Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

HAHAHa, since your review seems like a challenge, please do forward the book to me. collaborative understanding can surely be better for both ?

Ashwini wrote: "HAHAHa, since your review seems like a challenge, please do forward the book to me. collaborative understanding can surely be better for both ?"

it was not a challenge :) It was just me being dejected at the thought that I will soon be reading it again. This is an out-of-copyright work man... you can get it at archive.org - a gold mine of a website that.

i interpreted it as a challenge, for me. B-)

anyway, will get back to you soon on this :P

I loved this one as well, at least what i understood of it. I agree with the 'abstuse' second half though. I should re-read this and we shall discuss!

s.penkevich wrote: "I loved this one as well, at least what i understood of it. I agree with the 'abstuse' second half though. I should re-read this and we shall discuss!"

thank ol' zars!

Bruce wrote: "First, I think it is a mistake to look for some sort of "overall" Nietzschean philosophy. He was much more accustomed to write with aphorisms that sometimes seem disconnected. Nor does he attempt..."

So how to approach him then? Where do I start?

Bruce wrote: "I'd begin with A Nietzsche Reader or The Portable Nietzsche."

Thanks. I'll go shopping for them and see...

This review echoes exactly what is in my own head. 2/3 through I had to check I was still reading the same book

Perhaps try his Birth of Tragedy, a better book, I think. (But I read both at least forty years ago!)

Alan wrote: "Perhaps try his Birth of Tragedy, a better book, I think. (But I read both at least forty years ago!)"

I have read it and it was wonderful. Much more comprehensible :)

Riku wrote: "Alan wrote: "Perhaps try his Birth of Tragedy, a better book, I think. (But I read both at least forty years ago!)"

I have read it and it was wonderful. Much more comprehensible :)"

Glad to hear it. (My memories from forty years are not terribly off.)

Alan wrote: "Riku wrote: "Alan wrote: "Perhaps try his Birth of Tragedy, a better book, I think. (But I read both at least forty years ago!)"

I have read it and it was wonderful. Much more comprehensible :)"

..."

the author hated it to high hell later on in life though :)

Riku wrote: "Alan wrote: "Riku wrote: "Alan wrote: "Perhaps try his Birth of Tragedy, a better book, I think. (But I read both at least forty years ago!)"

I have read it and it was wonderful. Much more compreh..."

Aha! Here would be an interesting list: Great Books their Authors have Rejected. My favorite is Mortviye Dushi, Dead Souls by Gogol. Upon conversion to Christianity, he rejected it: His next book is a boring spiritual journal. I mistakenly bought it--in Russian--since the store near Harvard didn't have Mortviye Dushi. I think it's one of the ten best novels ever written, maybe one of the five best. For one thing, hilarious--one of my standards for great lit. (Chaucer, Shakespeare, Moliere, Plautus, Ovid, Sterne, Byron, Austen,Dickens, Joyce--a bit--Bellow: all very funny in part.)

Alan wrote: "Riku wrote: "Alan wrote: "Riku wrote: "Alan wrote: "Perhaps try his Birth of Tragedy, a better book, I think. (But I read both at least forty years ago!)"

I have read it and it was wonderful. Much..."

brilliant list indeed. I would add kafka too...

yes, i feel the same way. i love the ideas here and there in the book, but i am sludging through. it is as if every sentence is a riddle in shakespearian dialog.

Kane wrote: "yes, i feel the same way. i love the ideas here and there in the book, but i am sludging through. it is as if every sentence is a riddle in shakespearian dialog."

Hope you have better luck, overall!

It's almost impossible to read most of this book without background knowledge on his concepts and his life. Eternal Recurrence, affirmation, criticism of ongoing nihilism etc.

read another books for them and do research .. I think u'll go good

Omar wrote: "read another books for them and do research .. I think u'll go good"

Dp wrote: "It's almost impossible to read most of this book without background knowledge on his concepts and his life. Eternal Recurrence, affirmation, criticism of ongoing nihilism etc."

Thanks, guys. Will try to come back better armored.

I don't think the writer tries to give answers. I think he is having a conversation with himself, and it is brilliant to read.

Abe wrote: "I don't think the writer tries to give answers. I think he is having a conversation with himself, and it is brilliant to read."

Hmm... interesting take.

No its not only you , He supposedly wrote this in 10 days and may have been suffering from maniac depression.

@Ayla that's completely incorrect; he wrote the book over like 3 years lol

This is probably where I got the ten days. Either the audiobook or Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia
Nietzsche commented in Ecce Homo that for the completion of each part: "Ten days sufficed; in no case, neither for the first nor for the third and last, did I require more" (trans. Kaufmann)

Also

Says he did the first part in 10 days and the whole of his work in 2 years.

/review/show...

@Riku: there is a commentary on this book by Osho. You can find it on OshoWorld.com. Go to discourses>English>discourses starting from z. I have not gone through them but have gone through his other discourses. I think it will be great to read and hear the discourse together.

It's just supa hot fire and you have to approach it that waye