Where to start with Nietzsche?

>>9671184
Unironically Stirner

inb4 >you can't prove he was influenced by him he nevar even heard of him.

>>9671184

Don't.

GM

Reed him chronological he evolved quite a bit

>>9671190
even if he didnt read stirner, you should start with stirner

Okay. I just found out that i should start with Untimely Meditations. Thanks for nothing.

>>9671332
Should listen to the first post.

Brainlet here, I'm reading the basic works collection by Kaufmann. I'm enjoying it a lot but I'm aware it would take a lot more background knowledge to really understand half of it.

>>9671184
The standard answer is to go with the Genealogy of Morals and/or Beyond Good and Evil. Kaufmann's translations to be exact.

>>9671332
Start with philosophy in the tragic age of the greeks, then read that and afterwards go chronogically.
Also, all the books after Zarathustra touch the same topics that Zarathustra talks about so you can skip it and read it as your last.

>>9671332
Wrong.
Plato's Republic -> Genealogy of Morals -> Beyond Good & Evil

>>9671184
The Birth of Tragedy, obviously.

>>9671184
Not Zarathustra it's his crazy opus

Beyond Good & Evil is pretty good. Get one with a bunch of annotations (Kaufmann's with the really shitty, ugly-ass fonts on the cover is pretty good)

I feel like if you read Birth of Tragedy you can read anything by NEETszch

Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks might be a better starting point, though I think sometimes its a bit unnecessary. Birth of Tragedy is the most straightforward of his books except Genealogy but it is discussed in all subsequent works. It's also the easiest to grasp.

As for reading the Republic before Nietzsche, this is to be expected. If you haven't bothered with Plato and Aristotle at the very least, you will get nothing out of Nietzsche except maybe false affirmations of whatever preconceived notions of philosophers you already have.

Don't bother with Stirner. He will never come up in academic or intellectual discussions, just occasionally on 4chan.

would it be bad to read him without first reading the greeks?

>>9671413
>Don't bother with Stirner. He will never come up in academic or intellectual discussions, just occasionally on 4chan.

sure If you are reading for academic or intellectual disscusions. Though I'm sure you could read a summary on his main points and learn a few quotes if that's what you wanted.

If you want to fully grasp Neitzsche and get some context read Stirner.

>>9671489
Yes but you could do worse.

>>9671184
His eyes are quite beautiful

>tfw decided to get into literature by first reading siddhartha and then zarathustra
Can only get easier from here.

If anyone's interested in Zarathustra but hesitating, I'd recommend it. It starts out strong, grows just a little stale and then ends on a high note again.