Can I dive right in to Babby's First Edgy philosopher or am I expected to be familiar with the Greek faggots first?
You can dive right in. He makes references but nothing you can't look up.
>>7992830
the only people that think nietzsche is babbys first philosofur are those who desu dont catch the depth of his thought. the allusions he makes throughout to other philosophies really illustrate aspects of his own thought that are otherwise missed by the new reader
>>7992830
you should probably be somewhat familiar because he brings them up a lot but you could still understand the points he is trying to make.
>>7992843
There is a reason that literally fucking everyone who is relevant after Nietzsche engages him on some level. I think Nietzsche gets a bad rap because a lot of people just read some meme quotes and a wiki article and say they know what the fuck he's talking about.
Anyways, to OP's question, if you don't know Plato (folding all of Socrates under Plato) you won't get a lot of Nietzsche. I'd recommend reading Plato and Heraclitus at the least.
You can skip from Plato to Nietzsche. Nietzsche's arguments are sweeping in nature and very frequently nail a dozen philosophers in one line. But Plato, Plato is a universal, he's there in every criticism. Nietzsche has a profound respect for Plato as a thinker but a distaste for the solutions Plato (and Socrates by association) provided for the nihilism problem, since Christianity took them and rolled with it to its logical conclusion.
>>7992830
i would read plato, the bible, and some greek plays first, but you can just go for it
>>7992864
He gets a bad rap because all religious groups demonize him for calling their authority into question, and he was demonized by misguidedJewsbecause an early scholar took the bait that he was part of his sister's proto-nazi organization, which he detested.
It gets even worse, since edgy teens will follow anyone who appears to be a pariah or makes them look smart, and Nietzsche checks both of those boxes. It's the same way fedoras got so out of hand.
>>7992904
Please read him carefully and compare him with his predecessors
>>7992904
no, he shits on pity, dominant morality in the west from judeo-christianity, he's not richard dawkins or whatever, it's a nuanced argument
i know the bible is long; if you haven't read any just try reading say, numbers and judges to get an idea of the "old" god then the NT up to romans
>>7992923
the iliad would help you understand honor/strength-based morality also
Which of Plato's works will give me a solid foundation for his most prominent arguments and ideas?
>>7992923
I actually read much of the bible back when I identified as a Christian. Would you say that general knowledge is enough?
>>7992943
yes, that's fine
apology, phaedo, symposium, republic, timaeus
>>7992923
>old god
Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
Guess you should read the Bible again, or maybe I don't know, get a degree in Theology before you start acting like you have the slightest clue about anything in the Bible.
>>7992830
just using the opportunity to expose 90% of this board
>Halfway through Thus Spoke Zarathustra
>Running out of steam, not sure what he's talking about sometimes and don't understand significance of some conclusions but enjoy specific parts of what I've read
Should I take a step back and read Plato?
I think I have comprehension on most of what he's saying, the writing itself isn't difficult, like I know from what part of the book >>7992960 comes and understood what he said at the time. I just wonder if I should gain more perspective before continuing
>>7992954
fuck off christfag
the god of the new testament may have changed his mind about being a vengeful prick and not being one may be the fulfillment of the old, but his personality (or presentation thereof) has changed
>>7992971
if it's your first nietzsche and you want to actually understand try reading other nietzsche first, like bg&e, gom. i read zarathustra next to last and i think that was the way to go
but before that i would try and read some plato
>>7992977
Because God doesn't change but his presentation does, which leads many people to use the misnomers "old testament God" and "old God." Using that term to refer to such misconceptions is more clear if you put it in quotes.
>>7992977
dear friend, this isn't the time to proselytize
we're trying to help our friend understand what nietzsche was on about, not the nature of god
if you don't share that goal, then you may be better off starting a theology thread
>>7992979
I already have The Gay Science. Is that good to start with?
>>7992864
Nietzsche plagiarized Max Stirner
>>7992830
Obvious bait is obvious
>>7992989
yes, that's fine
>>7992996
>obvious bait is obvious
>I'm actively engaging with the responses
Whoakay
So based on this thread thus far I've created the following reading order:
Plato - Republic
Plato – Apology
Plato – Phaedo
Plato – Symposium
Plato – Timaeus
Nietzsche – Beyond Good and Evil
Nietzsche – On the Genealogy of Morality
and then onward
This look good?
