Would /lit/ recommend this book to someone relatively new to philosophy and theology? I'm familiar with Nietzche but have never read any of his works, I'm very interested in learning about his fictionalized portrayal of Zoroaster.
>>7976091
>I'm familiar with Nietzche but have never read any of his works
What did he mean by this?
>>7976099
Ive heard of him from other people
>>7976091
Read Beyond Good And Evil first, after that read On the Genealogy of Morality maybe read Zarathustra afterwards. zarathustra is really hard to understand.
Also you dont know nietzsche if you didnt read a single book of him.
>>7976206
Nah fuck that
Start with the gay science
>>7976208
Well i guess everyone has their own opinion on which book you should read first, but essential is, that no one would recommend to read Zarathustra at first.
>Would /lit/ recommend this book to someone relatively new to philosophy and theology?
yeah man frankenstein is dope
>>7976091
How many books have that cover?
>>7976091
>im familiar with Nietzsche
>but I never read any of his works
this is a contradiction of terms. The portrayal of Zarathustra is mostly unimportant, the name is a setpiece. Nietzsche selected Zoroaster because he felt that Zoroaster had brought in the new age of morality with his good/evil dichotomy which passed into Judaism, and from there into Christianity, and from there into all of Western ideology, from liberalism and socialism to feminism and anarchism. Just as Zoroaster brought us good and evil, Nietzsche believed he should be the one to take it away.
Nietzsche is not a fiction writer and he should never be read as such. If you want to learn about Nietzsche, read Twilight of the Idols and Beyond Good and Evil, then if you're interested take the rest of his works in chronological order.
>>7976206
Prologue to thus spoke zarathustra is easy to understand.
The passage concerning the last man is a horrifyingly accurate prediction of today's world
