Going to read Nietzsche, where shall I start?

[Dogs On Acid]

I'm entering uncharted territory with Psychology.

Is Nietzsche a good place to start? If so, what book would you recommend first?

[tir1944]

Thus spoke Zarathustra.
It's his most "populist" (written in a way that "everyone could understand it") book i think.

[Blackscare]

Nietzsche isn't a psychologist. He's a philosopher. Anyway, he's a great read but not entirely consistent with socialist thought (not that that should be a reason not to read it). Take what he says with a grain of salt.


He wrote a lot of aphorisms and the like and a great deal of his work is in that form. However, you'd probably find "Thus Spake Zarathustra" more engaging, it's the story of a hermit going back into the world, etc etc. I'd also recommend you get a copy of his formerly unpublished notes as a reference to get some perspective. Some people read Zarathustra and think that he really believed that you'd re-live every moment of your live for eternity or other such nonsense, and with his notes you can see the formation of those ideas and that he really just implants them in the story to make the reader think.

[Dogs On Acid]

Shouldn't I start with The Gay Science? I have read that Thus Spoke Zarathustra contains ideas from it.

[Commissar Rykov]

Shouldn't I start with The Gay Science? I have read that Thus Spoke Zarathustra contains ideas from it.
He pretty much rehashes his arguments in Thus Spoke Zarathustra so it isn't really necessary. Nieztsche is ok but a bit of a pretentious ass as he really thinks highly of his views and typically is rather condescending to others he considers his lessers.

[svenne]

I'd start with something else than Nietzsche; propably a good introduction to philosophy is a good beginning, to even know what you're going into. I still really have no what idea what i'm doing when it comes to philosophy, and i've been studying it on-and-off for a couple of years.
An easy way as an leftist to get at least some feeling of recognition is to go for the philosophers who like Marx. I really don't know whom to recommend, but there's a Wikipedia page about marxist philosophy, and at the bottom a list of marxist philosophers.

[o well this is ok I guess]

I'd go with taking up the Gay Science, as it's probably his most accessible work.
I'm pretty sure he made Thus Spoke Zarathustra with the intention of being edgy&obscure, rather than completely understandable.

[a rebel]

I would start with The Anti Christ if I were you, its the last book he wrote before his mental breakdown. I think it would give you a nice look at his most finalized ideas before you read anything else.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The Gay Science = great
Thus Spoke Zarathustra = boring

I liked TGS's little vignettes, and the concepts/imagery in some of them was kinda cool, but TSZ, while having a "story" of sorts, was just kind of bland.

IMO

[La Comédie Noire]

Twilight of the Idols has a good run down of his ideas, but if you've never read him before it may be inaccessible to you right now.

Beyond Good and Evil is also great, especially the Chapter On The Prejudice of Philosophers. It really gives you a feeling of his misgivings about Philosophy, plus he talks a lot of smack about other Philosophers.

[FuzzypegX]

A friend of mine, who is a Nietzschean, swears by Walter Kaufmann's "Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist" as the best book on Nietzsche. In terms of work by the man himself "Beyond Good & Evil" is undoubtedly the classic.

In general though: why? The man's philosophy is bourgeois twaddle.

[x359594]

A friend of mine, who is a Nietzschean, swears by Walter Kaufmann's "Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist" as the best book on Nietzsche....

I heard the same and read it myself years ago. If you don't want to wade through Nietzsche's entire oeuvre read the Kaufman book.

[o well this is ok I guess]

The man's philosophy is bourgeois twaddle. That's no excuse for anything.

[FuzzypegX]

That's no excuse for anything.

Actually, it is. I didn't say that one shouldn't read any bourgeois philosophers/writers. Marxism, after all, is indebted to a great many of them (Hegel, Feuerbach, the English Materialists etc.) and any Marxist worth his salt will eventually have to read the ones that are important. But, in my honest opinion, there is little that is progressive and useful that can be gained from reading Nietzsche other than an understanding of why Nietzsche is wrong.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Actually, it is. I didn't say that one shouldn't read any bourgeois philosophers/writers. Marxism, after all, is indebted to a great many of them (Hegel, Feuerbach, the English Materialists etc.) and any Marxist worth his salt will eventually have to read the ones that are important. But, in my honest opinion, there is little that is progressive and useful that can be gained from reading Nietzsche other than an understanding of why Nietzsche is wrong. So
You are saying philosophers are only worth reading if they are in some way connected with the ideas of Marx, and any other existing philosophy is "bourgeoisie philosophy", and therefore unable to explain anything?