>>7992989
I wouldn't try to find too much insight from Nietzsche. He has a few good quotes but his ideas on the roll of suffering are largely disbelieved and even disproven
>>7993007
>disproven
Wew
>>7993001
You really value Nietzsche over "those Greek fags"?
>>7993001
Aristotle, georgias, homer
>>7993001
republic after apology and phaedo
rest fine
>>7993015
I suppose I don't really know yet. But I'm very interested in philosophy, and good ol' Neechuh seems like a good starting point.
>>7992980
I jumped the gun, I apologize. I'm working on not doing that.
>>7993031
Just read Kant.
It will save you a lot of time.
>>7993031
Well, he is not.
>>7993032
The fruits of the spirit. Love so great it can't be hidden. 4chan Christposters exhibit none of these.
>>7993031
He really is mostly a waste of time.
>>7992960
>implying Nietzsche denies a path to teleology
Why do people who haven't read his work feel the need to make comments about him?
>>7993045
>implying
>>7993043
Why do you say that? There are those who read exclusively Nietzsche.
>>7993031
He's only worth reading to know what a bad philosopher is. His metaphors are way too obvious and his logic is questionable at times. The world's ultimate angsty teen.
>>7992960
I don't get it isn't the first point the doctor make one of the Nietzschean core beliefs?
>>7993011
His ideas on the importance of suffering specifically
>>7993059
No, those people do not exist.
>>7992960
But masochism
>>7993068
Writer you mean then?
>>7993090
Well yes but his logic problems where the main headline
>>7992864
>A genius is the one most like himself.
To be fair he has some sick quotes
>>7993123
Stolen from Max Stirner.
> Nothing is more to me than myself
>>7993133
It wasn't actually a Nietzsche quote. kek
>>7993148
Fucking jazz musicians
>>7993031
What interests you about philosophy? Some particular topic or approach? Knowing a bit more about your interests (and background, if there's something you think is relevant), could help a lot to determine whether Nietzsche would be a good starting point. (My guess is that he isn't, but I'd have trouble recommending other starting points without knowing more. I guess for theoretical philosophy very generally, it's hard to go wrong with Descartes's Meditations and Objections and Replies and then Hume's first Enquiry, then maybe Kant's Prolegomena. Or if you're more interested in how we should live kind of questions, maybe Singer's "Famine, Affluence, and Morality", Thomson's "Defense of Abortion", Mill's Utilitarianism and Kant's Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals would be good.
For pretty much anything, the plato.stanford.edu is a good resource. Read relevant articles and maybe follow up with some of the bibliography.
>>7993007
yikes ths post
>>7993032
Not ironic, not funny.
>>7993160
My answer to this may come off as sloppy and uneducated, so bear with me.
Essentially, philosophy interests me because it draws into question everything that people take for granted about morals, justice, free will, and their place in the universe. I want to be able to dive into, challenge, and in some cases reinforce my current belief system with valuable arguments. Nietzsche appeals to me in the same way he appeals to a lot of young people.
His writings were part of the modernist movement, which seems like a much preferable period to read work from than, say, a time when theological beliefs were taken as absolute truths by many artists and intellectuals. Additionally, some of his most popular ideas such as "God is dead" (I'm aware this doesn't mean what most people think it means) and the "Übermensch" are very appealing to me, and I would like to know more about what he has to say.
>>7993076
I don't know what you're trying to argue. The whole reason I phrased it like that in the OP is that there is a stereotype of people who have familiarized themselves with exclusively his work and live their lives accordingly. See the movie Little Miss Sunshine for a caricature of such a person. See >>7992960 for another such caricature.
>>7992900
>demonized by Jews
Not really. In fact Theodore Herzl, father of Zionism, was a huge Nietzsche fanboy. He got caught up with the Nazis, true, but this wasn't really until the 1930s.
>>7992971
Were you the guy who made a thread about jumping into Zarathustra? I fucking told you so. Almost everyone I know who jumps in blind feels this way after the second part. My litmus test for whether you understood him or not, ask yourself which was the most important parable of section 2. If it is not the Tarantulas, you probably missed something in comprehension. Tarantulas is a distillation of the core of the purpose of his project.
>>7992992
Stirner and Nietzsche only have surface level similarities. Stirner was focused on merely identifying that everything is a social construction, aka spook meme and advocating that people liberate themselves from these spooks and be haunted no more. Nietzsche says that actually, spooks and real things, lies and truth, both have their place and the mere fact that something is a social construction is not enough for us to disregard it (unless we are powerful enough to become a value-creating ubermensch).
