Top products from r/Nietzsche

We found 25 product mentions on r/Nietzsche. We ranked the 32 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page

Top comments that mention products on r/Nietzsche:

u/JarinJove · 5 pointsr/Nietzsche

This book is a critique from what is popularly known as "New Atheism" but with a Nietzschean philosophical slant permeating throughout the entirety of the text. Also, I've upgraded my views based on the best evidence that I've read from social and cognitive psychology books in my attempt at a blistering critique of religion in defense of human rights. While I'm sure that's not what most people would expect given Nietzsche's views and proclivities, I admire the fact that he was a philosopher who - like the Buddha - flat out stated that you shouldn't follow his philosophy to obey his every word, but rather use what you find useful and improve upon it to the best of your efforts. This is my attempt at just that.

Also, if people would prefer a physical copy, the physical edition is finally out: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1733901701/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i3



Update: Due to popular feedback, I decided to make split versions of the ebook edition for anyone who found 2554 pages too daunting but are still interested in reading my book. In case any of you are still interested.

Part I Only.

Part II Only.

Explanation on pricing can be read here.

u/Etre_Pour_Soi · 7 pointsr/Nietzsche

For Nietzsche, a revaluation of values does not take place at the individual level. At the very least, this is not Nietzsche's focus. What he is more interested in is such a revaluation taking place at the level of culture, for an entire culture. Even though Nietzsche celebrates certain individuals, and even though Nietzsche constantly complains about herd mentality, he is not really concerned with all this "personal growth," self-mastery or self-help nonsense. He is not a Tony Robbins.

To properly understand Nietzsche's project of the revaluation of values, it helps to understand the context. The context is culture, or society as a whole. Nietzsche abandoned his planned book vaguely organized around the concept of 'will to power' and instead replaced that project with a new plan: a series of books that would comprise the Revaluation of Values. The ultimate purpose of these books was to combat the onset of nihilism. That is the key. Thus, the revaluation of values would be (generally speaking) a book(s) about the cultural response to nihilism.

The Antichrist is actually Book One of this project. Nietzsche created and recreated a number of plans and outlines for the Revaluation, and here is one sample to give you an idea of what he had in mind:

  1. The AntiChrist - Attempt at a Critique of Christianity
  2. The Free Spirit - Critique of Philosophy as a Nihilistic Movement
  3. The Immoralist - Critique of the most completely ill-fated kind of ignorance, morality
  4. Dionysius - Philosophy of the eternal recurrence

    As late as 1888 he still planned on this four book series, as he intimated in a letter to Overbeck.

    Nietzsche was concerned about nihilism, about its corrosive effects on society and culture, and how nihilistic values would ultimately lead to man's ruin. To combat this, Nietzsche sought to critique philosophy, religion, and morality in order to uncover and unmask all the guises of nihilism, and then to overturn nihilism by 'revaluing' those values that have allowed it to fester. By clearing the ground in this way, humanity might even be able to generate a new, higher type of being that would justify man's suffering - the ubermenschen. This is a rough sketch of the context, but you should get the idea.

    How do you do it? What does it look like? Nietzsche himself answers this question, and gives Renaissance Europe as the prime example of a near total revaluation of values. For specifics, you'll just have to study the period. I will point out that here Nietzsche was influenced by his friend Jakob Burckhardt, so reading this book will give you an idea of what Nietzsche has in mind.

    As for your other questions, maybe I can get to those later.

    Edit: I should add, that Nietzsche considered Greek culture to be the highest, most fully developed European/Western culture to date. He sees the first "revaluation of values" when Christianity becomes ascendant - master morality is overthrown and replaced by slave morality. The "slave revolt in morals" is the initial revaluation of values, according to Nietzsche. Later, during the Renaissance, Nietzsche believes that at least a partial revaluation of the revaluation took place, but that ultimately Christian values became dominant again. He sees the flourishing of the Renaissance as an example of what is possible if European culture(s) would throw off the yoke of Christian morality.

    All this to say, that when Nietzsche talks about a revaluation of values what he has in mind are the values of an entire culture. He is concerned with the values that predominate within a given culture, as those values determine what kind of men emerge from that culture. In short, he is not at all concerned with what happens to individuals, about what a 'revaluation' means at the individual level. Of course, it takes individuals to reject Christian morality and develop some alternative, but it is the aggregate effect of this upon a given culture that concerns Nietzsche,
u/dangerzonesupervisor · 4 pointsr/Nietzsche

In his lectures titled "On the Future of our Education Institutions" that he delivered in 1872 at the age of 24, Nietzsche certainly expressed an intellectual elitism. Echoed in the passage from Twilight of the Idols that is quoted on the blog. Here are a few quotations taken from the recent translation of these lectures titled Anti-Education. Link: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1590178947/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o01_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

"You always said that no one would strive for education if they knew how unbelievably small the number of truly educated people actually was, or ever could be. But that it was impossible to achieve even this small quota of truly educated people unless a great mass of people were tricked, seduced, into going against their nature and pursuing an education. As a result we must never publicly betray the ridiculous disproportion between the number of truly educated people and the size of our monstrously overgrown educational system" (p. 14).

