Recommend a Nietzsche book

[Chang Style Novice]

I don't much care for Stephenson. Admittedly, I've only read "Snow Crash" but I thought that the first chapter was a hilarious short story that got expanded into a terrible book. It was enough to send me away up to the present.

DeLilo's okay, but he doesn't really excite me much. Ever read anything by Richard Powers? I haven't kept up with him lately, but I like everything before Galatea 2.0 a whole lot.

[Braden]

EvolutionFist - Have you tried getting into some of the existentialists, German idealists, and/or western philosophers with strong Platonic (rather than Aristotlean) influence? You might find them more to your liking (or even quite interesting).

[eulerfan]

I've only read The Cryptonomicon of Stephenson's. I don't like sci-fi and only read it if somebody insists one book is amazing. I think Cryptonomicon was sold to me on its mathematics. I loved it. It's not really sci-fi but it's highly tech minded.

That other guy is sci-fi?

[guohuen]

Your right, duh. I'd never survive on the left bank. I'm too into Will Rogers and Mark Twain.

[Chang Style Novice]

Richard Powers? Not really. He's into the relationships between numbers and music and logic problems and stuff, and Galatea 2.0 (the least interesting book I've read from him) is about a stab at creating an artificial intelligence, but there's certainly none of the usual sf/cyberpunk trappings. The best books I've read by him are The Gold Bug Variations and The Prisoner's Dilemma

There's also Tim Powers, though, who does historical fiction with a fantasy twist and I like him a lot, too. For example, his best book The Stress of Her Regard posits that the great romantic poets were victims of a strange kind of half siliconbased rock creature/half psychic vampire that was the true inspiration for stuff like Frankenstien and the Lama and so on. I think we might have talked about him before.

[fa_jing]

I used to think philosophy was a waste of time, as most authors tend to contradict each other over major points. However, I have found it to be more enriching as of late.

I have begun to look at philosophy like the horse stance. The earth is the foundation of your horse stance, and the stance (conceptually) is a framework for your interaction with the earth. Philosophy is a framework that we place on our phenomelogical interaction with the outside world, the "world-in-itself, " which is kind of like the earth to your horse stance, in that it cannot be directly appreciated, rather it must be there based on your interaction with it.

Groovy?

[AndrewS]

Just to add a late 2 cents,

avoid the Hollingdale (sp?) translations. I found them hopelessly dry. I prefer Kaufmann's work for conveying the richness of Nietzsche's expression.

For Vollman- Try 'Rainbow Stories' if you want to get another flavor of his work.

Andrew

[Xebsball]

Hey i have no idea what you peeps talking about, i think reading (and working too) is bad for the soul.

Philosofers i think should spend more time writting new cool stuff and less time sucking the other famous philosofers ****s.

[FatherDog]

I read a bit of Pynchon's stuff, but not a lot; I haven't had time to sit down with it. I read Snow Crash and enjoyed it quite a bit; I have the Cryptonomicon sitting around, but haven't started it yet. I read a bit of Nietzche in college for the purpose of a comparitive paper on him and Kant; always meant to read more, but haven't gotten around to it. Hrm.... I believe a trip to the library is in order. I've been meaning to borrow Down and Out in London and Paris anyway...

Tim Powers is excellent. Stress of Her Regard was cool, and I love his modern trilogy (Expiration Date, Last Call, and Earthquake Weather).

[Chang Style Novice]

I thought Tim Powers' modern trilogy would have made a great two books, but Earthquake Weather just fell flat for me. He's back on track with Declare, though.

You know who I need to read more of? No, not Nietzche. Orwell.

edit

Oh, fine. I probably need to read more (any) Nietzche, too.

[IronFist]

Well, the reason I want to read Nietzsche is because I keep hearing his name pop up, so I want to see what everybody is talking about

eulerfan, I totally know what you're saying about the King Crimson music comparison. I am totally down with bands like that (except more recent ones)... Nightwish, Stratovarius, Children of Bodom, Dream Theater, etc., and most of my friends are like "your music is weird, I like _insert popular radio band here_."

Yes.

IronFist

[desertwingchun2]

Originally posted by AndrewS
Just to add a late 2 cents,

avoid the Hollingdale (sp?) translations. I found them hopelessly dry....

Andrew

Dang Andrew - First you crowd my wing chun lineage and now dismiss my selection of Nietzsche for a beginner - get off me man !!!!

Are you still planning to head to 'Frisco??
Hope your friends are as well as can be expected given the circumstances.
-David

[OneStrike]

"Philosofers i think should spend more time writting new cool stuff and less time sucking the other famous philosofers ****s."

This is very correct.

Unfortunately people like Evolution Fist can't absorb the groundwork necessary to become productive philosophers themselves, get stuck half way, give up and then badmouth philosophy to others when they know nothing about it.

"I was a Philo major in college and got big into him at one point, as well as Hume, Decarte, ect. But all I found were word arguments and cliches, such things like one could never put their foot into the same river twice. No duh!"

This is a dual problem, I think. A comprehension problem on your part since you clearly can't appreciate a sustained argument and get stuck on the aphorisms you encounter (which is probably why you liked Nietzsche without understanding him) and possibly a teaching problem if your lecturers taught you pop philosophy. Also, I don't know how you managed to find the quote "One can never step in the same river twice" when you were reading Descartes, Hume and Nietzsche.

"I can't get into books anymore where a man is trying to pass on his view and model of the world and man's place in it -- unless they are extremely excpetional."

The funny thing is that pretty much everything written falls into that category. It's one person representing their experience to another, just like you're doing in your post.

"I have always been partial to eastern philo -- especially Taoism -- which sticks to a singular mentality: your place right here and now."

And obviously this is a concept peculiar to Eastern thought since you didn't encounter it in your tentative foray into Western philosophy.

"Western philosophy in some sense is less open then science, which seeks new answers. With philo it still comes down to HOW DO YOU perceive the world. That's your world."

Again, this shows a lack of understanding about what philosophy is. You really can't do a semester or two of Nietzsche, Descartes, Hume, etc. and then think you have any concept of what philosophy is. If you did a low level undergraduate course in science, how much new research would you have to do inn the course of your degree? Or would you just be replicating the already confirmed results of other people's experiments?

Evolution Fist, you really ought to stick to what you know about. You were clearly unable to do philosophy yourself, but there's no reason to denigrate it because of your own failings.

[Xebsball]

"If you like metal you're my friend" -- Manowar

Ironfist, thats awesome
I used to listen to Manowar!!!
Brothers of metal!!! Death to the false metal!!!

[chingei]

Did anyone mention The Gay Science yet? (no, no. nothing like what some of you are thinking....)

Good example of his theology/morality - type stuff