I'm reading Nietzsche for the first real time (read some essays before). Zarathustra. I'm about 50 pages in and.. I gotta say: this man comes across as the original deluded beta. He feels bullied whenever he's among people- whenever he talks to them he thinks that they are blinded by his genius and they become jealous and "attack him from the shadows". Even when he's being nice, he says, all the normies mock him and make him feel bad about himself. He tries to be magnanimous about it but that just makes him seem like more of a twat.
Is this whole book just the confessions of a r9k? Is this what went down in history? I still like big parts of it, the language is beautiful and sometimes there are interesting ideas but... this really stands out man.
>write a bunch of shit down
>wait 100 years
from dreams into memes
>he starts Nietzsche with Zarathrustra
That's the last book you should read, the heaviest in allegory
>>7720712
that it is. it's just the most famous, I came across it and figured what the hell
>not acting dumb and clueless around normies
How did he survive.
>>7720712
his pompous attitude isn't an "allegory"
it's him and in all his works.
>>7720855
>clearly hasn't read The Gay Science.
>>7720701
>reads Thus Spoke Zarathustra
>tries to psychoanalyze Nietzsche
The point of reading a philosopher is getting an idea of the philosophy. The philosopher should not be your main point of attention.
Tell me, what have you learned about his philosophy without mentioning Nietzsche himself?
>>7720701
You're not going to make it bro. Thus spake Zarathustra.
>>7720878
my impression so far is that he is more psychologist than philosopher. I can't tell you anything about his philosophy that I'm sure of at this point. Psychologically my understanding is that he means that all that man sees as problematic or bad in himself springs from motivations which are some kind of good. Recognizing this is the way to becoming ubermensch, the way across the bridge over the divide, the way to become free. In that light it seems almost like a self help book. I enjoyed the chapter where he listed different kinds of people whom he loved, as they were destroying themself somehow. It seems he thinks that an obviously self destructive behaviour will either bring about metamorphosis or death, and that either is better than being a poisonous fly in the crowd. I find that to be very misguided, but it's.. I hope he'll elaborate on it, because it never got that clear. I also enjoyed the chapter with the tree on the mountainside, it resonated with me and made sense in the perspective of the warring virtues.
I'll willingly admit that there is a lot included in the book that I simply don't understand how it could fit into something like a philosophy.
I'll also grant you my view of it all is somewhat colored by Bertrand Russel's oppinion of the Nietzsche and his works. I just didn't expect it to be so obvious.
>>7720880
probably not.
what's promising though is that it's bite sized. I read other shit when I have the energy to, and when I don't I kick in a chapter of his because you can get one clearly defined morsel
>>7720832
>How did he survive
He didn't, he's dead now.
>>7720701
I remember feeling this way after reading Russell's entry on him in A History of Western Philosophy. Then I actually read Nietzsche's thought and came to the conclusion that Russell didn't even really address Nietzsche's arguments or philosophy, he basically just spent several pages attacking his character and psychology on the basis of assumed moral truths. For a guy who supposedly so logical and rigorous, it was a real disappointment for me to realize Russell had failed as a philosopher at that moment.
>>7720902
You're right about one thing. He's indeed a splendid psychologist.
You have no understanding of the ubermensch or the way to get their yet. Which is to be expected if you start with Zarathustra.
It's seems like you think it's simply a reversal of good and bad that gets you across the divide.
It's nothing quite like that.
Personally, I don't think Russel had a good understanding on Nietzsche's philosophy, since he seemed to attack Nietzsche rather than his philosophy.
And let me be the first to say that Nietzsche was kind of fucked up. But that doesn't mean his philosophy is.
Truth out the mouth of a madman is of equal value as the same truth out of the mouth of any other man.
I could tell you what the abyss means, why he seems to reverse problematic things as some kind of good. What he means with the slave moral. What the ubermensch represents, what the last man represents, what the death of god has to do with it. I could explain how he tries to reevaluate all values and incorporates the eternal reoccurrence.
But honestly, all you had to do was read "The Gay Science", "Antichrist", "Human, all too human" and "Beyond Good and Evil".
Many of his metaphors are actually explained in these books instead of just put together into aphorisms like in Zarathustra.
You actually couldn't have chosen a worse book to begin with.
