Is there a more spectacular blunder possible than reading Nietzsche as your very first philosopher?
I mean, fuck. At least read Plato first.
Don't listen to him. Just take your time and read him thoroughly; anything you don't understand just look up.
Nietzsche is very much based off older authors, but at the same time is highly idiosyncratic in both his style/methods and his goals. As long as you stay vigilant throughout the reading, you should be able to get something from it.
I'd say before reading any primary sources it's best to read a reasonably in depth overview of the subject to learn the key themes, approaches, ideas, etc.
Anyone who has done that should really just start with whoever interests them first. Besides, Nietzsche is great to read as just literature, so I really don't see why it would be a problem for someone.
You've obviously never read any Schopenhauer then. I have a book containing all of his essays and I can just get lost in them for hours. They are just brilliant and I've had a few chuckles. If you haven't read much Schopenhauer, give him a chance. His style of writing is just..I love it. Words can't describe. I am a Schopenhauer fan boy I would be that mans servant and pour him wine on demand.
Nietzsche responds directly or indirectly to the following thinkers
Sure, he's such an amusing reader that you can enjoy him by himself, but you'll have no real basis or grounds for appreciating his thought. When Nietzsche talks about Master Morality and Slave Morality, when he talks about the death of God, you won't have any idea what it all means. I see no reason to read him first.
can you stop memeposting already? every damn thread, "Schopenhauer is the only philosopher worth a damn." This is the third time I've seen it. You even made your own thread about Schop, in which you unironically agreed with "On Women," which is why I'm descarting your opinion.
By the way, if you find my memeposting offensive, I'm sorry. But I am a textbook oppressive patriarchal overlord and "On Women" is 100% correct. Memes are ok, but I am serious. Meme cheese on bagels.
There's no such thing as coming up with ideas yourself. No man is an island.
Not to mention the more (good) philosophy you read, the more you'll realize how many great ideas there are to learn from
Reinventing the wheel much?
The idea is to build your own thoughts, only having people who did that before helping with stuff they've come to experience too.
In the same way that a conversation is useful to expand knowledge and ideas.
>There's no such thing as coming up with ideas yourself. No man is an island.
Of course not. We have our daily lives, the enviroment we live in, the societal state of our community and the people that we talk to. Those things that come in contact with the body do not speak directly to the soul. But is enough to think and form your own conclusions.
Philosophy does not come from the exterior, nor from the poisonous languages, but from the inside.
>Reinventing the wheel much?
There was no wheel in the first place.
They sure created a wheel for themselves.
Better to think of something that satisfies one soul, before accepting something alien to us.
Nothing wrong with reading them tho, its alright.
Is there a more spectacular blunder possible than not reading Nietzsche as your very first philosopher?
I mean, think of how much time you're saving not having to decipher Hegel's completely incoherent bullshit
Considering many scholars don't think Nietzsche read Hegel I really doubt it's important to get through him. In fact I would say you only need to be familiar with the general trends of modern philosophy up until him.
After you read pic related, you can go on to pretty much any philosopher and have the adequate knowledge any of them would expect you to have to read their work.
There's a lot of time that Nietzsche looks like he's contradicting himself but actually isn't and you can get lost in it because of the figurative language in Zarathustra. For example, when he talks about the Will to Truth sometimes it's complete praise and sometimes it's utter scorn. To understand that, one should read the section about philosophical asceticism from The Geneology of Morals. You have to know what exactly he is referring to in another work to understand his aphorisms, or in the case of Zarathustra, his figurative language. For example, when you read "Of the Afterworldsmen" you won't really get that he is critiquing The Birth of Tragedy's Wagnerism unless you read either the Birth of Tragedy or the section from Ecce Homo about it. He appears really incoherent and most of all in Zarathustra or the short aphoristic sections of his other book, because he wanted to be an "artistic socrates" but the more you read of him the more knots get tied.
>Birth of Tragedy or the section from Ecce Homo about it
When I read him, I would read one of his earlier works and then read what he wrote about it in Ecce Homo. I don;t know if that was good way of doing it, but it helped me out.
Thus spoke Zarathustra was my first philosophical book. I didn't understand a shit, I received a bunch of disconnected ideas.
Then I read the Antichrist, It was pretty clear, I returned to Zarathustra and It was more readable that time.
It's not impossible to come up with truly original ideas without reading other people, but highly unlikely. i.e. Most people when thinking about the mind still envision the mind and body as separate (dualism) not understanding that their thinking is quite commonplace and the result of Cartesian influence that persists in popular culture (and science) to this day.
You'll end up being boring and redundant. Trust me, there are thousands of people from history smarter than you who said ideas you might come up with in much clearer or more poetic language.
The kind of people who say "I like philosophy, but I don't read any" are GIGANTIC faggots.