This is from the prologue:

> I love the great despisers, because they are the great reverers.

What the love is a despiser seriously? Is it a fourth wall break? Because I'm despising the book. Another one:

> I love those who know not how to live except as down-goers, for they are the over-goers.

What the love does that even mean? Seriously how the love are you supposed to read this splash of bodily fluids? I read something I liked that was inspired by it, so I thought why not? Let's give it a try. But damn this is horrible!

>>24508836 (OP)
i have not read nitche and i have no plans of ever doing it, sorry!

>>24508839

I don't blame you. Why is this book considered good? Looks and feels like a rorschach test to me. To be fair though it seems to be self aware, because the people zarathustra's talking to are laughing at him. But I'm getting serious rorschach test vibes from it.

He's just trying to write like the Bible, with a bunch of parables and what have you.. because he was the original fedora tipping seething atheist, he wanted to come up with something to replace the Bible, so he chose to emulate it in some regards.. but it came out real bad because you know, he was a literal insane person who was always seething with rage..

There's literally nothing of value to be had from this man's blathering.

>>24508893
I mean seriously what kind of egotistical maniac decides that they know better than everybody else and they're going to write a new Bible for a race of supermen, lmao.. and then it ends up just being a bunch of nonsense ideas expressed in such a vague and poetic way that the reader can basically insert their own meaning anywhere they want..

I don't think I despise any philosopher more than I despise Nietzsche

>>24508836 (OP)
seems austere enough, what do you think it means? most dimwits would just glide by it and think it looks pretty

Why is he such a midwit redditor

>>24508901
You need to understand his biography. He was an incel and also in love with his father figure and mentor's much younger squeeze who was his age but insanely in love with the older Wagner.

In many many ways, his life is very similar to Dostoevsky, although with the suffering turned down by 80%, since Dostoevsky was enduring mock executions and Siberian labor and crippling seizures and was dirt poor. But Dostoevsky found Christ in it and Nietzsche went insane.

>>24508959
Dostoevsky had to live in Russia, so the suffering was already turned down quite a bit. Almost the entire population had been serfs, literal property in his lifetime and they will still having mega turbo famines.

OP should run for president, we need some common sense

>>24508836 (OP)
Try the Thomas Common translation

>>24508963
Nietzsche was a victorian trumper just read locke

>>24508959

Dostoevsky at least wrote good books that you can hope to understand. Neecha on the other hand...

>>24508855
It's because you can project your own meaning onto it because it lacks any of its own, which impresses midwits who can't tell the difference between genuine wisdom and sophistry.

>>24508836 (OP)
You're getting filtered because you're not experienced with anything that ought to inform a reading of Zarathustra. You're plainly unfamiliar with older Bible translations, at the least, but also with rhetorical figures, the language of old sermons, and symbolic or allegorical writings that require decoding. Probably also not familiar enough with Nietzsche's other writings.

If you're bitching about the prologue, either figure that Nietzsche didn't intend you to consume Zarathustra like a Twitter thread, and gird your loins to work at understanding the book, or drop it and go back to reading Family Circus.

>>24510715
If someone walked up to you, started talking about homotopy type theory, and then called you a moron for not understanding what he's saying, you'll think that the guy is either mentally ill, an asshole, or a fucking idiot. You can't just start talking about downgoing, overgoing, or despisers. You gotta work up to it from first principles. These terms were all invented by the author of these books and not explaining what they mean is just stupid. I would rather read something that respects me and my time as a reader. But considering that the author and his books are so well regarded, I'm willing to give them the benefit of doubt, upto a limit. Maybe these books are actually good, maybe people who like these books are just masochistic, and reading these books is just a form of self torture. Right now it looks like the latter to me.

Yeah Zarathustra is bad, but the existence of Beyond Good and Evil is basically nietzsche implicitly admitting that, since it is the exact same book, about the exact same concepts and ideas. But actually semi coherent.

>>24508836 (OP)
I love hearing about Nietzsche filtering people. Usually it's slightly above average IQ proles who possessing a crude kind of logical prowess they confuse for intelligence and esteem in turn have absolutely no conception of higher things or art.
>tfw it makes perfect and instant sense to me
>tfw OP could never understand it being an NPC
He's talking about sincerity and passion of belief, people who genuinely disagree with things and have real arguments and feelings against them, eg actual opinions. How is that not obvious? Most people don't really care about the ideas they discuss, they are idlers and idiots, even fewer act on what they say, the latter are those Nietzsche loves.

>>24510876

Great so I can skip zarathustra I guess. Thank goodness. He talks so much.