It will be interesting though, if you decide to actually read the other books, to come back to Zarathustra to see how your understanding of the aphorisms have changed.
Some of the aphorisms will have probably a totally new meaning, and a lot of what you consider reversals of good and bad will make sense because it's merely an extension of what he considers the master morality.
Zarathustra is also a parody of the new testament in many ways. I hope you know the new testament a little bit. Otherwise you will not understand a lot of the critique on the bible and some of the characters Zarathustra will encounter.
Why did you start with Zarathustra man? Why?
People who read Zarathustra for the first time without having read some of his other works, no knowledge of the new testament, no knowledge of Heraclitus, Schopenhauer, Feuerbach or even plain old Plato and say they actually understand the book is 100% lying.
People misinterpret a lot of his quotes all the fucking time because they don't understand the references in his aphorisms.
They claim to know Nietzsche because they have read him. The problem is you have to actually study Nietzsche.
So yea, have fun with that.
>>7721050
My grammar sucks because it's getting late over here and english isn't exactly my native language.
Sorry.
>>7720701
He is, but the difference is that he's demonstrably a genius at philology (he was granted professorship early in college because of how good his one paper was), and was terribly sick most of his life yet never complained and in fact thanked his sickness for certain philosophical positions he had. For all his arrogance and similar appearances to neckbeards, the guy had real character to match up to it whether or not you think his philosophy is stupid or not.
Thus Spoke Zarathustra is a bad place to start. It's kind of manifesto-ish because he doesn't give a lot of explanation of what Zarathustra says, but explains certain in other works. That's the bad thing about starting Nietzsche, he'll say something that sounds retarded but he has a good explanation for it in another book.
The whole normies not getting him is completely biographically accurate too. He was just too smart for his contemporary professors.It's really obvious he's virgin though, from the third essay in geneology. He does sound like a deluded beta but it's not that simple.
>>7720878
Lel, you obviously haven't read Nietzsche. Especially with Socrates and Plato, Nietzsche will talk about how the content of other philosophers is a rationalization of their concealed nihilism because they were ugly or something.
>>7720701
im an idiot with no patience and ongoing despondency/existential crisis. what Nietzsche book should ilisten to the audiotape on youtube?first
>>7721050
appreciate you taking your time.
>Truth out the mouth of a madman is of equal value as the same truth out of the mouth of any other man.
true.
>You actually couldn't have chosen a worse book to begin with.
well shit. I went in more or less blind
>The problem is you have to actually study Nietzsche.
in all honesty I doubt I'll work it that hard.
I mostly just wanted to see what it was, get a sense of it. I'll keep at it because it is pretty fun to read, but it's very difficult to piece it together to a whole. What a chapter on friendship, or on Zarathustra's views on soldiery is doing in there is, for instance, hard for me to grasp.
>>7721134
I never said he didn't psychoanalyze other philosophers. He's a god damned psychologist for the most part.
Freud even admitted that he said nothing Nietzsche hadn't said before.
But beyond that Nietzsche also attacked the philosophies and how they related to the psychology of the philosophers.
He didn't just say: "Plato was a beta cuck lelelel."
He said Jesus would have retracted his statements if he just had the chance to grow a bit older. That's how Nietzsche approached other philosophies.
Why simplify it to the ridiculous just to have a misguided gotcha moment?
>>7721134
>>7721050
You almost the exact same things I'm saying.
>>7721141
Personally, I'd suggest The Gay Science, it's probably his driest but easiest work to understand. If you find it a little boring go for Antichrist or Human, all too human. If you think you're ready for business, go for Beyond Good and Evil
>>7721166
>He said Jesus would have retracted his statements if he just had the chance to grow a bit older.
A reference for this would be greatly appreciated, anon. Interesting thread, btw.
>>7720712
It's either the last book you should read, or you should read it lightly and read it first, then keep it at your side as you read all of his pre-zarathustra works to refer to.
Anyways, Nietzsche was a /r9k/ poster born a century and a half too early. This is about as much psychology as you have to read into him. He's very isolated during his more productive years, he has very few people to talk to about basic human things. So a lot of that does spill into his work, even Zarathustra, which at times feels like the reader has to pull the gems out of the mud, to put it as Kaufmann did.