[FuzzypegX]

So
You are saying philosophers are only worth reading if they are in some way connected with the ideas of Marx, and any other existing philosophy is "bourgeoisie philosophy", and therefore unable to explain anything?

That's a crude formulation, but if by "the ideas of Marx" you mean dialectical materialism then, yes, that is precisely my position, since any philosophy which is not dialectical and materialist must be metaphysical and/or idealist... and therefore total bullshit.

[o well this is ok I guess]

That's a crude formulation, but if by "the ideas of Marx" you mean dialectical materialism then, yes, that is precisely my position, since any philosophy which is not dialectical and materialist must be metaphysical and/or idealist... and therefore total bullshit. But it's ok to study Hegel
Right?

[FuzzypegX]

But it's ok to study Hegel
Right?

Yes, precisely, because Hegel influenced the development towards dialectical materialism (the rational kernel [dialectics] inside of the mystical shell ). Now that dialectical materialism has been developed, however, it would be pointless to spend time studying any [i]subsequent philosophy which is either metaphysical or idealist since this would be a retrograde step.

To given an example of how this principle functions, when one studies economic thought one often reads the great "economists" of the feudal era (though they were overwhelmingly not professional economists - St. Augustine etc.) because their work subsequently influenced the development of contemporary economics and by reading it we develop a better understanding of how contemporary economists arrived at their positions. One would not, however, read a contemporary economic work which advocated the return to feudalism.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Yes, precisely, because Hegel influenced the development towards dialectical materialism (the rational kernel [dialectics] inside of the mystical shell ). Now that dialectical materialism has been developed, however, it would be pointless to spend time studying any [I]subsequent philosophy which is either metaphysical or idealist since this would be a retrograde step.

To given an example of how this principle functions, when one studies economic thought one often reads the great "economists" of the feudal era (though they were overwhelmingly not professional economists - St. Augustine etc.) because their work subsequently influenced the development of contemporary economics and by reading it we develop a better understanding of how contemporary economists arrived at their positions. One would not, however, read a contemporary economic work which advocated the return to feudalism. So Dialectical Materialism is the end-all of philosophy (at least, subsequent philosophy must start from DM to be of any worth).
Forgive me if I speak wrong on certain subjects , and I don't have any intimate knowledge of Dialectical Materialism, but I do understand that such such dogmatism is part of what drove Kant to develop his form of idealism. So, naturally it should seem strange to me that the sort of dogmatism that was seen to impede progress is now presenting itself as the only form of progress.
Why is dialectical materialism infallible? Is there any reason we should have abandoned the scholasticism of the medieval times, apart from as a necessary step towards the eventual formation of Dialectical Materialism?

[FuzzypegX]

So Dialectical Materialism is the end-all of philosophy (at least, subsequent philosophy must start from DM to be of any worth).

Dialectical materialism was precisely conceived by Marx as an end to or exit from all previous philosophy. As a Marxist I accept this point and I do not believe that one can be a Marxist and hold the contrary opinion.


Forgive me if I speak wrong on certain subjects , and I don't have any intimate knowledge of Dialectical Materialism, but I do understand that such such dogmatism is part of what drove Kant to develop his form of idealism. So, naturally it should seem strange to me that the sort of dogmatism that was seen to impede progress is now presenting itself as the only form of progress.

It's not dogmatism to accept certain founding principles from which one cannot depart, rather it is the prerequisite to real science.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Dialectical materialism was precisely conceived by Marx as an end to or exit from all previous philosophy. As a Marxist I accept this point and I do not believe that one can be a Marxist and hold the contrary opinion. In just the same way every other system was conceived as an end all to previous philosophies (Hegel, Wittgenstein, and yes, Nietzsche). However, I doubt we see them today as the same end-alls the writers and their followers did.
Is it really necessary to embrace a theorists entire position in order to consider oneself an adherent to it (such as in the case of marxism)? I should dare say there then hasn't been a proper marxist theorist since Marx himself, and if there has been his function has been one of an interpreter of scripture, rather than the function of an actual theorist.



It's not dogmatism to accept certain founding principles from which one cannot depart, rather it is the prerequisite to real science. Unfortunately, it is dogmatism. There is no reason to suppose a premise cannot be faulty, even in the sciences. How often have scientific systems come to be replaced entirely from the ground up? We did not come to our current iteration of science without first dismantling earlier iterations of it, which can only be said to have survived as long as they did on sheer dogmatism.

[FuzzypegX]

In just the same way every other system was conceived as an end all to previous philosophies (Hegel, Wittgenstein, and yes, Nietzsche). However, I doubt we see them today as the same end-alls the writers and their followers did.
Is it really necessary to embrace a theorists entire position in order to consider oneself an adherent to it (such as in the case of marxism)? I should dare say there then hasn't been a proper marxist theorist since Marx himself, and if there has been his function has been one of an interpreter of scripture, rather than the function of an actual theorist.

