(personally, I find Nietzche's views and writing to be fascinating, even though I think he was wrong about 80% of the time). — busycuttingcrap
I'd be interested to hear which of his views you think were wrong and why — Janus
Freud was a big Nietzsche fan — busycuttingcrap
I read stuff to the contrary. Would you care to provide sources on this claim? — Shawn
I recommend
• The Great Philosophers: An Introduction to Western Philosophy, Bryan Magee
• The Philosopher's Toolkit: A Compendium of Philosophical Concepts and Methods (3rd Ed), Peter S. Fosl and Julian Baggini
to get you startered. The bibliographies of both books are very much worth checking out too. — 180 Proof
This could take all day. How about some notable examples: Nietzsche's views on realism wrt truth-value and value judgments/normativity were internally inconsistent- in some of his works, he espouses a form of nominalism/anti-realism wrt truth-value and normativity, but in others he is presupposing a realist position, for instance in his critique of Christianity (as, seemingly, objectively false and evil/harmful). This inconsistency severely undermines many of his arguments and positions, imo. — busycuttingcrap
As for being fascinated by someone whose views you mostly disagree with: Nietzsche is, imo, the most interesting character in the entire history of philosophy. — busycuttingcrap
I see Nietzsche's critique of Christianity highlighting its incipient nihilism: by imposing values it undermines the ability to find/ create one's own, so I don't see that as presupposing realism. — Janus
But then, on the other hand, there are many other passages where he seems to be advancing an anti-realist critique of these things, often in the same work — busycuttingcrap
not just because its usually clear and understandable, but because it occasionally even achieves poetic beauty, which is a very rare thing to find in your usual philosophical tomes. — busycuttingcrap
And such a good writer! A lot of philosophy is downright miserable to read- have you ever tried to read Kan't CPR, for instance? As in, reading it cover to cover? Pure torture! :vomit: — busycuttingcrap
The Tractatus is about as obscure and technically dense as you'll find, — busycuttingcrap
I understand what you mean, but I actually love reading Kant. It's not literary at all, so that's why I say I understand. But I sort of enjoy the rhythms of a mind expressing itself in the most explicit manner. — Moliere
To answer your question directly, and humble-brag, I've read the CPR 2 times :D -- first translation by Norman Kemp Smith, the latter read on Pluhar's — Moliere
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.