Some of his aphorisms and essays are the literary equivalent of shitposting. Oftentimes he does this simply because he thinks it is funny. He is not a serious-minded philosopher, he glibly inserts such things into his works because it tickles his own fancy, especially in his later years. Ecce Homo is particularly full of this stuff.
You have to read Nietzsche knowing that he was not in any way trying to make friends with his work (in fact he ended up losing almost all of them through it), he wasn't trying to be famous, he wasn't trying to be remembered or convince people that his way of thinking was correct. He didn't want a flock.
He just wanted 2 b himself.
>>7721147
A thing that would have been clear if you had read his other works is that the style in which he writes always changes.
Zarathustra is so stylistic compared to most of his other work that you'll probably won't believe it's the same writer if you read another of his books. I mean, most of his books has aphorisms in it, but they always have a certain place in the books. Usually he's a little more straightforward and less heavy handed with the metaphors.
On the other hand, Zarathustra is probably the most entertaining and has some of his most famous quotes in it.
Just enjoy it.
>>7721166
>The point of reading a philosopher is getting an idea of the philosophy. The philosopher should not be your main point of attention.
Were you not discouraging OP from making character judgements on the philosopher as a method of engaging with the philosophy? Because it sounds like it to me. And Nietzsche certainly didn't refrain from 'psychology' (which is what it is, but a bit of a euphemism for "Kant, that most deformed concept-cripple of all time" and "Socrates was plebeian. We are told, and can see in sculptures of him, how ugly he was. But ugliness, in itself an objection, is among the Greeks almost a refutation.")
>>7721208
>he has very few people to talk to about basic human things
that sure comes across. he seems like he's writing from his tower, detached, and that some things just can not be well known from such a seat. Like war, or the virtuous "little struggle" of a smaller financial life (I can't help but think of contemporary industrialism and wonder if those people felt much virtue in their simple life)
>Some of his aphorisms and essays are the literary equivalent of shitposting.
that's awesome.
>He wasn't trying to...
Would you say he was trying to make himself understood at all? because if not you have to wonder what motivations there could be left for being a published writer... pay the bills?
>>7721236
I would say he probably didn't care that much if people understood or not. And his writing wasn't paying the bills at all, he sold less than 100 copies of Zarathustra during his life, and that was the best selling work he wrote. He was writing because he felt compelled to a higher purpose, a purpose of his mind's creation.
His bills were paid by a pension he had from his time working as a philology professor. He was forced into retirement by chronic illness. He had migraines so bad they'd blind him (part of the reason he switches to aphoristic writing for awhile is because his illness and deteriorating vision makes it impossible for him to sit down and write for too long) and stomach upset so bad he had constant issues with keeping food down, and of course he also was an insomniac.
He lived a nomadic life during these last years where he'd go live in the mountains in the summer, then come down to the coast in Italy for the winter, occasionally stopping by to live with his mother for a few months.
He was quite literally a NEET for the last part of his life, since his bad health and edgy writings made him unemployable.
Because Nietzsche WAS a deluded beta. His philosophy is shit-tier and he's probably one of the worst influences on modern thought.
>>7721177
thanks m8
>>7721202
It's been a long time, but it's a paraphrase from "Human, all too human" iirc. It could have been Antichrist too. I should have to look but I don't feel like it. Sorry.
Nietzsche laments the death of christ, saying he died to soon, leaving the world with a naive and incomplete philosophy.
Something to that affect. I'm not sure how he worded it precisely, but that was the jest of it.
>>7720701
The book is a disaster, Nietzsche at his worst. Skip it, and read The Birth Of Tragedy, which is good.
>>7720951
Russell also wrote that Bergson's philosophy supported the idea of Vichy France. Guy was a shit philosophical commentator
>>7720951
Ironic since Nietzsche himself wouldn't address any of his opponents' arguments or philosophy. Indeed
>>7720701
The book is not mean for you anonymous. That's why you don't understand it. For it clearly says a book for all and none. Now you're obviously someone, and therefore not none. You're not all either. But suppose you were to argue that you were part of the all, so that all contains you. But notice that it says all AND none, not all OR none. Therefore you would have to be simultaneously all and one, or at the intersection of all with none. But this cannot be for to be simultaneouly all and none you would have to be contained in none in the first place, but we've already stablished that you are someone and not none. Therefore the book is not for you.