"No, we must proclaim with one voice that people truly destined by nature for an educational path are infinitely few and far between, and that far fewer institutions of higher education than we have today would be enough to let these rare people develop successfully. In today's educational institutions, intended for the masses, precisely the people for whom such institutions should exist are the ones who receive the least support" (p. 40).

Nietzsche later critiques the current trend in education that he sees: "These heralds proclaiming the needs of culture, seen from up close, appear suddenly transformed into eager, even fanatical enemies of true culture--one that holds firm to the aristocratic nature of the spirit. Their fundamental goal is the emancipation of the masses from the rule of the great individuals. What they are working towards is the overthrow of the sacred order in the empire of the intellect: the servitude, the submissive obedience, and instinctive loyalty of the masses to the scepter of genius...But the sacred natural order will never grant it to them: They are born to serve, to obey...Education for the masses cannot be our goal--only the cultivation of the chosen individual, equipped to produce great and lasting works." (p. 41).

I must point out that Nietzsche presents these opinions in the mouths of men having a conversation he overheard. However, it is quite clear that Nietzsche invented much, if not all, of what he has written. For the young Nietzsche, it seems quite clear that man as a species is by nature hierarchical. Now, perhaps he means this purely intellectually and apolitically. I believe the claim that Nietzsche was "apolitical," however, to be quite absurd.

An older Nietzsche, at the final "phase" of his philosophy, writes in Beyond Good and Evil in the first section of the chapter titled "What is Noble?": "Every elevation of the type 'man' has hitherto been the work of an aristocratic society--and so it will always be" (section 257). The entire section is relevant. If Nietzsche were truly apolitical, as the author claims, he would not have written his thoughts down. Nietzsche certainly belongs in the history of political philosophy.

Nietzsche despised democracy. He despised socialism. He despised Christianity because it was the precursor to modern democracies! He attacks Plato for being the precursor to Christianity! His entire philosophic thought is essentially centered around the natural inequalities between men. In part I of TSZ, Zarathustra does not tell his disciples to become supermen. He tells them to pave the way for the superman. There is a reason superman is only used in the plural form once.

But perhaps I'm mistaken. Perhaps this man (who criticized Christianity for being too weak and effeminate, who repeatedly called for an "order of rank" in society, who said that the man he despised most was the "socialist rabble") was actually a proponent of democracy.

Or would it not be irresponsible, and contradictory, for Nietzsche to be a defender of democracy since he did not believe that mass education was possible?

On an unrelated note, how could the author of the blog quote John Rawls in a discussion of Nietzsche (unless to compare Rawls to Nietzsche's last man)? I have absolutely zero doubt that Nietzsche would despise Rawls' "A Theory of Justice."

u/R_Moony_Lupin · 0 pointsr/Nietzsche

Perhaps you can see the "will of power" as "will to win". I believe NItzsche says that (for example) you will ask a girl out, not only because you like her, or you feel nice things about her, but also because you want to be together, you shouldn't play just to play but to win! Nitzsche just tries to say that it's ok to want to win, to want to be a better (a stronger) person ("the man be surpassed", "the man is a bridge") not for your parents, society etc. but for yourself.

Of course his philosophy is not just that. In general I think Nitzsche tries to make us settle with the human side of ours, the side that has desires, fears, wishes, which should not be considered sins.

A very nice introduction in Nitzsche's ideas is the book "When Nitzsche wept" https://www.amazon.com/When-Nietzsche-Wept-Novel-Obsession/dp/0062009303

u/A_person_in_a_place · 1 pointr/Nietzsche

Thanks. Yeah, I think that being self-sufficient seems like somewhat of a myth if you consider ideas in the book The Knowledge Illusion: Why We Never Think Alone https://www.amazon.com/Knowledge-Illusion-Never-Think-Alone/dp/039918435X (I'm skeptical about a lot of psychology research, but they still make some interesting points, I think). I mean, I think that maybe valuing solitude, taking time to yourself and also being with other people at times (finding a balance) is a good idea. Solitude seems to help with creativity at times (some amount of it) and not falling into a herd mentality. But hey, I do think Nietzsche is worth reading.

u/[deleted] · 1 pointr/Nietzsche

My suggestion is to abandon podcasts and videos. I have not watched or listened to very many, but the ones I have bothered to listen to or watch (on various philosophers and topics) have generally left me unsatisfied. The material is usually superficial at best, and may only add to one's confusion by giving bad interpretations. Maybe other people have found good material and can offer suggestions.

Nietzsche's style of presentation makes things difficult for first-time readers. One of his frequent rhetorical methods is to present the reader with conclusions first (often rather startling ones), sometimes barely showing the lines of reasoning, often times withholding any context or background whatsoever. This is an unconventional method of presentation in philosophy, to say the least. The only way to remedy this is to have a strong philosophical background so you can just follow along and more or less "get it." To accomplish this, you need to study Kant, Schopenhauer, and especially Friedrich Lange.