>>24508836 (OP)
>I love the great despisers, because they are the great reverers.
the great despisers are the ones taking ideas seriously and not just acquiescing to them out of social routine, therefore they extend much more respect to an idea they're against than the common run of its adherents. Imagine being filtered by such a simple concept.
>I love those who know not how to live except as down-goers, for they are the over-goers.
Those who cannot simply adapt to a status quo and carve out their little piece of quiet life are the ones who implicitly challenge that status quo. If you don't know how to adapt to what everyone regards as normal, you just might "go over" the normal, and discover different ways of life and understandings of reality. Imagine being filtered by such a simple concept.

>>24510755
No, you're filtered reading a blatantly poetic presentation of philosophy, about which Nietzsche is more clear in other works. "Despisers" isn't some magically obscure technical nomenclature, it's just "those who despise," and the object of that despising can clarified by tracking its uses. Overgoing and undergoing aren't mindbreaking technical terms either, any decent translator from Kaufmann on notes that translating words with unter and uber as down/under and over is meant to highlight the punning Nietzsche's doing in German, and that those words have ordinary meanings (untergang = sinking, downfall, doomed = down-going; ubergang = crossing, transition = over-going). Translators will tell you this in footnotes, endnotes, translator's note, etc.

This is not like someone walking up to you talking about homotopy type theory. This is like what is, you choosing to read a book and not adjusting yourself to it accordingly. Nietzsche was a trained philologist who studied the minute differences between words and the way thought was expressed in ancient texts through rhetorical figures, you're just some guy in 2025 complaining about having to do any work at all in reading, even with access to Google at your fingertips.

There was a recent spate of threads on some study just released about English majors unable to exercise literacy of a few paragraphs of Dickens beyond being able to pronounce the words on the page. You're in their boat.

>>24510876
>but the existence of Beyond Good and Evil is basically nietzsche implicitly admitting that
No it isn't, BGE is explicitly the critical ("no-saying") part of Nietzsche's philosophy, with TSZ as the postive ("yes-saying") part.

>>24511460
Nigga the entire end of Beyond Good and Evil is literally a deranged rant about nobles and the overman.

Also youre objectively wrong. Nietzsche rants about women both in BG&E and Zarathustra. Unless youre going to say "actually he ranted in a yes saying way in Zarathustra" which I actually wouldnt disagree, but if were taking that dumbass position, then the entire chapter of BG&E where he just shits out a bunch of aphorisms in a row, can also be considered "yes saying".

>>24511569
I'm going by *Nietzsche himself*, this distinction between TSZ and BGE is *his*. That something may be praised in BGE doesn't make it a "yes-saying" work, nor does something being criticized in TAZ make it a "no-saying" in his sense. Go read Nietzsche's overview of his published works in Ecce Homo, TSZ and BGE don't serve the same purposes.

>>24511598
I dont fucking care about his own interpretation, hes wrong retard. Fuck off. He does the exact same "life affirming" bullshit, and the same "le despisers, and le outcasts are actually the coolest people" thing in BG&E.

If you lack the critical thinking to not only remember the books, but actually refer to them intelligently, not just based on what somebody tells you its supposed to be interpreted as, then youre a retard and a dumbfuck, and stop fucking talking to me, because you retarded Nietzsche fans make him seem dumber than he already lets himself appear.

>>24510883

Are you mocking me? I'll let you know that I have an IQ of 132, which is in the top 2 percentile. And my salary is in the top 0.7th percentile. All my acquaintances consider me to be a very intelligent and wise person.

The way you attacked me and my intellect is very mean and I expect you to apologize and take back your insults.

>>24511606
>I dont fucking care about his own interpretation, hes wrong retard. Fuck off. He does the exact same "life affirming" bullshit, and the same "le despisers, and le outcasts are actually the coolest people" thing in BG&E.
Kek, filtered wittle baby wetard. You literally said "Nietzsche implicitly admitt[ed]" Zarathustra is bad, and now you're gonna stomp your feet like a pissbaby shouting "NO, NO, I'M WIGHT ABOUT DIS, I DUN NEED UNDERSTAND NEETZCH TA KNOW DAT I'M WIGHT" when Nietzsche affirms the differences and different roles between BGE and TSZ.

"Durr I'm critically thinking," no, you were filtered completely by TSZ, and used BGE as a crutch and just assumed apropos of nothing that they must have the same exact concepts, even though BGE barely makes anything of eternal return or the overman, and TSZ is on search of positive doctrines instead of persistent critiquing philosophers and culture. Stick with stuff more your speed, like BAP.

>>24511656
Hey I'm not judging man! There're people who like cock and ball torture you know.

>>24511699

Those guys don't have a superiority complex. Nietzsche fans are much worse.

Life itself is will to power.