>>7722540
couldn't that just mean that the book is for all and none like sidewalks are for pedestrians and bicyclists? You don't have to be both to use the sidewalk.
either way: would you say the book is for you?
>>7722540
and why can't someone be none? nothing can be none, we're talking about none as relative to something else. I claim to be all that is, to have the characteristic of being part of all sets, including all forms of none
>>7721050
Not OP.
I started with Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Came on here to discuss similar stylistic aspects of the book, and anons said I was a fool for starting with ASZ and didn't understand Nietzsche. They then went on to explain his philosophy in almost the exact terms I had in the notes I'd taken.
tl;dr - you don't need the context to understand what he means from what he says in his book (who woulda guessed)
>>7722540
or maybe the answer is that you can only read it in a group, and then only read the jacket
>>7721208
pleb
Ecce Homo is full of non-BS, grounded, advice on living well.
>>7722699
>I am no man, I am dynamite
what a fucking tryhard
>>7722622
Every fucking philosophy text is like this
>hurr you have to read all of these books before you read this book
>end up understanding the book completely without those other books
>>7722699
>non-BS, grounded advice
>DON'T EAT GERMAN FOOD IT WILL GIVE YOU INDIGESTION
>DON'T LIVE IN GERMANY THE CLIMATE SUCKS
Yeah, nah. There's some good stuff in there but some of this stuff could show up in shitposts on /int/ or /r9k/ easily. Especially when he talks about women, you can tell he's either a virgin or maybe screwed a hooker or something. Despite being a romantic, the guy was probably a wizard.
>>7722622
This is true of most philosophers who are also talented writers. I had no problem going straight into the world as will and representation without even touching Kant or Hegel. Nietzsche was first philosopher I read. I had some bits of Cicero and the Greeks in elementary school but nothing serious when I found a copy of Human, All Too Human in a supply closet my headmaster started locking me in when I misbehaved. I must have been around 10 or 11 years old at the time. I pursued more of his works in the library after devouring that and Nietzsche has stuck with me ever since.
It's kind of weird doing philosophy that way, no matter what I read I have Nietzsche there saying 'lel kid this is all bullshit' and tipping his fedora in my mind's eye.
>>7720701
>Is this whole book just the confessions of a r9k?
The huge difference is that r9k are losers who never accomplished shit, Nietzsche was a professor by the age of 25.
>>7722715
He was quoting a review of Beyond Good and Evil from the Berner Bund.
>>7722782
I'm working on elucidating what that difference comes down to
>>7722796
r9k mindset is only problematic when coming from losers who fantasize about shit, it's pretty worthless then. Coming from a accomplished individual ... it's still bullshit but at least interesting one and shouldn't be instantly dismissed.
>Hasn't finished Zarathustra
>What is this book about?
>Probably wont' understand the eternal occurrence
>Stay among rabble
All these morons saying he's "/r9k/..."
You are aware that he was genuinely a genius right?
Like, one of the smartest men to have ever lived kind if genius... That alone makes him unlike anything from a fucking online image board.
Please reply only after you've achieved anything in life, at all... other than claiming Nietzsche was A STUPID FEDORA!!!!!!!! xD and that "I could do better!!!!"
Words are wasted on some, I swear...
>>7723238
>one of the smartest men to have ever lived kind if genius
Ugh, going from one extreme to another. What did he do to be considered that smart? What did his writings accomplish?
>>7723238
The problem is that people equate fedora and neck beard with bad without taking time to figure out what's so bad about those groups.
What's bad about being a perpetual contrarian if you're right? Being snobby about it? He wrote books to share.
An edge master? Nihilism is a real thing. Usually edgemasters don't do shit with all of their whining and don't seek solutions for their problems. Nietzsche became a philosophical milestone.
>>7723238
There are intelligent people on /r9k/, and he does have the general edgy loner mentality that they have. The only difference is that he used his NEETdom to create things that he could share with us. Most of the wisdom and art of those few /r9k/ will be dumped into the archive then forgotten about.
People who lionize him as a genius miss the point, granted his work is massively influential, he did a lot of synthesis, revival, and creation of new ideas to challenge how people think about the world around them. But he was not in it to show you how smart he was, to become famous or whatever. He only wished to find his own truth, and share what he found useful with others. He was humbly ambitious. He was a law giver, but only for one man.
