I’m having trouble finding a clear, well-structured reading list for getting into Nietzsche; both foundational texts to begin with and guidance on what to read while progressing through his work. I’d also appreciate recommendations for how to approach Jung’s writings in a similar fashion, and I’m open to related philosophical or psychological authors that complement their ideas.

beyond good and evil, save zarathustra for last and you'll be fine

grow up and read spinoza
or kant

approach jung's writing as rube Goldberg mysticism.

if you MUST read his work. keep a notepad closes by, everytime you read something fallacious or romantic/emotional, draw a star.

it will become immediately clear that he is an ocd handwashing retard.

>>24582310 (OP)
complete waste of time if you're not fluent in german. just watch a youtube summary. you'll never be able to truly grasp Nietzsche relying on the english language anyway, and I don't mean that as an insult. and don't even think about trying to read Hegel either.
t. german

>>24582310 (OP)
At the first page

beyond goon and evil or gay science are solid choices
>>24582475
>complete waste of time if you're not fluent in german
nah, knowing german is unnecessary if you are not majoring in philosophy -- most people here are just hobbyists, don't forget that

>>24582310 (OP)
The best place to start with Nietzsche is a bin, or better yet a fireplace.

>>24582310 (OP)
I'm German, so I can read Nietzsche in German.

>>24583441
most germans can't read Nietzsche in german

>>24582310 (OP)
Homer
Hesiod
Plato
Thukydides
Aischylus
Sophocles
Euripides
Aristophanes
Polybius
Caesar
Plutarch
Spinoza
Pascal
Goethe
Kant
Schopenhauer
Richard Wagner

Thats what id say is a really good preparation, but i hadnt even read half of these when i started and was fine. More important than anything else are the ancient greeks though for an understanding of his.

Go through him.chronologically. The Birth of Tragedy functioned as an anchor of his work until.the very end.

neet-chan .. why did u forsaken me ??

>>24582488
>>24582475
Nietzsche read Emerson and Shakespeare in English
Wagner said that philosophy, unlike art, requires its only language which is what the Aryans created for it. So formal considerations are less important for philosophy, and unlike with poetry it can be said to translate. However some have argued that Nietzsche wasn't a philosopher.
Just please avoid the Walter Kauffman translations, there are abominable, and he totally fabricated the story of Nietzsche's crazy Nazi sister distorting his work

>>24583450
They could, but they don’t.

>>24583632
>he totally fabricated the story of Nietzsche's crazy Nazi sister distorting his work
He did not. I even own original editions of the works she published.

>>24583639
>I even own original editions of the works she published.
And? Everything in Will to Power is genuine. There is no reason to think she had the character or tendency or desire to "Nazi-up" her brother. I always forget how stupid and credulous the people here are. It's just asinine lie , and you are a blockhead for furthering

Or I should say ability

>>24583664
I haven’t read any of them, so I wouldn’t know.

the greeks -> the latins -> the Germans -> Nietzsche

>>24583678
There is no way of confirming or proving this kind of thing, except that there is no positive evidence and no reason to believe it at all
No one has ever isolated a single aphorism that they think she would have made up. There's no "anti-semitism" in there, no vulgar politics at all; she is supposedly to blame for some extreme and "problematic" positions but these are precisely the kind of thing that no woman would ever come up with.
And anyway she wasn't even anti-semitic, that was just her husband (who died before this) and her support for Hitler is not anything strange or suspicious in context

>>24582310 (OP)
Ignore anyone who tells you to start with the Greeks to read Nietzsche, they’re larping. (Greeks were important to Nietzsche and central to his project but it’s self-defeating to read all of Aristotle in preparation for reading Nietzsche. It’d take years.)
Start here
>Beyond Good and Evil [FN’s sparknotes version of his entire project, basically]
then go to
>On the Genealogy of Morality [straightforward essay for the most part]
and
>On Truth and Lies in a Non-Moral Sense [unfinished essay, pretty short]
then
>The Gay Science
and then go anywhere you want. Daybreak or Twilight of the Idols are also good places to go after BG&E too. Save Zarathustra for last, it’s Nietzsche at his most coy and it’s very easy to misinterpret.
>related philosophical or psychological authors that complement their ideas.
Nietzsche said that Dostoevsky was the only psychologist who he could learn something from, and Freud said the same about Nietzsche.

>>24583798
Nobody ever said you need to read Aristoteles for Nietzsche. You only need to read the greeks up until Plato and Euripides as that where he sees greek culture fall into decadence. And some roman shit to have some grasp on their culture and history to understand when he references it.
But going from your discreditation to suggesting directly jumping into the middle of Nietzsches ouvre with no preparation at all is senseless and also doesnt allign with OPs question at all.

>>24583798
Finally, some good fucking food.
I appreciate this, much obliged.

>>24584213
Actually, yeah.. that was rather amiss and I am still left confused. Too much slander, circlejerking, misdirection and bitterness in this thread as it is. I just want a solid answer. For those that disagree with Nietzsche, the German purists, I am not here for those opinions. I seek a concrete start. Why is this so difficult.

