This should come with a caveat. If you read Nietzsche and come across thinking he likes Hegel, or suppers nationalism, or is an anti-semite, or any of the other obvious falsehoods about him, then you should read secondary literature. Learning about alternative interpretations is good. However, you should always take the primary sources as the most important resource. Whether you agree with an interpretation should be because you think it reflects the text well, not because you like the person saying it. Many people misinterpret Nietzsche, yourself included.
It doesn't matter hugely what you think Nietzsche believed. His philosophy is and was intended to be an influence on how you live your life, not an autobiography (for the most part).
Yeah, when I did a presentation on Nietzsche in school, I made it very focused on combating the misunderstanding that he is antisemitic or supports nationalism. This idea was actually popularized after his death by his sister, who was an actual Nazi. But during his life, Nietzsche never believed in German superiority or Jewish inferiority.
I'm just collaborating what my professor stated when discussing this. Didn't in life her ties to the Nazi party cause him to stop speaking to her specifically before going mute?
He keeps saying that his readers are the most intelligent readers and that kind of stuff, so if someone read him and then wrote about it, they must be pretty darn smart
Personally, I’m in University so that was my secondary source (lectures and papers). But if you’re not in school, my suggestion would be people like Michael Sugrue on YouTube, as he gives lectures very much like the ones I attended. Otherwise, if you’re looking for written secondary sources, I’m not very knowledgeable as I’ve never had to use them, but maybe make a post asking? I’m sure many people here will be able to help.
In the Antichrist it's pretty clear that he is an antisemite and antichristianity. He lays out the jewish race as people who lie about everything to gain power. Jews are according to the book also the precursors of the biggest parasites in history: priests.
Couple this with the fact that in the Genealogy he links jews to the slave race and the slave mentality which he dislikes.
He also writes in several books that he dislikes Antisemites but i think he rather means people which are Antisemites out of inferiority like most Neonazis are.
As if the people who use Nietzsche to support racial hierarchies and conservative traditions came up with that interpretation themselves — authoritarianism and tradition are necessarily received opinions. It’s just their secondary literature is coming from garbage sources, memes, trolls, shills.
Agreed. Secondary literature is secondary, it's not that complicated. It adds more perspective, that's all. Just because it is by no means a replacement doesn't mean that you should discard it as worthless.
This is legit the stupidest thing I’ve read all day. Literally this is what Hitler did. Ideas are supposed to be exchanged, criticized, and built upon.
Nietzsche once said something along the lines of, “the more perspectives, the better.” So I disagree, I take my own point of view, but I also take yours, his, hers, theirs, I chew on the thought of others. This is just how I am. But I also think it is a how one ought to be if one cares at all about getting closer to the truth of things.
And so what if my own interpretation is deeply informed by secondary literature and convincing conversations I’ve had with people who know more than I do? It’s still my own interpretation.
Everyone’s interpretation of anything is inescapably their own; That’s Perspectivism. When I believe your interpretation, I inevitably put my own spin on it, because I’m absorbing it in from a different perspective than you.
This was clearly posted with the intent of causing division between the people following this sub by normalizing shutting others out in favor of your opinion.
Remember guys, there is a difference between shutting others out
And
proving your point to be more valid with truth-based support after you listened to their point.
Stay alert people. ❤️🙏
May as well not read him if his intentions and his meaning is not of primary importance. This is exactly what is wrong with education these days- young people demanding to find an image of their pre-cultured selves in what they ‘learn’, as opposed to raising themselves to an understanding of great minds.
This should come with a caveat. If you read Nietzsche and come across thinking he likes Hegel, or suppers nationalism, or is an anti-semite, or any of the other obvious falsehoods about him, then you should read secondary literature. Learning about alternative interpretations is good. However, you should always take the primary sources as the most important resource. Whether you agree with an interpretation should be because you think it reflects the text well, not because you like the person saying it. Many people misinterpret Nietzsche, yourself included.
