- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
I've answered similar questions many times before. For some reason, amateurs try to start their acquaintance with philosophy from somewhere at the end: with Heidegger, Nietzsche, Sartre, philosophy of consciousness, and so on. No wonder they didn't understand. But this is not the worst result. Many people don't even realize that they didn't understand anything.
The study of philosophy should begin with textbooks. There is propaedeutics [introduction to philosophy], there is the history of philosophy, there is logic. And it is better, of course, at the university under the guidance of teachers. I don't recommend self-study.
You will find my answer a bit harsh, but if you listen to me, you will make your life much easier and reach your goal faster.
Philosophers don't need to be read in full. This is a waste of time. A short retelling and presentation of the main idea in a solid source (a textbook on philosophy, preferably a foreign one) will completely replace reading Nietzsche, Socrates, Plato and other comrades. Philosophers, after all, give birth to thoughts at the moment of reflection, which is why their books are so complex – they write down, in fact, the course of their thoughts. You don't need it if you're not a professional. You can immediately read the thought.
Especially (in a whisper) – they were all wrong. Nietzsche was wrong. Socrates was wrong. Hegel was wrong. The sum of their mistakes creates truth, not the sum of their truths. This is the main thing in philosophy.
Telegram about literature: https://t.me/smertavtora
I don't understand that this Nietzsche was smeared with honey or something. Why exactly do half of Yandex-Kyu want to read Nietzsche? Not the first, not the last, not the best and not the worst philosopher. Why start with it? It won't work that way. Philosophy begins to be studied from the ancient Greeks. There are many good tutorials out there.
Bertrand Russell “History of Western Philosophy”.
The truth is Western – for that and Western, for the full picture you will have to get” on the side ” of Orthodox Christian philosophy and independently delve into Eastern philosophies (Buddhism, Taoism…)
No, the book is not heavy at all, as one of the other commenters said. It glows with humor and generosity of the author.
Why did you start reading it?
If for the purpose of immersion in philosophy, then this is one of the worst ways, since no researcher can count how many newcomers Nietzsche scared away from philosophy once and for all =)
Immersion in philosophy is better to start with textbooks, for example, with the textbook “History of Philosophy” Vasiliev, Krotov, Bugay.
And if you decide to read it because it is fashionable or because of the author's fame-find something else, for Nietzsche you need training in the form of a certain layer of philosophical works
Start with “Human, too human”. Then go on to Zarathustra. Keep a close eye on the order of publication of his books and what you read. He developed like any philosopher.
When I was studying at ITMO in St. Petersburg, Sadovnikov Valery Nikolaevich taught us Nietzsche's philosophy. Very fun and affordable. I decided to shoot the lectures on camera. I recommend watching them first, and then gnawing on the granite of Friedrich Wilhelm's thoughts.
I always advise the untrained person to start learning about philosophy with Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy. This book, although heavy and large, allows you to put together a general picture of the development of philosophy and schools. After it, it becomes clearer what you read in Nietzsche or Sartre.
The most popular thing about Nietzsche, I think, is the world's most famous popularizer of psychology, Irwin Yalom.
Try starting with this: “When Nietzsche wept.” (by the way-his parents have Russian roots)
If that doesn't work, the problem is probably that Nietzsche and his philosophy of suffering are too far away from you.
Nietzsche is about the dark side of a crippled soul.
It's like reading literature about serious medical illnesses like cancer, or about psychiatric patients. If you are not interested in the literature of Dostoevsky (Demons, Karamazovs…) it will be even harder to understand Nietzsche and Kafka.
Don't listen to any well-wishers who recommend Heideggers, Kants, and others… philosophers ( I'm also a philosopher, don't listen to me either). Take the book (if you've read it, take it again and read it again) Jack London's “Sea Wolf” will include both Nietzsche's philosophy and his mistakes. And it reads simply, and everything is clear.
Arthur Schopenhauer is called the forerunner of Nietzsche's philosophy. Read it. But if you take his main work, “The World as Will and Representation,” he writes something like this in the preface: well, you're starting to read in vain, in order to understand me, you need to be familiar with the works of Kant… and with the Vedas as well. Well, in general, you can read with comments or start from the very beginning, with ancient thinkers. Everyone who has walked these paths knows that many of the ideas of philosophers are really a reinterpretation and reinterpretation of old ideas, but, for example, in accordance with the present.
To understand the philosophy of any philosopher, as for me, you must first understand what philosophy is and develop your own. Philosophy is primarily a system of worldview, in other words, how a person sees the world in all its forms, but it is a matter of Hegel, Marx or Nietzsche. I agree with the already mentioned comment, you need to start with the basics, textbooks, and try to understand what philosophy is at the beginning, and only then delve into the nuances of philosophical systems, like the philosophy of Nietzsche and others.
Philosophy is a consistent and interdependent science. To understand the work of a particular author (in this case, Nietzsche), you should read the works of authors from past centuries and millennia, from Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle to Kant, Hegel, and Schopenhauer.
I asked the same question some time ago. In order to understand the philosophy of F. Nietzsche, it is necessary to understand at least in general terms his predecessors and contemporaries. To understand your predecessors — you need to understand their predecessors, de nihilo nihil.
Thus, we can come to the conclusion that in order to understand a particular philosophy, it does not matter whether we are talking about the philosophy of F. Nietzsche, K. Marx or D. Locke, we need to get acquainted with the history of philosophy. A great chance to do this is to read B. Russell's two-volume book.”History of Western Philosophy“. Only then does it make sense to turn to the same F. Nietzsche. Then its philosophy will become clearer to you, and it will become easier to read, and you will also have a complete picture.
Another important note: philosophy is closely related to history, keep this in mind.
I met him from a book for everyone and not for anyone about Zarathustra. In a light manner, but the thoughts are sharp, depth, wit.
There is a phrase like this: I have seen many smart, cunning men…but look at their wives!
In the sense that the wife just reflects the real essence of a man, the fruit of his true aspirations. Many people will not like this conclusion))
I agree with the commentators who recommend starting with the history of philosophy. Without knowing the theoretical and historical context, it is impossible to understand the thinker who is in these contexts.
Therefore, it is better to start with a good textbook on the history of philosophy (it is better to read specialized textbooks on epochs, there are no high-quality general works), and then more or less consistently read the authors, starting with Plato.
This path may seem too long. But this is the only way, there are no royal roads in philosophy.
Hegel, if you get through the humanitarian syllable, Kant, if you get through the syllable, and Russell, if you don't get through.
In general, Friedrich Karlovich is quite straightforward in his singing style, but the above people will help you understand in what context all this made sense.
If you are interested in immersing yourself in Nietzsche's philosophy,but it is still difficult to read his works, you can try to study the recently published book in Russian by Rudiger Safransky – ” Nietzsche:biography of his thoughts”. I recommend reading his treatise “The Birth of Tragedy from the Spirit of Music”.