There’s not much to be said about this book that hasn’t already been said by people a bit more well spoken than me. Took it chapter by chapter when I felt up to it, didn’t gain much insight as opposed to annoyance. ( )

Mostly read this as an sort of counter argument against Brothers Karamazov which I finished just before starting this. Nietzsche is someone I’ve sort of danced around my whole intellectual life - I started and stopped Zarathustra a few times in my late teens, and at some point got around to Birth of Tragedy which had a big impact on me. I find his ideas most cogent when considered as abstractions. I think his writing about art and artists is usually spot on and can be pretty inspiring. I can’t go there with him when it comes to his views on society and politics. Most of Nietzsche’s defenders seem to harp on the fact that he is often speaking metaphorically, symbolically, rhetorically. I think they are often right. But this being so doesn’t mean that these rhetorical choices sound regressive to the modern reader, and there are many moments where it does seem that he literally means what he has written. Perhaps Nietzsche would consider me a degenerated modern underling, devoid of nobility, but I can’t square his denunciations of equity and cultural mixing. I also find it strange that for a book about breaking down the dichotomies of morality is written in such a militant tone - he’s doesn’t seem to be much of a relativist.

Interesting that this year I accidentally read three of the most important philosophers of the 19th century, Marx, Dostoyevsky, and now Nietzsche. Certainly lots to learn from all of them, but I find Dostoyevsky to have the most to say about the breadth of human experience as it is lived today. His pragmatic attitude and down to earth realism when it comes to considering human nature is so prescient when you see what the work of the two others helped to inspire in the following century.

All in all, I find Nietzsche and his thought most useful when going to battle with myself. He sets himself up to antagonize the reader by transgressing boundaries that we seldom consider, much less cross over, in western society. Yet his views on how people can and should interact with one another seem simplistic in a modern world where interdependence is no longer a choice but a sociological imperative. To be an “individual” has a much different definition than it did in 1880, and so who could expect the ideas contained herein not to taste a little off to the modern palate? Yet the most “dangerous” idea contained in this book to my mind is that any edge lord can find his vindication in Nietzsche, claiming that they are stepping beyond the bounds of conventional, “slave” morality by abusing, oppressing, or mindlessly hoarding. ( )

He really beats the phrase "order of rank" into the ground. There is so much good stuff in this book, and so much that it is best to ignore. ( )

Good: A copy that has been read, but remains in clean condition. All pages are intact, and the cover is intact (including dust cover, if applicable). The spine may show signs of wear. Pages can include limited notes and highlighting, and the copy can include "From the library of" labels.Some of our books may have slightly worn corners, and minor creases to the covers. Please note the cover may sometimes be different to the one shown.

I read this book for school...
I suppose that in the future people will appreciate it more and more because of their potential in the future evolution towards themselves. ( )