>>7722794
I like when he does this, for example in the end of Zarathustra he has a lion at his knees, this is in reference to the review of the birth of tragedy that badly hurt his standing as a philologist.
>>7723431
>>7723431
If you genuinely believe there are people who frequent r9k that are as intelligent as Nietzsche then you're a moron. People on /r9k/ for the most part, are losers that have been losers forever. They don't actively choose alienation, its forced on them. If they could fit in, they would. Nietzsche is the complete fucking opposite. That was the whole fucking point of his works. What is the overman again?
Also, at what point in my post did I claim that he wanted to be famous or known for being a genius? Oh right, I didn't. Calling him a genius does not indicate whether or not anyone "missed the point" of his work. It is genius. More knowledgable men than you or me have said the same.
By the looks of it... you wrote a whole lot of nothing to try and justify your bad habit of frequenting the "lonely rage filled virgin" section of a website, and are trying way too hard to drag others there with you. But no, Nietzsche wasn't anything like the average /r9k/ poster, the fact you ever implied that shows clearly that YOU missed the point of his work.
>>7723431
/r9k/ is a meme powerhouse.
>>7723431
Also, I was unaware that you knew him personally. I mean, you must have done... Otherwise how else would you know for sure just what the fuck he was in it for?
How do you know for certain that he wasn't in it for glory?
How do you know he didn't want people to know how smart he was?
Again, you can't answer that, can you?
Stop repeating the shit you hear in low budget, biased documentaries as if concrete facts.
>not placing yourself above the common retards who are distracted and kept happy by the stupidest shit
>if you are not also distracted and retarded then there is something wrong with you
Ever read Brave New World?
I do not think that subjectivity is bad, as long as you do not take seriously what your mind produces. subjectivity is bad only for the guy who cling to the fantasy of objectivity [whereas he cannot even instantiate any objectivity, since it remains a fairy tale, so far]
there are plenty of rationalisms. but so far, any rationalism is, at least, the personal faith in the relevance of a few personal abstractions and inferences amongst the flood of abstractions and inferences that each person's mind produces, in order to reach some truth/reality/objectivity/universality/certainty [with all those words personal abstractions again] with, for a few rationalisms, a minuscule touch of empiricism in order to avoid the critique, towards the classical rationalism à la Descartes, that pure reason is disconnected from the world and is therefore sterile. [with Kant offering a bastardization of modern rationalism+empiricism]
of course so far, any rationalism has failed, from the faith in your favourite formal languages more or less coupled to ''the scientific method'' to the old faith in the analysis of the natural languages, in order to establish explicitly any relevant abstraction to the empirical world, leaving then to ''mysticism'' the view that the intellect [= that which ties, that which abstracts], or more commonly the mind/spirit, is nothing but the intellect and that the mind is just what the mind is : another sensual channel that can be pleasant or not.
So we can conclude that, so far, the various logics, reasons, reasonings, formalized or not, are conventions.
Given the diversity of formal languages, and the perpetual fight of the few guys who want their preferred formal languages to explain anything else, we are far away from reaching whatever the rationalist's fantasy standing behind the word ''objectivity''.
All this faith in rationalism do not date back to the liberal/libertarian [starting with classical liberalism and then its numerous nuances]. Those guys only took over after the Catholics and attempted to secularize their notions, with, typically, the notion of ''will'' which has become legalized as ''consent'' [and then the actual challenge of the liberals.libertarians is to manufacture a ''secularized will'' which goes beyond their legal structure and, if possible, is backed up by whatever he calls by ''science''. I say good luck to them.].
Catholicism took the rationalist trend as opposed to Orthodoxy's mysticism. The Reformation was not only anti-clerical but anti-monastic so Europe's contemplative tradition is more older material and thus harder to get into for the Catholic parts of Europe that retained the monastic tradition despite.
>>7724188
It is the scholastics in the universities, newly created, who transformed the philosophy in to the tools for teleology which is thus making philosophy the field of logic done in natural language.
Logic is now a metaphysics and the prime tool to reach god/truth/certainty.
then the modern rationalist took over in ridiculing aristotle logic [which could be leniently seen as some contemporary intuitionist type theory, for whose who know] and then, as the modern rationalist was more and more interested in what he calls empiricism, some guys wanted to apply this to the social realm which flourished into positivism and failed miserably [even logical empiricism and logical positivism failed...].