I never said anything about embracing anyone's "entire position". I said it is necessary to accept materialism and dialectics as founding principles of any future rational thought.


Unfortunately, it is dogmatism. There is no reason to suppose a premise cannot be faulty, even in the sciences. How often have scientific systems come to be replaced entirely from the ground up? We did not come to our current iteration of science without first dismantling earlier iterations of it, which can only be said to have survived as long as they did on sheer dogmatism.

If materialism is a "faulty premise" then the world begins in the human mind and not in external reality. If dialectics is a "faulty premise" then phenomena should be considered in isolation and not as part of a complex of contradictory processes.

If you want to operate on the basis that either of these premises can be "faulty" then that's up to you, but I'm not interested in reading/listening to what you produce.

[RED DAVE]

That's a crude formulation, but if by "the ideas of Marx" you mean dialectical materialism then, yes, that is precisely my position, since any philosophy which is not dialectical and materialist must be metaphysical and/or idealist... and therefore total bullshit.This is extremely vulgar Marxism. All philosophy, including that of Marx and Engels, must be read critically and dialectically, but that doesn't mean it's "total bullshit."

This is reminiscent of third-period Stalinism at its worst.


But it's ok to study Hegel
Right?It's okay to study anything you want. Try to read critically, though.

RED DAVE

[FuzzypegX]

This is extremely vulgar Marxism. All philosophy, including that of Marx and Engels, must be read critically and dialectically, but that doesn't mean it's "total bullshit."

This is reminiscent of third-period Stalinism at its worst.

RED DAVE

"Total bullshit" was an emotive phrase, I will grant you.

But it is still my position that philosophy which fails to be either materialist or dialectical simply cannot be correct. If that's "third-period Stalinism" then so be it, although I do think it's equally tedious to dismiss a position by evoking a historical bogeyman.

[Rooster]

I would recommend Beyond Good and Evil as a start. His later work for me was kinda hard to follow, such as Twilight of the Idols and Anti-Christ (maybe I just wasn't in the mood for it). They pretty much cover the same stuff but Beyond Good and Evil was a better read for me. Try to get one with a good introduction too.

[RED DAVE]

My personal favorite of Nietsche's works is The Birth of Tragedy.

TEXT ONLINE (http://records.viu.ca/%7Ejohnstoi/Nietzsche/tragedy_all.htm)

RED DAVE

[o well this is ok I guess]

I never said anything about embracing anyone's "entire position". I said it is necessary to accept materialism and dialectics as founding principles of any future rational thought. Which is dogmatism.




If materialism is a "faulty premise" then the world begins in the human mind and not in external reality. If dialectics is a "faulty premise" then phenomena should be considered in isolation and not as part of a complex of contradictory processes.

If you want to operate on the basis that either of these premises can be "faulty" then that's up to you, but I'm not interested in reading/listening to what you produce. Didn't Kant already cover this...?
And really, you don't have to read anything you don't agree with. If indeed the key to revolution is to be found in Dialectical Materialism then it is true that a study of metaphysics or idealist philosophy will probably matter very little to you. I mean, Lenin was willing to denounce books on purely political grounds, and he did indeed turn out to be quite the respectable revolutionary.
However, he at least would not say anything as unscrupulous as there being no reason to read such authors.


It's okay to study anything you want. Try to read critically, though.I wasn't saiyan it's not ok to study anything you want, man. I was just pointing out the silliness of saying that it's not worth studying idealism and metaphysics whilst saiyan it's ok to study Hegel, who is the master of silly metaphysics and idealism to the extreme.

[La Comédie Noire]

Nietzsche did not try to develop an end all system of philosophy, but an end to all systems of philosophy. By analyzing the cracks and fissures of the metaphysical systems of his day, Nietzsche showed us that there are limits to all systems. Some perspectives are useful, but no perspective is absolute or complete.

People will heap scorn on Religion's pathetic attempt at explaining the universe all day, but it is really telling how they'll act when their favorite secular system is under attack. In fact sometimes it can get downright religious. This contradiction between that which is easily questioned and that which is considered unquestionable is actually something Marx pointed out when he called for a ruthless criticism of everything.

Note:

Yes, I know Nietzsche tried to develop a philosophic system of his own, but I consider it a slight blemish on an otherwise stellar record as a critic.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I said it is necessary to accept materialism and dialectics as founding principles of any future rational thought.

Man, where's Rosa when you need her?