Is it a bad idea to start with him?

No. He solved philosophy.

No point in reading anyone else.

Not if you mean "of philosophers", since he's the most literary of them, not a poet in himself but the most accepting of their creative supremacy.

read what you're spontaneously interested in, everything else is a meme

The thing about FN is you have to be thorough about reading his stuff. Try the Kaufmann translation, btw, I think his background in philosophy helps him make FN's ideas more clear. Before starting in on this, you might wanna read Kaufmann's Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist. It gives a good overview that might help you decide if you want to dig any deeper into FN's work.

Attached: 1553698552432.jpg (720x683, 121K)

This.

But if you are interested in reading other authors in the future, read Plato and Nietzsche simultaneously, to prevent this You will still miss all his references when he criticizes but he is in any case offering new perspectives which you can understand without previous preparation.

Having read other authors always helps but you have to start somewhere I guess

Okay... You wanna read Nietzsche. Do it. Read On the Genealogy of Morality. Read motherfucking On the Genealogy of Morality. Reread On the Genealogy of Morality. Read it again. Rereread On the Genealogy of Morality. Read it a lot of times. Read it. Rerefuckingread it. You must be fucking strong guy. Like D. Trump. Or Kanye. Or smth.

reddit

Thanks lad, good advice

You will not understand 90% of what he's talking about.

This is why NEETchuh must be destroyed.

I struggled with NEECH. I am NOT a smart person, so I had to try quite hard…

Tried BG&E first, failed, then TWTP, failed again, then BoT and I kind of got it, but decided that I wasn’t ready for it…

SO I started with some Schopenhauer instead (essays & aphorisms), then read a Penguin Nietzsche reader I got in a second hand bookstore published in the 60’s, then I read him from start to finish with no problems.

This was also super helpful plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche/

Best of luck my guy!

Do not start with Nietzsche unless you want to falsely comprehend nearly all of the core of his philosophy. Some of his aphorisms are extremely easy to misunderstand, because you'll think you get it, and either interpret the idea wrong, miss a part of the idea which influences your final perception of the idea, or just skip over large chunks of what he's saying. This is why there is so little discussion of Nietzsche's actual philosophy on this board. This is also why he has been so misunderstood en masse nearly everywhere else, down to the SIMPLEST OF HIS IDEAS. don't expect to properly capture what he is saying if you know nothing about philosophy.

Attached: 1553602677843.jpg (623x702, 177K)

What he's saying isn't even remotely difficult to understand. The reason you think it's complex is because it's 'aphoristic'

What should i read if i want to understand him "properly" then?

Start_with_the_greeks.jpg

You don't have to listen to this faggot, just make sure that you're doing research as you read, secondary sources will give you all the relevant background information you need.

Start with him and work backwards, that would be a very Nietzschean thing to do.

Start with subjects, not authors. If you want to start organizing your reading, read The Modern Researcher by Jaques Barzan first.

No, OP. You need to read all people who are explicitly or, as in most cases, implicitly referenced in literally all of Nietzsche's works, and they are:
Homer, Hesiod, Sappho, Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Xenophanes, Heraclitus, Pythagoras, Anaxagoras, Melissus, Parmenides, Zeno, Protagoras, Aeschylus, Empedocles, Sophocles, Herodotus, Aristophanes, Democritus, Crates, Plato, Euripides, Thucydides, Aristippus, Aristotle, Epicurus, Pyrrho, Menander, Seneca, Epictetus, Lucretius, Cicero, Apollonius, Alcinous, Plotinus, Proclus, Boethius, St. Augustine, Anselm, Scotus, Occam, Bonaventure, Aquinas, Rodriguez, Montaigne, Shakespeare, Gracian, Bacon, Descartes, Suarez, Spinoza, Pascal, Geulincx, Leibniz, Arnould, Lancelot, Newton, Gassendi, Malebranche, Locke, Voltaire, Rousseau, Berkeley, Hume, Wolff, Kant, Herder, Hamann, Lessing, Strauss, Jacobi, Fichte, Schelling, Hölderlin, Stirner, Goethe, Schiller, Hegel, Mendelssohn, Schleiermacher, Humboldt, Winckelmann, Schlegel, Novalis, Heine, Schopenhauer, Mainlander, Wagner, Darwin, Emerson, Lotze and Ritschl, at least.