Since the beginning, there is a clear tension between the rationalist-liberal [in universities] and the liberal/libertarian which consists in the rest of the pleb who can do nothing but work and dwell in leisure... [and praise the rationalist in the university still fantasized, but now mostly solely by the pleb, as a disinterested guy working objectivity, especially if this guy provides the scientific/technological progress which sustains nothing but the hedonism of the populace].
too bad that no rationalist has a clear view on what can science do, beyond sustain hedonism.
The modern rationalist has split the field of his study in various sub-fields such as epistemology, ethics, Mind and Cognition, philosophy of science, as if it makes sense, beforehand to split these fields and study them for their own sake. There is also the more adulated fields of pure sciences since, at the end of the day, philosophy is still considered as a waste of time, since precisely it does not give us ''computers, cars, planes, TV, houses'' and whatever things the material hedonists crave...
so we have two praxes stemming from the tension between hedonism-rationalism: the pure leisure, which is always frowned upon, especially by the hedonists who see themselves as rationalists [when they are not so, which is quite funny] still talking about ''absolutes'' ''The logic'', ''the Reason'', as well as the the free-thinkers, but only as free as he can be in order for his work to still be of interest for the nation, or perhaps even for the people, depending on whether the society is more liberal or is more libertarian.
>>7724191
in the social realm, we are now stuck with the liberals and libertarians who clearly have no idea about what they are doing in order to manage their ''nations'' of hundreds of millions of people, with just as much as personal opinions, created thanks to their sciences.
The problem of the human rights is that they forbids more than they make explicitly mandatory any praxis, explicit authority which the liberal/libertarian have tremendous difficulty to justify [like he said himself about the monarchs, by the way].
At best, when the liberals and libertarians are asked why democracy/republics are good, they reply that ''it is the not the best system, but it is clearly not the worst'' which naturally convinces nobody but themselves.
And since Very few people are not born as hedonist, there is not much they can do. And anyway, nobody can leave hedonism in reading popsci books and merging the entertainment industry with the most applied sciences, like the rationalists-liberals would like in manufacturing some social structure to convert the ignorant people to their dreams.
You can have a spiritual hedonism, through drugs of pure meditation [done for pure pleasure and appealing because it appears as exotic], but it remains a hedonism and even the best yogis who refuse drugs, sex and other entertainments, which the materialistic hedonist loves, have a hard time to leave this spiritual hedonism.
now the companies try to appear as moral agent with of course, the sole purpose to make profits. But this entrepreneurial fallacy benefits the clients as well, since they can now be explicitly hedonistic and and be called moral in consuming green, or local or giving 1 pound to charity at the check-out, in providing for, sponsoring , fostering a few ''refugees'' that they never see.
I think that liberalism is a marvellous doctrine nearly unbeatable, beyond some major events. I think that it not so bad that most people are hedonistic, because as soon as you are less hedonistic than them, you can take advantage of their society without troubles [in fact you appear, to them, as a good guy], when they do not give you directly the means to do what you want.
Nigga, you need to read more philosophical works to even dare to post such a stupid posts.
>>7724197
it's not irrelevant. if a "philosopher" has shrowded what is at it's core a disdain and anger towards his fellow man in such mystery that he achieves a cult following of people who "get it", and they keep his works alive even though obviously they haven't been able to see what motivated the mind of said "philosopher" to conjure up these particular explanations and theories, then that would indeed be good to know when trying to grasp what such a philosopher was doing/trying to do.
>And you say you would have been able to see through a 100+ year poetic/psychological/philosophical secret in 50 odd pages?
no, no I don't. but there's no harm in asking about the oppinions of other readers/memeing
>>7721224
>Reads Zarathustra
>Claims he "gets" it
>Claims context is redundant
>Never learns the context
>Never realizes how wrong he is
>Goes to 4chan to spout nonsense
>>7724364
>Reads a post
>Doesn't know the context (my understanding)
>Claims I must be wrong
>Spouts nonsense
would you say old Freddy is a good philosopher for finding some kind of meaning/an acceptable order for things? I am among the weak he talks about which turn to mysticism in their desperation, it really made sense to me that I am like that when I read it, and it.. something should be better than that.