>>24582310 (OP)
Twilight of the Idols in my opinion. Although Genealogy of Morals did the most for me.
Beyond Good and Evil is meant to be the most accessible but somehow I got less out of it.
Don't start with Zarathustra.

But it helps if you have some passing familiarity with the history of philosophy. Plato, Descartes onward

>I'd also appreciate recommendations for how to approach Jung’s writings in a similar fashion

The Portable Jung assembles a good progression.
For a rigorous and maybe ideal introduction I'd get Volume 8 of the collected works - The Structure and Dynamics of the Pysche.

I'd complement that with random selections from Civilization in Transition because that one is the most fun.

Don't read Aion.

Fortunately Jung is broken up into a lot of chapter/essay length works. I think it's okay to take those up randomly.

Me personally, the two I recommend most are Instinct and the Unconscious (a fast reading for understanding some essentials of the framework), and the Spiritual Problem of Modern Man (the opposite sort of work - a global/cosmic perspective, and just a really cool piece of writing).

>>24583632
I keep seeing people shit talk Kaufman’s editions, usually something to do with his annotations. Is the translation itself actually bad? Was gonna get “the basic writings of Nietzsche” but 4chan’s bitching about the guy had put me off of it.

>>24583632
I will read the Kauffman translations and I will come back to discuss Nietzsche on this board. You can't stop me, kraut.

>>24582310 (OP)

>>24582310 (OP)
Start with Zarathustra. It's the only thing he's written that stands on its own two feet. Ecce Homo is a fun "behind the scenes" sequel to finish with

>>24583636
no his sentences are way too verschachtelt and complex to be understood by the average person.

>>24584531
I gave you a precise answer
>>24583453

>>24584644
Intentionally becoming retarded to own some anon

homer, the tragedies, plato, aristotle, birth of tragedy, then gay science

>>24584213
>>24583798
anyone who doesn't read nichomachean ethics before nietzsche is a fraud

>>24585477
I have done so, yet disagree that one needs to read Aristoteles to get Nietzsche. What nakes you claim fraudulence on non-readers of it?

>>24585483
the same thing that nakes learning english important before speaking BITCH

>>24585489
That was a phone-typo, can you explain your point?

>>24585489
(now that my roast has settled in and you laughed i wanna say im nTA and i agree with you)

>>24585483
Aristotle clearly articulates what is essentially the foundational moral philosophy for everything that lead to nietzsche and is quite in line with it, honestly knowing the medieval and religious things leading into nieztsche would be quite helpful to understand their different attitudes towards reality and the particularity of his lutheran view.

Heidegger recommended studying aristotle for a decade before reading Nieztsche, his point was because Aristotle is a very comprehensive and interconnected thinker like Nietzsche and if you do not know how to engage with those kind of thoughts there is basically no point in you studying Nietzsche. Understanding at least in aristotle his connection between his metaphysics, ethics, politics, physics etc. is honestly just a pre-requsite towards having any serious thoughts on anything desu and anyone who fails to read that and portray themselves as doing anything serious intellectually is just a fraud.

For nieztsche in particular I think those two points are important:
1) Understanding those broad interconnected viewpoints that need to be understood in reference to the whole ala heidegger's recommendation
2) Aristotle's connections between being and morality, morality being the expression of a things nature

Homer, the tragedies and greek philosophy is largely a response to dealing with those problems and plato/aristotle are the foundational response to it, nietzsche is contrasting the pre-socratic with post-socratic views and understanding those is just a pre-req to being at the table.
The majority of conversation about Nietzsche and his ideas are so unbelievably laughably bad because people think they can "cheat" and skip ahead education in the basic foundations that underly everything bad. I genuinely think people would be much better off not reading anything. I have no use for casual flirtation of amateurs larping as people interesting in philosophy. It degrades the name and normalizes fraudulent simplified views ideas of what it is as the norm.

Philosophy is a serious thing you study your entire life, if you aren't happy to just plug away and maybe have a good understanding at 60, or you just can't help but try to understand the things around you and you have a genuine desire for understanding, not "wow bro you read nietzsche, sick!".

95% (probably more) of people who read philosophy would be better off if they never have and do nothing but degrade the ideas and practice of philosophy.

>>24585507
To summarize
1. Because of Aristoteles importance to western philosophical ethics, you say -leading to Nietzsche-, you dont seem to identify the two with each other.
2. Aristoteles is a comprehensive and interconnected thinker as is Nietzsche. And studying Aristoteles teaches you how to engage with that kind of thinker.
3. One must study Aristoteles to have serious thoughts at all, so its a pre-requisite for thinking in general.
5. You reiterate the importance of understanding interconnectivity of concepts/thoughts
6. Aristoteles deriving morals from a things nature is important if you wish to comprehend Nietzsche
7. Nietzsches focus on contrasting the pre-socratic and socratic is essential to understanding him, and you consider Aristoteles essential to that.

And then you rant at people who engage with philosophy without dedicating their life to it.

Thank you for explaining, your post was embarrassing to read.

>>24585532
You didn't actually summarize what I said but as I said my whole point is that you are a fraud, so I would not expect you to be able to parse the content out of anything.