Nietzsche reading tips

[Whaleboy]

If thinking is best, then the last thing you should do is read a summary: that was not the creation of the philosopher, but the output of some third parties who's ideas are totally foreign to you

All I need to think is the concepts. I'm not about to join a fan club of a certain philosopher. The creation of the philosopher is the concept, and thats all I need to work with. If I'm in the mood for nice language, I'll read Mills & Boon (or Sartre ).

ut there is even more: your vocabulary limits your thoughts: you can not think in ways for which you have no concepts or words. Reading is fundamental for vocabulary building, and if what you aim to do is to think philosophically, well, then build up your philosophical vocabulary, doing so will make you much more capable of original thought.

I partially agree, while I think in words, I think more fundamentally on the conceptual level, which isn't really either words or images, I cant describe it. If anything, its just logic. Learning the lingo is good, but thats why the good lord gave us the Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy .

[Maniac]

I knew this thread was gonna get hijacked right from the start, but because I already have four tips I can use, I'll add to the fun.

Chegitz:

Hegel and Marx are the way to go.

Is Hegel really interesting? Sure his dialectical thought might be great, but from the summary I've seen of him I get the impression he spends most of his time saying how perfect Prussia is.

eLIJAH:

Dont. Never read philosophy, except perhaps Satre, Wittgenstein and Platos Republic.

I don't see why I should read something of such a totalitarian radical as Plato. Beside, AFAIK he seems to think ideas have some independent existence, which is totally opposed to my idea of ideas as human mental constructs. In fact, due to having studied Latin, I've had to read quite a bit about Plato, and I don't remember agreeing with anything he says. (IMHO the majoriy of European philosophers after Herakleitos and before the nineteenth century suck.)

In all else, get summaries.

I agree with your statement for most philosophers and philosophies, more specifically the ones I don't agree with and thus would be bored and annoyed like hell having to read their entire writings. But for the philosophies and philosophers you know you generally agree with, reading them can be useful, as you can read and think "I agree with that!" or "I think he's making a logical mistake making conclusion B from premise A - I disagree.", thus inspiring new more nuanced thoughts, refine and order your thoughts about the subject, or simply compare with your own philosophy.

[Maniac]

Originally posted by elijah
Like I said on another thread, perhaps Protagoros more than most, but only on the relativism thing, and pre-elijah relativism sucked!

If you're a relativist, why the hell would you read Plato??

[Whaleboy]

I don't see why I should read something of such a totalitarian radical as Plato.

Man, you gotta read Plato. The Republic has allegories and little things in there that are very insightful. He wrote it the best part of three millenia ago, be objective, we can't get all flustered because some stuff he has to say, in a conceptual virginity then, is politically incorrect now.

Beside, AFAIK he seems to think ideas have some independent existence, which is totally opposed to my idea of ideas as human mental constructs. In fact, due to having studied Latin, I've had to read quite a bit about Plato, and I don't remember agreeing with anything he says

Don't read because you agree. Read to disagree, and form alternatives. You're not going to turn a lump of iron into a sword by forging it with cold water!

I'll read the full thing if I want something more than the direct concept, say there are little entangled metaphors, that, as a writer that uses that technique a lot, I enjoy. However, then I read it as more of a novel, not as a means of getting a concept into my mind. After all, in philosophy, that is the key thing... it is literally conceptual art. Literary art is another thing that makes reading things fun, but people like Popper try their level best to make reading their work as tedious as humanly possible.

[Whaleboy]

If you're a relativist, why the hell would you read Plato??

Because I'm not merely a relativist. Read the alegory of the cave and ask yourself the questions that it asks you. Besides, its a sad day when I only choose to listen to voices that agree with me.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Maniac
I knew this thread was gonna get hijacked right from the start, but because I already have four tips I can use, I'll add to the fun.

Chegitz:


Is Hegel really interesting? Sure his dialectical thought might be great, but from the summary I've seen of him I get the impression he spends most of his time saying how perfect Prussia is.

Hegel is ****ing brilliant. Read the Philosophy of Right. It's his easiest work to grasp. Once you follow his method, Marx's Capital is easy to understand.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Maniac

I don't see why I should read something of such a totalitarian radical as Plato.

Well that is rather unfair. What you seem to forget is that Plato's political ideas ought to be judged in context. Tyrants were commonplace in Classical Greece and the word did not have the same connotation it does now.

Moreover it is wrong to judge Plato as an idiotic advocate of totalitarianism if one does not appreciate the recent history of Athens in his time. That city as you may well know was a considerably freer democracy (for male citizens anyway) than any which exist today and it manifestly and catastrophically failed in a war against a totalitarian militaristic state (Sparta). Many educated Athenians (not unfairly) blamed democracy for the defeat. It isn't as if there were any other examples of it to work from, so Plato's attitude to it seems quite reasonable.