I think what a lot of people don't realize about the first--and most of the second--part of TSZ is that it's supposed to be the setup for zarathustra's discovery of the eternal return. A lot of what Z says at first he goes back to later call "greedy," essentially flashy BS philosophy to attract the frustrated ones in society. Yes, Zarathustra still by the end definitely believes in overcoming the self by being able to disregard indoctrination of the judeo-christian values, overcoming the nihilistic baseline of reality by creating value for oneself, the metamorphoses of the spirit, etc.
BUT, a lot of the shit Z says which comes off as angry and frustrated is supposed to be just that. This is Zarathustra's "going under" his evolution into the prophet that you see by P3 when he finds the doctrine of eternal recurrence. The ultimate point of the book is this amor fati that comes with ER, not just Zarathustra's initial values of power, anger and violence.
>>7725783
He only gives you the method.
Which is just overcome urself bro.
The eternal recurrence is supposed to be a behavior modifying afterlife just as the Christian heaven/hell, it's not something he actually literally believed in, but a litmus test for a life well lived. Just as Christians avoid sin because they fear hell, the believers of the eternal recurrence would avoid living a masturbatory life, avoid being trapped in first gear, avoid being chained down by circumstances beyond their control. The eternal recurrence lays out a lifestyle just as heaven/hell do. Under the recurrence framework a life well lived is a life where one progressively develops, where one pursues ends of his own construction, suffers in pursuit of these ends, yet also finds satisfaction in this and ultimately finds his own truth.
If you want someone to show you meaning, Nietzsche is not your guy. If we go back to Plato's allegory, most philosophers are more than willing to cast shadows against the wall and tell you these are reality. Plato's 'forms' are shadows themselves. Nietzsche just gives you a flashlight and a few tips on avoiding the beasts lurking in the void beyond the shadows.
I'm pretty well versed in a lot of philosophy in a really really basic sense. I too am 50 pages into TSZ, and don't really find it that challenging. I think understanding of who he was is important to it: the "rabble" not understanding and laughing at Zarathustra just mirrors his colleagues laughing at him. My problem with the ubermensch is what's the point of becoming great, of metamorphosing into this super-species? Sure to triumph and leave behind man is cool and all, but for what reason? I have a feeling I'm embarrassing myself right now but clarification would be great. I don't really think Nietzche is reversing morals as much as he is casting aside the humbling slave morality of Christianity.
>>7726079
fricking awesome. I have been thinking about whether or not the character should be taken as Nietzsche himself or as his own literary character. it is good to know that it is the latter, that makes the reading a lot easier
>>7726223
ok.. yeah that's the thing, it is all shadows against a wall. and most of the time when you go look for something better it turns out it's just a variation of the same. so far TSZ has had ideas that are fresh to me, so that speaks in it's favor. I don't expect someone to show me meaning, but I would like more perspectives on what could be a baseline of existence. sounds like he has a model for something like what I'm after.
I'll definitely read on, thanks anons.
>>7726232
The point of the Ubermensch is to transcend both master and slave moralities and replace them with moral systems of our own creation. He doesn't view master morality any better than slave morality, he only disparages slave morality so harshly because he sees it as the more apparent threat of the two.
You work towards the ubermensch for the same reason men climb mountains, to obtain a broader perspective, to look down on the lowlands in a way you can't when you're living down there.
Nietzsche wanted a revaluation of all values and this couldn't be accomplished, from his point of view, within the human condition. Men had to rise above the human condition to truly understand morality.
Also, try not to look at the Ubermensch as a superman. The Ubermensch is two things, an ideal to strive for through the process of self overcoming, and it's not some Herrenvolk style ideal of superior humans, it is something that is simply beyond human, operating on another plane of existence by comparison.
>>7726454
>a baseline of existence
what I mean by that is what could be a "first" out of which an understanding or a point of view- an interpretation of the big questions that are hard to specify, and a way to live with them- springs. I know it goes back to cogito ergo sum but.. really how much will that do? and if it were the begin all end all of it then there would be no need for philosophy. so there's gotta be more variations, maybe philosophies that allow themself some logical oversights, or function by a logic I don't know yet, that can make something else out of the thing
didn't Freddy write that book while shutting himself away from the world after getting rejected by his friend's sister?
thus spake a little bitch who couldn't take rejection
>>7727542
>didn't Freddy write that book while shutting himself away from the world after getting rejected by his friend's sister?
