Hey /lit/ Ive always been interested in philosophy so i decided

read genealogy of morals first

Oh, and is there a certain way to read this? Or philosophy in general?
It just seems like a lot to take in and remember. So Im wondering if I have to remember everything, or just get the gist of things to understand the book as a whole.

>>9916023
Start with the Greeks. Jumping straight into Nietzsche is a meme that people will tell you is alright because they did it too without understanding what they're missing

https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1y8_RRaZW5X3xwztjZ4p0XeRplqebYwpmuNNpaN_TkgM/pub

>>9916034
>start with the greeks
Great just what i didnt want to hear.
Iliad and odessey right?

>>9916003
The gist of what? The otherworldy? GIve me something to explain.

>>9916084
Fuckin all of it, I actually just dont understand the meaning of the section.

>>9916070
Plato and Aristotle for philosophy. The more you read the more you'll realize how interconnected everything is

>>9916107
Give me a minute to write it up.

>>9916107
Pt. 1
alright. The thing about Zarathustra is that you should treat it like a riddle. A riddle that you're supposed to struggle with, yet be incapable of solving until you've read Nietzsche's others works. It's only after you've struggled with certain passages, certain images, metaphors, and so on, and after you have lost that they leave their marks on you. THEN after reading other texts, it'll hit you. That unsolved and unresolved issue will find its answers. This is the allure of Nietzsche. His texts are a riddle, or a labyrinth of sorts.

So, On the Otherworldly. To get that, take a look at Twilight of the Idols, the second chapter, titled The Problem of Socrates. He begins that section by saying that the wisest men of all ages have come to the same conclusion about life: it is no good. And they have all, in their own ways, out of a dissatisfaction with this world (and in a way, by taking revenge on this world) posited another one, a better one. Typically this other world is eternal, as opposed to this one in which things perish, in which they suffer.

Ask yourself why the unexamined life is not worth living for Plato, for example. What makes the examined life worth living? Well, because by examining your life, you become a philosopher, and Plato tells us in the Phaedo through the mouth of the dying Socrates, that the philosopher's soul lacks the heavy "earthy" stuff to it. So, a philosopher's soul, because his soul is light, does not remain here on earth. It is not reincarnated. It floats onto the realm of the forms. It escapes this life forever. Hence, the unexamined life is not worth living because LIFE IS NOT WORTH LIVING, for Plato. Examination makes life worth living because the examined life is the last life lived.

>>9916175
pt. 2

The section begins by Z recounting a point in time in which he himself was like these haters of this world, but this is a self-insert for Nietzsche. He harkens back to his The Birth of Tragedy. However, Z, like N, convalesced. He got better. Moreover, he began to philosophize and to think of philosophy differently.

There are those who philosophize out of suffering in this world, and they posit other worlds, and make those other worlds that for the sake of which anything in this world has any meaning. These suffering philosophers conceive of the philosopher himself as an empty cup. Only the Gods have wisdom, says Plato. Philosophy and the philosopher is one who lacks wisdom, but loves it, seeks it. He is an empty cup yearning to be filled.

The convalesced Nietzsche/Zarathustra is one who finds joy IN THIS world, and he philosophizes out of an overabundance of joy. Consequently he does not hate this world. He finds no need to take revenge on it by positing another one. He has no need to postulate such other world in order to make this life worth living. Thus he also conceptualizes the philosopher as well, as the overfull cup, i.e., the cup that is full of wisdom, as the philosopher-God (see BGE 295 in which this philosopher-God is associated with Dionysus.)

Now, one thing to keep in mind is that Z mentions that he used to be one of these sick philosophers and that he can therefore to the otherworldly because he was one among them. He speaks from experience. He presents himself found a way out of the limitations ,the cave, so to speak, that the otherworldly find themselves in.

>>9916200
pt. 3

Think of life as a trip on a road. Without a destination, it's difficult to make sense of anything that happens in the road; whether it's a good or bad thing for example. Whether you should take this side-street or not...all these find their meaning, their significance in relation to whether you are closer to the destination or not.

Now, these sick philosophers--who have conceived of the ideal philosopher after themselves, i.e., as sick--can only justify the road by postulating an otherworldly destination. They find anything on the path as valueless, as not worth the trip.

In Zarathustra, Nietzsche presents not only the new image of a philosopher, a healthy type, one overflowing with "honey wisdom" (as he puts it in the first section of the prologue), but also his way of constructing a destination for this life, this world IN THIS WORLD. In so doing, Zarathustra can end, as he does in the end of Book III, by blessing life, by blessing this world.

This image of the philosopher stands in stark contrast to the image presented to the world, to the west in particular, by plato in the figure of Socrates, who in his death bed, and with his last words, cursed this life when he said "Sacrifice a cock to the God Asclepius." With these words, Nietzsche thinks that Socrates gave his estimation of life. It is no good, he said, because life is a disease which only death can cure.

On the Otherworldly speaks about the same group of people that Nietzsche talks about in the first section of On the Problem of Socrates in the second chapter of Twilight of the Idols.

I'm going to cling into this threat to ask the following: Can I jump into Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and Heidegger's Being and Time right ahead, or do I need to read previous works of them before?

I have a decent amount of knowledge and patience to read philosophy, but those two books are works I'm not so sure whether I'll be able to deal with them properly. By Kant I read his Critique of Judgement, the Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, and his Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime, and understood them and enjoyed them. By Heidegger I read some excerpts and had kind of a hard time with him.

>>9916107
Read some fucking philosophy then. Holy fucking shut just because he was an iconoclast doesn't mean he wasn't academic.

>>9916175
>>9916200
>>9916221

Excellent posts anon, thanks for sharing.