Is there anything Nietzsche wrote that's worth reading...

Is there anything Nietzsche wrote that's worth reading? or am I just wasting my time and better off reading the mountain of other shit I need to get through?

Attached: the turin horse.jpg (712x1023, 222.62K)

Other urls found in this thread:

minerva.mic.ul.ie/vol11/Deleuze.html
moufawad-paul.blogspot.com/2009/07/i-hate-nietzsche.html?m=1

All of it is pretty good.

Nietzsche gets a bad rap on the left. He was definitely a reactionary, but his personal beliefs and his philosophy are often confused. The core of his philosophy is more or less the same as Stirner’s. I would recommend Beyond Good and Evil, The Anti-Christ, and Thus Spoke Zarathustra.

Genealogy of Morals is a good start
I like the Deleuzian reading of Nietzsche. Deleuze famously begins Spinoza Practical Philosophy by talking about Nietzsche.

minerva.mic.ul.ie/vol11/Deleuze.html

thanks anons

He seems like the first big philosopher to sum up "petit-bourgeois dude disillusioned with capitalism and modernity." That is confused with fascism, because fascists come from the same mix, but there are also progressives tendencies that have emerged from this as well like the situationists.

99% of you will never be able to understand Nietzsche

and that's a good thing

ok pseud

Gay science and Untimely Meditations are essential for Critical Theory

His philosophy could be useful to reform the attitudes of the modern left.

moufawad-paul.blogspot.com/2009/07/i-hate-nietzsche.html?m=1

Reminder that Genealogy is meant to be a sequel and supplement to Beyond Good and Evil, and that both are really good works of his. I also valued The Gay Science and Zarathustra. The end of Part 3 of Zara and all of part 4 are wonderful.

Yeah, i love :"The Unique one and its Property" By Max Stirner

I read Nietzsche as someone who's a leftist at heart but ignorant on good socialist theory. His life-affirming philosophy is a perfect complement to Marx's materialism. Both are strongly anti-dualist. Both reject otherworldly pondering. Both demand that people go out and struggle to assert themselves. Both aim to demystify human morality as human power relations. There's something very Nietzschean about Marx's Theses on Feuerbach.

Nietzsche imagined socialism as a kind of excessive social liberalism, which it admittedly has been at times, but it certainly doesn't have to be.

Used to be very much into Nietzsche when I was a confused nihilistic teen, but I became less and less enthusiastic about his work throughout time. Still think he is stylistically great (might be the only philosopher who is at many points genuinely entertaining to read) but his ideas are surely a mixed bag. As far as specific works go, I would recommend to read Twilight of the Idols because it is short, to the point, interesting and represents some core tenets of his thoughts in a concise way. IMO you should be able to decide if he interests you or not based on that book. Genealogy of Morals would be my second rec and The Gay Science the third. I advise you not to waste time on Antichrist (felt like endlessly repeating the same few points he could have made in three pages) let alone Zarathustra (I'm 14 and this is deep: the book). Birth of Tragedy is just boring IMO especially compared to his later work. Ecce Homo is entertaining, also fascinating because he was clearly on the brink of madness, albeit that it doesn't have a lot of philosophical content. Never read Beyond Good and Evil but I heard it's good.

Also is spot on.

man, this is the cringiest shit I've read all month.please get your head out of your ass

You've almost read all the published works; keep going. Beyond Good and Evil is well worth anyone's time. Zarathustra suffers as a book because of its style, but its actually grown on me over the years. It contains many of his most profound ideas and shouldn't be outright dismissed on the grounds of its style.

Attached: TURIN-jumbo.jpg (1024x614, 137.1K)

Is Stirner but more idealistic and poetic, if you read like a fiction book is prety nice, otherwise, reading like a serious philosopher, will a huge mistake, if you're smart and realy get his messange, you'll realize he has the same contradictions of all egoist league.

If you're a socialist, it's the most interesting way to approach his work. I'm not claiming that's actually who he was. He was a confused mess. Everyone is.

Nietzche is awesome proto-anarchist just based on the fact that he was keenly aware that people were/are overdomesticated to the extreme. Like he always talked about minotaurs and half-animals because that's much more natural. There's one book called his Zoo or something that's really good. Though Zarathustra sucks after you've read Stirner because N's protagonist fails to convince anyone and he's just being autistic whereas spookman is just like Yeah well I Am fucking rad and everyone else can fuck off because they've got bats in their bellfry

...

also