I’m making Fritz my summer project. List the essential books, essays, articles on him I need to read pl0x

A definitely non-essential one is Georges Bataille’s On Nietzsche. It might be essential to include a non-essential one.

That looks pretty good Oughtist. Thanks.

If you really want to study Nietzsche’s philosophy, I suggest you read Nietzsche’s Teaching [NT] (by Laurence Lampert), and Thus Spake (or Spoke—I prefer Spake) Zarathustra [TSZ] on the side. NT is a chapter-by-chapter analysis of TSZ, so you can read the chapter that is being analysed, then the analysis, then the next chapter, etc. Then you will know Nietzsche’s teaching.

Excellent. Thank you.

I have Kauffman’s translation of Zarathustra, and his Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist.

I say disregard all that - do you really want to take someone else’s interpretation of Nietzsche as your own? - and instead pick up Beyond Good and Evil and Genealogy of Morals, beginning with the former.

Take your time with both of them, and expect to read them both more than once - that is, if you really want to digest and understand him.

Kaufmann’s Basic Writings of Nietzsche is what you really want - that contains Birth of Tragedy, BGE, GM, and Ecce Homo I believe.

Oh no, I’ve sinned against the commandment “Thou shalt be original”!

That is real bullshit, though, as this is not about interpreting Nietzsche, but about understanding him—and though I know TSZ very well, I had never seen its plan anywhere near so clearly as Lampert presents it.

I agree with amor, here.

Rock-solid advice.

The further from sixteen or seventeen years old you are, the less fun Zara is.

Nothing wrong with commentaries, but my belief is that they should be consulted only after you’ve studied the originals in some depth.

Unless it’s Kant. Mostly because it doesn’t matter. He was full of shit, anyway.

Faust, Amor,
I appreciate your advice, but I’m going the Sauwelios route.

What other books do I need to read about Nietzsche?


is that right?

well remind me again what you and TTG were rambling on about in that thread about eternal recurrence?

if that says anything at all about Lampert, then it sounds like the blind leading the blind here, and doesn’t exactly inspire a whole lot of confidence :laughing:

I doubt anyone has what it takes to get an understand of Nietzsche by just reading his works. I know I can’t. I’ve tried. He doesn’t footnote what he’s talking about most of the time, even when what he’s talking about is critical to his point.

I’m fucked, then. Aside from Kaufmann’s occasional glosses, which are usually ceoncerned only with translation, I have never read any commentary on or secondary source on Nietzsche. Maybe some mindless drivel from Derrida, but that was accidental.

I’m fucked.

Wait a minute - what did the commentators read - other commentators? But…


I have a Deleuze book on Nietzsche laying around somewhere that i bought on a whim at Borders (together with TSZ) a good while back, but I’m not sure I’ve ever opened it

xzc, why are you so interested in Nietzsche then?

why not just label him crazy like your professors likely do, and leave it at that?

Yes, other commentators, and Nietzsche himself. You will note that I never advised him to read only commentators. But there have been many students of Nietzsche before him—some very good ones.

xzc, the only other commentary I can recommend you at this point is Lampert’s Leo Strauss and Nietzsche (which is for the most part a paragraph-by-paragraph interpretation by Lampert of Strauss’s broadly chapter-by-chapter, section-by-section interpretation of Nietzsche’s Beyond Good and Evil. This must be “amor fati”'s hell: it will be your interpretation of {{Lampert’s interpretation of} Strauss’s interpretation of} Nietzsche('s interpretation of life).

I know other commentaries worth mentioning, but I will not mention them now, because none of them is as focused and clear-sighted as Lampert’s commentaries.

Can’t go wrong with Viking’s Portable Nietzsche… You do though have to look at Genealogy of Morals, though.

Disclaimer: I state these recommendations as a completely amateur liker of Nietzsche… at all costs, avoid all arguments about him… 8-[

like a pedantic little schoolboy :laughing:

i appreciate you Sau, really - but I wouldn’t say this flatters either one of us, truth be told

take our wayward friend xzc here under your pretentiously enlightened wing, and teach him someone else’s interpretation of someone else who once read Will to Power, and thus became enlightened - or so the story goes

as you were :arrow_right:

I’m not teaching him anything (nor taking him “under my wing”), I’m just telling him what course I, currently, recommend. I, however, have been studying Nietzsche from when I was 18, and I’m 30 now. When I was 19, I read a rival interpretation to Lampert’s, and though I cannot regret it, I do think Lampert’s is far superior.

I must admit that my recommendation is also an experiment: in the sense that I am now exactly ready for Nietzsche’s Teaching, whereas xzc may not be: I mean, there are references or allusions in it which I can follow, but which cannot be clear to everyone. Also, I’m being very careful here: in this thread, I do not post half of what I write.

I’m all about GdT, the whole fucking thing m’self. It’s got its highs, its got its lows, don’t get me wrong. Crude, brilliant, idiotic, ignorant, brilliant, forward-looking, back-ward looking, and so on.

It’s like I always say, “Better warts and all than syphilitic plaques and all”.

Auferstanden aus Ruinen
Und der Zukunft zugewant

. . .

Off course I’m going to read the whole fucking thing m’self. :laughing: I’m talking about additional works I’ll need to read.

I mentioned the whole thing because you are actually supposed to just read the first half, he repudiated the second half later on and/or it is an addition. I’m not sure on the history of it.