Your "research" will only help with aphorisms that explicitly cite other philosophers and philosophies - in which case, have fun losing all essential ideas (which are the ideas which come from the author himself). In any case, listen to if you want to at least try to effectively comprehend him early.
>What he's saying isn't even remotely difficult to understand
though he was very good at presenting complex ideas simply, his most valuable ideas were nevertheless terrifically complex. The fact that you thought it was "simple" means you only comprehended his "simple" ideas. Witness Alain Badiou telling us that doctors create a disease by naming it, then being chased off stage by doctors laughing at his pathetic attempts to explain what that means. The idea is correct, but you have to be a fucking genius to understand it, much less explain it to people, especially to doctors, who will roast your ass over hot coals, as they should, if you are not a complete and total master of the idea. These are such complex conceptions that non-geniuses simply have no hope with them. At best, they grasp one part here, a corollary there, some application to their daily life; but the essence of the idea, and its relationship to all others, remains forever beyond them. Deleuze, Artaud, Bataille: they each grasped some things, and Baudrillard by far the most. The mess of gibberish produced on the continent is the result of their sometimes sincere, sometimes dishonest grasping with these terrifically complex conceptions that Nietzsche bequeathed us, just as the simplistic stupidities of the "analytic" morons is how they dealt with the same stuff.

al dente

Start with the Greeks.
Sojourn with the Pseuds.

I did

having read most of the western canon of philosophers i think nietsczhe is the easiest to start with minus the greeks. he's very straightforward

bro you put so much effort into this shit hahahahaha just close your eyes

This. He's not a bad place to start, he's what got me interested in philosophy, but I feel like you should start somewhere else (the greeks) to get the most of out of it. After I returned to Nietzsche after reading more Ancient and Modern philosophy I read him in a completely different way.

Yes and I say this as someone who loves Nietzsche
Try to get into Kant and dabble in Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, and Hume before N would be my advice

Banter and bickering are aspects of being a philosopher.

Throw out Aquinas I'm drunk
My reason is that it is a good idea to have a sense of the 'standard vision' of western philosophy before Nietzsche tries to impose Nietzsche-valuation on it or else N-vision will color your view to the point of probably crippling your ability to engage with others

He brought depression and existential dread into my life. But goddamn it was worth it.

excuse me but what the fuck is this "Like!" shit next to our post numbers

I just noticed that too what the flying fuck

you got a like

Starting with Kant is just as hard in my opinion, especially having no foundations to philosophy.

I gotta say to start with Plato honestly, then something modern like Hume or Kant, then FN but that's if you want to take a really fast route and skip a lot of important stuff.

I get it, it's motherfucking april's fools

I wanna like but can only do it ever 2 minutes or some shit >:(

Fair enough this is true

it's even a bad idea to read him💔

Why is that? The Birth of Tragedy is very, very entertaining to read, for example.

its bad to even read him desu

Don't listen to them, they're Platonists ressentivising.

my guy
Here have a like❤️

De nada, user. Glad if I can help.
:-)

🙁

Well, I would have liked a reason regardless..

Anyway, one of my favourite quotes in there may resonate with the fourth channel a bit:

> “Suffering creature, born for a day, child of accident and toil, why are you forcing me to say what would give you the greatest pleasure not to hear? The very best thing for you is totally unreachable: not to have been born, not to exist, to be nothing. The second best thing for you, however, is this — to die soon.”

If you feel you need others to tell you what to read, you should start with Nietzsche.

If you want to, start with Ecce Homo and his notes to avoid the abyss

No one knows the right answer. After starting with him, you will only gain a perspective that you did not have before.

The best idea is to read philosophy in the order they were published.

Attached: rppy-nietzche-your-co-acept-f-ood-boy-9-is-22240177.png (500x590, 71K)

this is the worst thing I have ever seen

Heheheehheehehhehehehehehdhdehehehehdh pooooie hehsshhssge

Great. What's the first title we should pick up in this ordering?

>read Plato and Nietzsche simultaneously

Attached: 300pxMultitrack.png (300x216, 43K)

The pre-Socratics in terms of philosophy. But you could make an argument that you should start with Homer as his work had a moral/ biblical standing in Ancient Greek society. After that Plato and Aristotle.

The earliest I have in my bookshelf is Plotin. How about that?

first of all that's not all that's explicitly referenced in his works

second who the fuck is Lancelot

If you do, start with The Birth of Tragedy. It's sloppy--he even admits it in the Preface--but I think it puts forward some interesting ideas on how to reach the sublime and the reason why people make art/how they make it.

>Try the Kaufmann translation
Bad idea, just read it in german