Beside, AFAIK he seems to think ideas have some independent existence, which is totally opposed to my idea of ideas as human mental constructs. In fact, due to having studied Latin, I've had to read quite a bit about Plato, and I don't remember agreeing with anything he says. (IMHO the majoriy of European philosophers after Herakleitos and before the nineteenth century suck.).

So you believe that the common nature of being positively charged, which all protons share, is a mental construct rather than something all protons themselves have?

Interesting.....


Nietzsche: it's a long time since I read the major works, but the essay "Schopenhauer as Educator" is a good start. Other than that "The Gay Science" is the best.

[Japher]

People should read things that they don't believe in order to challenge their beliefs... That is why a read the bible, and dismissed it when I was 10

Many things are complete gibberish, or bad ideas... Yet, that doesn't make them as wrong as something, like, say... oh, Marx!

[GePap]

Originally posted by elijah


Man, you gotta read Plato. The Republic has allegories and little things in there that are very insightful. He wrote it the best part of three millenia ago, be objective, we can't get all flustered because some stuff he has to say, in a conceptual virginity then, is politically incorrect now.

And the same reason applies to reading any philosopher: to Paraphrase Nietzsche, the greatness of a philosopher is not in their theories as a whole, which may very well prove wrong, but in the building material they provide for others when their theory is pulled down.

I'll read the full thing if I want something more than the direct concept, say there are little entangled metaphors, that, as a writer that uses that technique a lot, I enjoy. However, then I read it as more of a novel, not as a means of getting a concept into my mind. After all, in philosophy, that is the key thing... it is literally conceptual art. Literary art is another thing that makes reading things fun, but people like Popper try their level best to make reading their work as tedious as humanly possible.

Reading the original is generally best, unless the author decided to be obtuse. Is not like philosophers are rushed with time.

[Proteus_MST]

I´d recommend "Also sprach Zarathustra"
where Nietzsche (or to be more exactly Zarathustra in his Book) talks a lot about humanity and the Ãœbermensch.

Also the source of the famous Sentence:
"Wenn Du zum Weibe gehst, vergiß die Peitsche nicht"
(If you go to a woman, don´t forget the whip)

[Whaleboy]

That city as you may well know was a considerably freer democracy (for male citizens anyway) than any which exist today and it manifestly and catastrophically failed in a war against a totalitarian militaristic state (Sparta). Many educated Athenians (not unfairly) blamed democracy for the defeat. It isn't as if there were any other examples of it to work from, so Plato's attitude to it seems quite reasonable.

Example #1 on my list of reasons why democracy sucks. Ironic that a libertarian society is achieved by a dictatorship (preferable AI, we humans also suck).

So you believe that the common nature of being positively charged, which all protons share, is a mental construct rather than something all protons themselves have?

The notion of being positively charged is a human construct to fit certain paramaters. Applying that artificial notion, one can say that protons are thus charged. There is no natural notion of positive, or even proton, but assume the two, and you have the two being synonamous.

[The Templar]

Having said that -

Unless you are really familiar with the history of philosophy, Nietzsche won't mean as much to you. Nonetheless, I'd recommend "Geneaology of Morals". "Geneaology" pretty much sums it up.

Hegel is also good, but be prepared to read a lot of secondary literature to get it (and never just rely on one Hegel scholar). Better yet, take a course if you can.

[Whaleboy]

And the same reason applies to reading any philosopher: to Paraphrase Nietzsche, the greatness of a philosopher is not in their theories as a whole, which may very well prove wrong, but in the building material they provide for others when their theory is pulled down.

Standing on the shoulders of giants. Still, the only difference between a book and a good summary is the language used. If there is significance in the langauge and discourse itself, as opposed to the concepts they illustrate, then I'll read the discourse.

Reading the original is generally best, unless the author decided to be obtuse. Is not like philosophers are rushed with time.

Poppers Open Society vol I is my top candidate (along with Antony and Cleopatra) for "Ben's Book Burning Barbeque".

[Whaleboy]

That city as you may well know was a considerably freer democracy (for male citizens anyway) than any which exist today and it manifestly and catastrophically failed in a war against a totalitarian militaristic state (Sparta).

*elijah draws on his miniscule classical knowledge obtained through spurious encounters with the History channel*

Wasn't Sparta defeated by the Athenians and some other city states? Or am I thinking later?

[GePap]

Zarathustra is full of nice images and quotes (why SMAC quoted it so often), but as far as getting to his concepts, not the best method..beyond Good and Evil and Geneology are both much better.

I assume you will read it in Dutch or german..if in English, get a translation by Kaufmann..by far the best translator of Nietzsche into english.