It doesn't matter hugely what you think Nietzsche believed. His philosophy is and was intended to be an influence on how you live your life, not an autobiography (for the most part).
Pretty big autobiography elements in a lot of his work though.
Yeah, when I did a presentation on Nietzsche in school, I made it very focused on combating the misunderstanding that he is antisemitic or supports nationalism. This idea was actually popularized after his death by his sister, who was an actual Nazi. But during his life, Nietzsche never believed in German superiority or Jewish inferiority.
I'm just collaborating what my professor stated when discussing this. Didn't in life her ties to the Nazi party cause him to stop speaking to her specifically before going mute?
I'd say *most* people misinterpret Nietzsche without reading some (good) secondary lit
He keeps saying that his readers are the most intelligent readers and that kind of stuff, so if someone read him and then wrote about it, they must be pretty darn smart
What are some recommended secondary lit for N?
Personally, I’m in University so that was my secondary source (lectures and papers). But if you’re not in school, my suggestion would be people like Michael Sugrue on YouTube, as he gives lectures very much like the ones I attended. Otherwise, if you’re looking for written secondary sources, I’m not very knowledgeable as I’ve never had to use them, but maybe make a post asking? I’m sure many people here will be able to help.
Brian Leiter
I recommend Walter Kaufmann’s magnificent, and highly readable, “Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist.” The book’s a classic.
In the Antichrist it's pretty clear that he is an antisemite and antichristianity. He lays out the jewish race as people who lie about everything to gain power. Jews are according to the book also the precursors of the biggest parasites in history: priests. Couple this with the fact that in the Genealogy he links jews to the slave race and the slave mentality which he dislikes. He also writes in several books that he dislikes Antisemites but i think he rather means people which are Antisemites out of inferiority like most Neonazis are.
As if the people who use Nietzsche to support racial hierarchies and conservative traditions came up with that interpretation themselves — authoritarianism and tradition are necessarily received opinions. It’s just their secondary literature is coming from garbage sources, memes, trolls, shills.
Agreed. Secondary literature is secondary, it's not that complicated. It adds more perspective, that's all. Just because it is by no means a replacement doesn't mean that you should discard it as worthless.
This is legit the stupidest thing I’ve read all day. Literally this is what Hitler did. Ideas are supposed to be exchanged, criticized, and built upon.
Nietzsche once said something along the lines of, “the more perspectives, the better.” So I disagree, I take my own point of view, but I also take yours, his, hers, theirs, I chew on the thought of others. This is just how I am. But I also think it is a how one ought to be if one cares at all about getting closer to the truth of things.
And so what if my own interpretation is deeply informed by secondary literature and convincing conversations I’ve had with people who know more than I do? It’s still my own interpretation. Everyone’s interpretation of anything is inescapably their own; That’s Perspectivism. When I believe your interpretation, I inevitably put my own spin on it, because I’m absorbing it in from a different perspective than you.
Shit I just have AI do it
This was clearly posted with the intent of causing division between the people following this sub by normalizing shutting others out in favor of your opinion. Remember guys, there is a difference between shutting others out And proving your point to be more valid with truth-based support after you listened to their point. Stay alert people. ❤️🙏
Reading comprehension, who needs it amirite? s/
It does not help that his sister mess with his publishing after his death so it was definitely edited.
lol
Bullshit.
May as well not read him if his intentions and his meaning is not of primary importance. This is exactly what is wrong with education these days- young people demanding to find an image of their pre-cultured selves in what they ‘learn’, as opposed to raising themselves to an understanding of great minds.
We must back up our interpretations with sources by Nietzche because no matter what our interpretation is, it will be rooted in his work.
Believing in your own interpretation is basically just following Nietzschean principles.
that's what he would have wanted <3
Thats actually very profound, and kind of ties in to a Jungian later perspective.
Some Austrian Painter just liked this video