often boring theologians who you can take his word on.

Contemporary philosophers were already too far gone down the wrong path, Nietzsche was trying to find where the wrong turn was.

Ignore these passages. Once you read a little of Zarathustra.. This reading is really inspirational. You do not have to read everything at once and the book is great.

elaborate

>read the entirety of the Summa Theologica, City of God, Montaigne's Essays, all of Hume just to understand Nietzsche

First: living is just as important as reading as a prerequisite for Nietzsche.

Second: you don't have to read much. Be familiar with the popular works from ancient Greece, the philosophers and the poets, the popular works in literature since then. But you can very much just read him, and then go back and read things that he references to.

>no vico

where can i get nietzsche collected works

So I'm guessing this is a troll. Not OP but how much of this should I read to become philosophy..

dont read "the greeks" just read homer and whatever your favourite dialogue of plato is. these are the relevant greeks w/r/t nietzsche. Veeky Forums has a huge boner for INCREDIBLY superfluous prerequisites.

That's definitely a lack. Good eye, user.

kant, the bible, any other moralfag shit

edgy nazi glorification

You can read the abdriged version of all the 16th to 19th century writers.
They're so fucking verbose and constantly repeating themselves never getting to the point.
You don't really lose anything about Kant by watching 3 TLDRs on youtube then TLDR website or reddit explanations.

Advice if you wish to write a treatise.
Make your assumptions and ideas apparent first. Then write why they're true.

fuck off last man
we are hyperboreans

library