Lou Saloumé? That wasn't exactly his friends sister.
And yea, Thus spoke Zarathustra is all about Nietzsche not being able to take rejection.
>>7727576
Huh, yeah. For some reason I was remembering her as Rée's sister.
>>7727576
Really though, a significant portion of the book is more or less devoted to Nietzsche coming to terms with how society reacted to him. Zarathustra is a self-insert in more ways than one.
>>7726454
>I have been thinking about whether or not the character should be taken as Nietzsche himself or as his own literary character.
Most of the time, if this thought even starts crossing your mind, you're basically retarded.
Hope this doesn't get lost amid the shitstorm.
I've just started reading Birth of Tragedy and so far I think he's basically right about the Apollonian and Dionysian as views on life.
Nevertheless, I think there could be a way to reconcile a trascendental view on life with his joyful materiallism (he talks a lot about having an "intramundane" appreciation of life).
Also, anyone has any secondary sources on the relation/contrast between his view and hedonism? Any Christian responses to his claims about Christianism being "the most abhorrent variation on the moral topic that humanity has heard of to this moment"? Sorry if my quotations are incorrect, I'm reading in German-Spanish and have to translate into English myself.
Thanks in advance, /lit/.
>>7727738
Birth of Tragedy was something he wrote when he was young and really into Schopenhauer and Wagner. He basically tore it to shreds himself with his own intro to the second edition.
>>7727800
I have that intro bound to my edition. He doesn't seem to be tearing it down, merely correcting some points and saying where he disagrees in retrospect, what should have been more explicit. He makes fairly clear that it is still an important book in the history of his thought, and that it still should be read, albeit with some precautions.
I mean, ultimately, it's a philological essay and it has some very good points on the actual Greek texts (I don't know Greek, but from the translations I've read I get the feeling he was right).
I dont think he really focused on the "masses" as being jealous so much as lazy. They're too lazy to overcome themselves, and as such call overcoming a sin or otherwise reprehensible thing that no one can really achieve. Theyre basically too lazy to be individuals and just adopt the identities of the herd- and react negatively to those who do not do the same. He basically saying the slave morality doesnt exist because its righteous, pleasing or reasonable, it exists because its easy.
Keep reading. A big point of this stage in the novel is to show that people cant be convinced that self-overcoming and rejection of the "spirit of gravity" (nihilism) is necessary, but that they must like Zarathustra come to these conclusions themselves with the help of sunshine (meaning) to aid them. Zarathustra wants to be a sun to the people; but he cant do that by speeches and arguments. In that way it also an attack of the Socratic method.
>>7726232
>But for what reason?
For its own sake, essentially. Hes heavily influences by Darwin and wants to show that values evolve and grow just like species. We must become more-than-human simply to not be human, like we became human simply to not be able. Its a never-ending stuggle of self-overcoming in the light of two things: beauty and sublimity. Ideally we become more of both as we overcome ourselves, but this process does not have an end.
>>7727679
why you gotta be like that man?
>>7727861
>they must like Zarathustra come to these conclusions themselves
>In that way it also an attack of the Socratic method.
Sorry for just jumping in, I haven't read NIetzsche yet, but this intrigues me, because this sounds contradictory.
Isn't making people come to conclusions themselves the entire point of the Socratic method?
>>7720701
maybe start with Herakleitos
>>7720902
go to rapgenius....
>>7728525
The Socratic method is a means to show that somebody knows nothing. (devoid of meaning)
Zarathustra starts there and makes one provide his own meaning.
That's probably what he meant.
Socrates breaks it all down.
Zarathustra builds it back up.
Quit the fucking marketplace.
Nietzsche was incapable of forming a complete sentence without stuttering, would never make eye contact not even with people he knew for years, and could not stop fidgeting. He confessed his love to the first woman he met that was not his mother, was a virgin until 45, and probably masturbated to goat vaginas, I assume he never had the will to penetrate.
Let these FACTS sink in a little, before you bestow any more of your time on some idiot's bullshit justification for his own shortcomings and various psychological ailments.
>>7723537
This.