There are a couple of good reading guides out there, and a ton of secondary literature as well. The one that comes to mind is by Pearson and Acampora, and although I never finished it, I did think it was a good guide for BGE. Another guide is Brian Leiter's Nietzsche On Morality, which is a guide for reading the Genealogy, but the introduction gives a good summary of the philosophical themes and background for Nietzsche's major concerns in both BGE and GM.

u/meta-episteme · 1 pointr/Nietzsche

A caveat: The Will to Power is derived from Nietzsche's late notebooks. That's a nice collection of his late journals put together by Cambridge. This is what's referred to below:
>The Cambridge Hist. of Phil edition of his 'later notes' is superior imho.

Reading the following books will give you a clear picture of what Nietzsche's philosophical project was all about and thinking though the ideas in these books will help you sort out the Nazi BS and the BS appropriations from people like Jordan Peterson:

  1. Untimely Meditations (1874)
  2. Beyond Good and Evil (1886)
  3. The Gay Science (1882)
  4. On the Genealogy of Morality (1887)

    Read Genealogy or The Gay Science if you're only going to read one book.
u/decibel9 · 2 pointsr/Nietzsche

Yeah it seems to me a serious work. As a description says this is "the antithesis of the first biographies of the philosopher, all biased". Janz was actually a passionate researcher, he got into philology to follow N. writings, he also helped an exhumation of his musical works and wrote 3 huge biographical volumes despite there was already a huge biography from Richard Blunck at the time. I didn't know they haven't translated it in English, perhaps the epistolary can be useful as well, as Janz's work makes large use of it.

u/blc073 · 2 pointsr/Nietzsche

“I Am Dynamite! A Life of Nietzsche” is a solid read. I knew how important music was to Nietzsche’s philosophy, but wow, I had no idea how close Nietzsche and Wagner were. Highly recommend.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Dynamite!

I Am Dynamite!: A Life of Nietzsche https://www.amazon.com/dp/1524760838/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_duLRDb06GX5B2

u/Raephorse · 2 pointsr/Nietzsche

Here are two good ones i've read, neither of them shy away from treating the obvious anti-egalitarian/elitist strain in Nietzsches thinking:

https://www.amazon.com/Nietzsche-Politics-Aristocratic-Radicalism-Detwiler/dp/0226143546

https://www.amazon.de/Nietzsche-Biographie-Denkens-R%C3%BCdiger-Safranski/dp/3596151813

My friend also recommended me this one, i haven't read it yet though:

https://www.amazon.com/Nietzsche-Aristocratic-Rebel-Intellectual-Balance-sheet/dp/9004270949

As for Nietzsche's connection to Nazi ideology, i saw that Alfred Bäumler was already mentioned, which probably is a good start. Other than that you might want to read Armin Mohlers "Die konservative revolution im Deutschland" which doesn't treat Nietzsche exclusively, yet the author draws a connection between the crypto-nazi "revolutionary conservative" movement and Nietzsches thought. I highly recommend it.

https://www.amazon.de/Die-Konservative-Revolution-Deutschland-1918-1932/dp/3902475021

u/_the_shape_ · 2 pointsr/Nietzsche

I can't remember who it was (and a very long time ago too) that wrote that Nietzsche's praise of the Jews was really intended to be a read as a warning that they shouldn't be casually dismissed, that they truly are a force to be reckoned with, something to that extent. Not like I agree with that sentiment, but it certainly left my head spinning when I came upon it at the time. "Bizarre, sneaky, grim, but well-argued", I thought. I found it while digging up material myself for a paper I wrote during my undergrad days years ago. It very-well may have been a National Socialist scholar who interpreted Nietzsche that way. Alfred Baeumler, maybe? I came across so many different voices arguing in a ton of varying directions doing that paper, so it's hard to remember. Sorry.

Check this book out, along with this one. The letters are full of a lot of clear examples in which he himself denounces any endorsement of anti-semitism, but the former book can help you balance the scales a bit and go into the ways his work was handled by National Socialists and proto-fascists.

u/bjarn · 1 pointr/Nietzsche

And yet N seems to be "one of the most influential Western thinkers in twentieth-century China".

Does anyone have any information on whether this assertion is actually plausible?

u/DrThoss · 0 pointsr/Nietzsche

I'll make the pitch for Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist. I felt totally lost trying to read Nietzsche at first. With a basis from this book on which I could THEN approach his works, I have really been able to go through all of them.

u/mughat · -1 pointsr/Nietzsche

Ayn Rand was a writer and philosopher. Objectivism is the philosophy.
I imagine you have never read the no-fiction about the philosophy or you are just dishonest.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Objectivism-Philosophy-Ayn-Rand-Library/dp/0452011019/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1540044626&sr=8-1&keywords=Objectivism%3A+the+Philosophy+of+Ayn+Rand