I’m very interested in Nietzsche’s stuff about nihilism after reading some summaries about it in the internet. I honestly think that I’m falling into that mindset he warned us about, but I’m concerned that if I read it straight up with no prior philosophy experience I won’t get the full experience.
What do I do first before I jump straight in?
The amount of people asking this question has to be finite, when will er see a catalog without this very question?
Have breakfast, change your underwear, stay positive.
listen to this in your car while hotboxing
How’s this meant to help me at all lol
I'm afraid you are not ready to read Nietzsche, treeman.
Clean your room
HOL UP
I don’t understand what the hell is going on in this thread, wtf is a treeman
unroot or be logged
How tf does listening to suicide squad: the album while hotboxing equate to unrooting
Bruh I usually listen to power metal to cheer me up
Yea, it will certainly be hard to appreciate without context. Unironically start with the Greeks, I'd recommend Plato's dialogues.
you may never make it at this pace speedracer
The ego and his own. Its very straight forward and Nietzsche's philosophy bone structure is heavily influenced by Stirner.
The "main objective" of Nietzsche's works is to overcome the nihilism created by the "death of god" and fall of its values. So he gives you system and "suggestions" of a new set of values that are "life affirming" with many ispiration taken from hellenic culture, that could be best described as "self disciplined and barbaric".
I would suggest you to read his articles in the standford encyclopedia and them jumping into him. He sometimes may make a lot of references to other philosophers but its no big deal if you dont get what they all said.
Nietzsche is basically the end of philosophy. He's the final boss. If you haven't read any other philosophy you'll be missing the whole context in which his ideas gain significance. It's like leaping into a conversation about applying relativity at the quantum scale without having studied any physics, let alone having studied relativity and quantum mechanics.
You'll enjoy his style. You'll enjoy some of his edgier and more poetical aphorisms and phrases. You'll probably glean some semblance of an understanding of some of the most general tendencies of his thought. But so much of what N writes is basically a critical analysis of previous philosophy. His books are in constant dialogue with previous philosophers, and in some measure his entire philosophy amounts to a psychologizing of those philosophers and their ideas. If you don't even know what Plato argued for, how could you possibly see how his arguments were defensively and self-preservationally born out of his decadent resentment for classical, masculine, warlike virtues and the ancient aristocracy?
You got some homework to do before you read Nietzsche, I fear. Or, just read him and become another uninformed Yea Forums shitposter blabbing incomprehensibly about what N really meant by "slave morality."
I see. Well, I guess I’ll start with plato’s dialogues and the other greek dudes. What do I read after?
Nietzsche is only the beginning. Evola is the true struggler pill.
Spend an absurd amount of time with Plato. He defines the underlying forms that govern the trajectory of Western philosophy as a whole. Don't just read a dialogue or two and a Wiki summary. Read the highlights like "Meno", "Phaedo", "Symposium" at least three times each, ALONGSIDE GOOD COMMENTARIES/COMPANIONS, and read "Republic" twice, and, again, alongside one or two good companion books.
Reading Plato alongside companions is necessary. Since you're not getting a university degree in philosophy, you won't have a prof to hold your hand and teach you how to properly read philosophy. But trust me, though there might not be one single way to properly read philosophy, there are a million ways to read it incorrectly, and doing so will make your efforts fundamentally a waste of time. Getting a good companion work to read along with is the only way to approach philosophy as an autodidact. It's basically the same as having a prof guiding you, the only difference being you can't ask the companion book questions. They'll contextualize issues for you in terms of larger philosophical debates, and point things out that you would have never even dreamed to have looked for in the text.
Start with the Greeks
Greeks, Schopenhauer and then Nietzsche.
Get some book that resumes all the historical epistemological positions and something similar with ethics
Then Plato and some Aristotle
Then try to get a basic grasp on Hume's and Kant's ethics
Then read some introduction to Nietzsche (Vattimo's is pretty good)
Then jump into the genealogy and beyond good and evil
Then you should read all his works in chronological order
You could also just read a good introduction and then jump into the geneaology, but in his other works, which are mostly not systematic like the genealogy, he is mostry replying (and in general BTFO) philosophers before him, but in a way that you may not get right now, because he is doing something different than what philosophy in general before him used as a way to work
But if you are to anxious, jump into the genealogy, fren, is one hell of a ride. You will not get much if you don't understand basic ethics and epistemological terms and context, but you will notice he sure was a great prose stylist
Just PLEASE dont start talking about him in public if you just do this because you WILL not get it, SPECIALLY if you start trying to justify /pol/tard garbage with him
Why are people so memed into 'getting the full experience'? The full experience is whatever you're getting, and if you're postponing reading nietzsche until you have a firm grasp of the greeks and medieval theology you're not getting anything at all.
Also I should notice than reading introductions is not THAT boring if you actually read the aphorisms they quote