So what actually happens if I read Nietzsche first rather than going through philosophy ‘properly’...

Honestly you should just read what you like. I picked the "slog/grind" route and it's garbage, the stuff I'm not interested in is just boring and consequently I barely retain any of it or spend any time really carefully examining.

Don't read linearly. Don't follow charts unless you're actually interested in the recommended works.

Plato and Descartes are very good for beginner-level philosophy.

If you want to go historical, read excerpts and bits first, and the shorter or more literary books (for example, the Enquiry as opposed to the Treatise in Hume's case). That's how they teach philosophy to actual philosophy majors first, then the students get to take semester-long book-treating classes on the bigger philosophers if they want later in their major. Which philosophers are you talking about when you say you dread slogging through them?

You're an idiot, what propaganda are you getting fed in a fucking intro history of philosophy class? Actually, for that matter, what propaganda are you getting fed if you take a class on Hume's Treatise or Kant's Critique, or something like contemporary topics in analytic metaphysics? God you idiots think only postmodernist philosophy gets taught at schools, or that it permeates all the classes that aren't in any way about postmodernism or something.

People say that Nietzsche "ended" philosophy. In a way they are right, since he decided not to try to write philosophy but, rather, fan-fiction. Thus, all philosophy from that point on was fan-fiction and therefore, not philosophy. So he did end philosophy.

>or that it permeates all the classes that aren't in any way about postmodernism or something
yeah haha that would be crazy

what do you mean by 'fan-fiction'?

Why don't we discuss it here.

Attached: 36634153_2170552812973388_4624958304890650624_n.jpg (480x480, 25K)

Yes. Yes it is. The most you will see is professors making political comments you can ignore, but you'll get answers from them on the texts or historical context for what you are reading, and they'll connect the philosophical topics to other literature on the subject for you, other than that you actually have the original texts to read.

>university courses
There are hundreds if not thousands of essays and blogs discussing any given philosopher and his works available for free on the Internet.

Which could be enough if you're a dedicated and actually smart philosophy autodidact, but most self-professed autodidacts (in general) are really fucking dumb, and it's because their learning is surface level and usually aesthetically-motivated so they don't get a complete education in subjects like philosophy.

You may not have to take a class, but it helps to get syllabi to structure your learning if you can. Some are available online, others you can get by asking professors or students. My point was that if you're already in university studying in a major to make money, then taking a class or two (to meet general education requirements) in philosophy isn't dumb. If you're not even enrolled and don't want to touch school then you have no choice, and no one's forcing you to attend.

>what actually happens
You get instantly redpilled and save a lot of time. Though you will aquire a better understanding if you read some greek boys first.

There's no reason you can't look up videos/summaries to other texts while reading Nietzsche if you truly feel your comprehension of those texts is also critical to your comprehension of Nietzche. It's not exactly the best way to do it, but if you enjoy it enough and you can find people to discuss what you've been reading--which is pretty crucial, it kinda sucks to finish one of those books and then not have anyone to engage with about it--you should be fine. I've skipped all around the Western canon, from Camus to Nietzsche to Kierkegaarde to Aristotle. It's a scattershot approach and there are better ways to do it, but I've enjoyed myself and found the time to be able to talk with other students and my professors about what I've read.

Either way, read one philosophy book for fun and you'll have done something most people in the West never will. So if that engorges your hubris, there you go.

Aquinas and Hegel immediately come to mind. Kant as well, I guess, although I actually want to be able to read him unlike Hegel. Some of Aristotle's work.

you won't really know who hes BTFOing, but it'll still be entertaining.

If you don't start with the Greeks the ghosts of the pre-Socratics will materialize in your room at night and fuck you in the butt.

Skip Aquinas. It's helpful to get some basic Aristotle and Kant, and at least the basic ideas of Hegel. You might be able to get through Kant's Prolegomena and Groundwork relatively okay.

Why do so many people recommend videos now? That is a terrible idea. Second hand literature is HANDS DOWN superior to videos, if you can't get through the primary texts yourself, and if you just watch videos, you can guarantee that you'll never be able to read them.

Having a living breathing knowledgeable human being who can answer your particular questions on the subject quickly and straight to the point is even better. That + secondary literature is the best combo. Videos should never come into it.

More like every other page, its not only the philosophers dropped but their ideas as-well, neetchy assumes you know alot of the stuff he mentions because his work is meant to be a direct response to certain-whole movements.

You can read Plato,Descartes,Hume,Schopenhauer(need a lil kant),Kierkegaard(not really this one), and Stirner without any prerequisites

As for Nietzsche and Wittgenstein you most likely need to go through some of the exact people hes responding to and that goes heavy for both of these, Witty you'll prob have to pick up a ton of analytical stuff to even understand tracatus properly.

If this is your first time going into philosophy you'll be best following your list up to Hume and maybe reanalyzing. Schopenhauer is basically a direct response to Kant and Kierkegaard as-well. Stirner you'll be fine, as for Wittgenstein and Neetchy you can def enjoy their stuff you just wont get shit if you don't check out who their responding too.

also you need discussion/secondary resources you cant just read main texts

gl user

Why wouldn't you read about others anyway? If philosophy is about complete understanding then theres no reason to skip so much different views especially when they have an influence on nietzsches own work ??

I definitely want to read Nicomachean Ethics, and probably Poetics and Rhetoric as well, it's just that while I like the idea of a book on logic everyone says the Organon is really dry. Metaphysics also seems intimidating.
Is the Preface to Phenomenology enough? I've heard that's quite easy to read and a good work on its own

Seconding everyone saying to read Aristotle. That’s a big one.

Prior/Posterior Analytics is both challenging and important. So is his Metaphysics. The most unimportant ones are the ones everyone recommends. :3

thats exactly what happened to me, so can share my experience.
i was like 14 or 15 and got interested in him through that kreia video from that one rikafag.
i read almost all of his stuff and secondary sources and acquired a very good understanding of him.
then its up to you, whether you start to care more for philosophy or dont. i did and read even more. because nietsche was a very practical philosopher i had a hard time getting used to many, but overall, im currenetly having a good time trying to figure everything out.
but no, nietzsche wont answer all of lifes questions for you and was deeply flawed. despite that, hes still one of my favourites and a great inspiration for thinking for yourself.

The reward is much higher, and you will get the deeper context of the writings. Philosophy is a tradition hence it is always better to see what his predecessors always up to before getting into him, Nietzsche's writings are themselves responding to various philosophers of the past Heraclitus, Schopenhauer, Kant, Hegel, Spinoza, the stoics, etc and his influence too is gained by facing those ideas which those philosophers of the past had put forth.

>Complete understanding
This is the Hegelian pill, Nietzschean pill turns you into some other kind of creature.

You won't understand it. You might think you do, but you won't. Happens every time.

At my heavy left-leaning university (asking someone on a date counts as sexual harrassment and can get you kicked out) the philosophy professors are pretty based.

Spoken like a true npc.

People who say this are always the ones who never actually never went to university.