Interest in Philosophy

Instantly approachable work...?

Too many Nietzsche readers seek an 'Instant Approach' and w/ Nietzsche this is not possible. His maxims and aphorisms are instantly insightful but if you seek a comprehensive understanding of Nietzsche TSZ is his last will and testament.

In a Letter To Carl von Gersdorff on June 28th 1883 Nietzsche wrote,

"...my Zarathustra...behind all the plain and strange words stand my deepest seriousness and my whole philosophy."

Also, Walter Kauffman is definitely not the preferred translator. He takes great liberty when interpreting Nietzsche, esp. in his extra efforts to make Nietzsche politically correct!

JMW

I've read a few books on Nietzsche and they all recommend Walter Kaufmann as one of the best translators. Harold Bloom says that Zarathustra is unreadable, although he recommends several of his other works. I think Bloom is almost right, "almost" because I did read Zarathustra. But I had already gained some understanding of Nietzsche from Kaufmann's excellent biography and other works. Zarathustra was written just after some of his more readable mature works, and does contain much of his best philosophy, but in a highly condensed, highly aphoristic style that should not be attempted without lots of preparation.

I think you can do worse than starting with a general primer. Something like Russell's 'The Problems of Philosophy' or his history of Western Philosophy. In fact, I'd highly recommend something more general to begin with. A little guidance and context goes a long way.

At times what I think philosophy gratuitously muddlews our faculties of imagination; that we are capable of thinking up and imagine new things is marred by philosophy. What most philosophers do is word their ideas flamboyantly using weighty and incomprehensible dictions and people at times get simply lost searching for context or understanding allusion or inference. Truth is simple and what all philosophers do use maximum numbers of morphs and in the process the essential is secreted. To say something simple they take too much aide of language, style, and their sophistic learning. They have schools of thoughts where their conceited ideas are taught and the simple and gullible get indoctrinated into their patterns of thoughts. Their ideas or philosophies create more confusions than the time you have come to them.

In a Letter To Peter Gast on April 6th, 1883 Nietzsche wrote:

"It disgusts me to think of Zarathustra going into the world as a piece of literary entertainment; who will be serious enough for it!"

I read TSZ for the first time about 15 yrs ago and though I never finished it then I returned to it again and again. TSZ is definitely not a Nietzsche primer but, Part 1 {the Prologue and the first 22 discourses} can serve that purpose.

In Kaufmann much of Nietzsche's philosophical meaning is lost in favor of his own biblical preferences. No question Kaufmann's historical/biographical insight is w/o comparison...'Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist' is a remarkable read. Nietzsche is an accumulative philosopher. Again, there is NO 'instant approach' to Nietzsche. Since Kaufmann there has been much more Nietzsche material available to the translator/reader. To undertake a 'serious' study of TSZ one must return to it again and again over a duration of time. Not only to TSZ but to the numerous Letters and Notes Nietzsche made himself discussing the complexities of his Whole Philosophy.

JMW