Granted I haven't read the ego and its own in its entirety, but this is generally the consensus. Stirner is a narrow thinker while Nietzsche is very broad. Nietzsche was also meticulous about citing his influences, doing so by pointing out how they were wrong in order to free his spirit from their influence.
>>7994178
It might also be worth considering that I am an atheist and from what I have read a subjectivist as well. Nietzsche seems to work around theology instead of using it to reinforce his arguments and he's definitely a subjectivist. He seems to deal with life after one has already come to the conclusion that there are no objective truths, and that's what fascinates me.
>>7992960
panel 1: that's Nietzsche's problem with morality, it's ambiguity. Whose morality? Who is enhanced by adopting such morality?
Panel 2: not sure where Nietzsche disagreed with that
Panel 3: there are truths... but only in the form of perspectives. Free will is a Judeo-Christian construct which has plagued philosophical thinking since.
Panel 4: Nietzsche argues that greatness, and the act of being a creator, necessarily requires pain and suffering. We must be put under great pressure just as carbon may be hardened into diamond in Earth's core. It's not that some are born innately weak, as the comic implies, but that through suffering is how life may achieve extraordinary accomplishments.
Entire comic: god is dead meme, ubermensch meme, ad hominem.
>>7993068
>opaque metaphors and unquestionable logic make for good philosophy
>>7994178
>>7994405
That seems like a perfectly good reason to be interested in philosophy.
I'm a little pressed for time, and I'd like to come back and make more and more detailed recommendations later, but I wanted to say a few quick things. First, I understand the desire to begin by reading those who don't start with God's existence and then go from there (though I also think there's a lot to learn from various theists throughout history, too). Nietzsche is definitely one of those, but there are also a lot of others, including many ancients, some early modern philosophers, and most 20th and 21st century philosophers. One thing worth noting about this is that, though there certainly are plenty of moral skeptics and anti-realists around, most philosophers don't think that the non-existence of God has much to do with whether or not there are any objective moral truths. See, e.g.,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiJnCQuPiuo
for a representative example.
Second, if you want to read someone who gives interesting arguments to challenge your and others' deepest beliefs, I recommend Hume, Hume, Hume! Deeply troubling critiques of belief in real causation, of the rationality of induction, of reason itself, of inferring moral facts from natural ones, of free will, and, though this is less troubling to us now, of arguments for God's existence. Depending on what you're most interested in, probably the best thing to start with is his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, then move to parts of the Treatise and to his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.
Finally, it's worth distinguishing between non-objectivist views about morality, perhaps a minority view, but not one that's viewed by most philosophers as, non-objectivist views about normativity more generally (which implies, e.g., no objective prudential reasons--no reason from your own interest to do one thing or another--and no objective epistemic reasons--no reason to believe one thing over another, or to not believe contradictions, etc.) and non-objectivist views about all truth whatsoever. Most philosophers think these latter kind of views are non-starters, more or less for the reason Plato gave against Protagoras's view in the Thaeatetus: they seem self-defeating.
>>7994654
Thanks for the Hume, this man seems extremely highly regarded and I've actually never even heard of him. I've added those to my list.
And are you saying that it's important to distinguish between non-objectivist views on morality, non-objectivist views on normativity, and non-objectivist views about truth whatsoever? I would consider myself a subscriber of the first of those categories and unsure about the other two. Where would you say Plato, Hume, and NIetzsche would fall on the spectrum?
>>7992904
You have to remember that Christian thought is extremely influenced by Platonic thought.
>>7994209
Yes, there is certainty a lot of light between them but ego of his own is where the most similarities lie. I'm not saying Nietzsche is COMPLETELY unoriginal but there are bits of his work believed to be stolen.
>>7992830
Genealogy of morals is a good place to start.
>>7994209
>Were you the guy who made a thread about jumping into Zarathustra?
No. I found out about the book after someone mentioned it on /fa/. I don't remember any of the parables really but skimming it now I remember Tarantulas to a degree, especially the part about how life is trying to rise ontop of pillars and the people who lie in the name of morals and conformity hold back those who want to rise. I liked the piece even though I didn't get some of the metaphors. Do I get a gold star?
>>7995948
>I found out about the book after someone mentioned it on /fa/.
Wew lad, there's your first problem.
>>7996178
I knew you were going to say that
