Appreciate your advice about how to read great books, in general, and agree. Thank you.
Curious to get your thoughts on this question: in general, when is the most appropriate time to turn to secondary works? Before? As you go along? After the first read? Never?
For example, reading the Republic—how would you think about reading Bloom’s interpretive essay, or City and Man?
My apologies for getting to this so late. I think that Bloom put his interpretive essay at the back of the book precisely because he hoped that any reader would have read the Republic at least once before reading his interpretation. So to begin with, read a great work first and then read the secondary work. Strauss would say the same thing.
When I was very young, I thought that the answer was never turn to secondary stuff. I didn't want to get enslaved to another's interpretation because I wanted to think on my own. But, the point of reading is, I think, to understand something true. And so, if a secondary work can do that, it is beneficial.
Overall, I feel very torn. I want to emphasize attention on the primary text in a big way; Plato is much smarter than Bloom. The main thing I suppose, is not to lose sight of the primary thinker. In other words, don't find yourself in a position where all you can say is: Bloom says, Strauss says, Pangle says, etc, without being able to say something yourself about what portion of the text that they are interpreting says.
Thanks for your reply! In short, I agree with what you say here.
I have heard the opinion, which you mention, that we should never turn to secondary material. But I’ve profited immensely from reading the work of the best readers. If you can interact with interpretations as you would with a great teacher, then it seems like a good thing to have.
But a good teacher would ask you to read the text first. So it seems fair to say we should take *at least* a first pass at the primary text, if not two, before reading any interpretations. And it’s probably best to return to the primary text afterwards, too.
I wouldn't even start. Or rather, read to a purpose (but there are far more worthwhile books of the 19th century to read).
To read his writing -- which would be unknown but for his sister who insisted upon making some money from the copyright to his works she inherited after his death -- is to wallow in the perverse ideation of a man who was desperately mentally ill for most of his adult life. He didn't, in my view, reveal any redeeming idea to me (neither did any of the existentialists who followed him). Any reading of Nietzsche, if at all, ought to be for the purpose of questioning why so much attention has been paid to him, simultaneous to the Leftist destruction of the ideals of Western civilization.
The University of Copenhagen, professor Georg Brandes. The course was called "radical aristocracy." Brandes wrote a letter to Nietzsche about it and the course produced a fairly well read book.
His sister accomplished one thing: cobbling together notes into a book that misled scholars for generations.
One? Nietzsche was insignificant until well after his death. His sister was elemental, because she needed the money. I read an excellent dissertation or long essay on just this about twenty years ago, when I took a second look at his writings. If I can find it, I'll link to it here or cite it so you can read it and decide whether you find it persuasive. But there is nothing in Nietzsche's ideas of any value to improving one's life or consciousness. He certainly could not in his own.
I respectfully disagree with this entirely. You make mere ad hominem attacks. I'm launching a co-taught series soon on Beyond Good and Evil that will certainly demonstrate that Nietzsche's ideas are worth thinking about.
Also, I'm planning to write a response to your claim since there are so many who have Nietzsche Derangement Syndrome; that is, for people who have read very little of Nietzsche but who, nevertheless, have strong opinions about what they perceive as his "isms". an introduction to one of his seminal works might be helpful.
Thank you for this. Good advice and appreciated the analysis on the aphorisms!
Thanks for reading!
Appreciate your advice about how to read great books, in general, and agree. Thank you.
Curious to get your thoughts on this question: in general, when is the most appropriate time to turn to secondary works? Before? As you go along? After the first read? Never?
For example, reading the Republic—how would you think about reading Bloom’s interpretive essay, or City and Man?
My apologies for getting to this so late. I think that Bloom put his interpretive essay at the back of the book precisely because he hoped that any reader would have read the Republic at least once before reading his interpretation. So to begin with, read a great work first and then read the secondary work. Strauss would say the same thing.
When I was very young, I thought that the answer was never turn to secondary stuff. I didn't want to get enslaved to another's interpretation because I wanted to think on my own. But, the point of reading is, I think, to understand something true. And so, if a secondary work can do that, it is beneficial.
Overall, I feel very torn. I want to emphasize attention on the primary text in a big way; Plato is much smarter than Bloom. The main thing I suppose, is not to lose sight of the primary thinker. In other words, don't find yourself in a position where all you can say is: Bloom says, Strauss says, Pangle says, etc, without being able to say something yourself about what portion of the text that they are interpreting says.
What do you think?
Thanks for your reply! In short, I agree with what you say here.
I have heard the opinion, which you mention, that we should never turn to secondary material. But I’ve profited immensely from reading the work of the best readers. If you can interact with interpretations as you would with a great teacher, then it seems like a good thing to have.
But a good teacher would ask you to read the text first. So it seems fair to say we should take *at least* a first pass at the primary text, if not two, before reading any interpretations. And it’s probably best to return to the primary text afterwards, too.
I wouldn't even start. Or rather, read to a purpose (but there are far more worthwhile books of the 19th century to read).
To read his writing -- which would be unknown but for his sister who insisted upon making some money from the copyright to his works she inherited after his death -- is to wallow in the perverse ideation of a man who was desperately mentally ill for most of his adult life. He didn't, in my view, reveal any redeeming idea to me (neither did any of the existentialists who followed him). Any reading of Nietzsche, if at all, ought to be for the purpose of questioning why so much attention has been paid to him, simultaneous to the Leftist destruction of the ideals of Western civilization.
Nietzsche's works were already being taught by other professors before he died. His literary success did not depend on his sister.
I have never read that. Whom are you referring to?
The University of Copenhagen, professor Georg Brandes. The course was called "radical aristocracy." Brandes wrote a letter to Nietzsche about it and the course produced a fairly well read book.
His sister accomplished one thing: cobbling together notes into a book that misled scholars for generations.
One? Nietzsche was insignificant until well after his death. His sister was elemental, because she needed the money. I read an excellent dissertation or long essay on just this about twenty years ago, when I took a second look at his writings. If I can find it, I'll link to it here or cite it so you can read it and decide whether you find it persuasive. But there is nothing in Nietzsche's ideas of any value to improving one's life or consciousness. He certainly could not in his own.
I respectfully disagree with this entirely. You make mere ad hominem attacks. I'm launching a co-taught series soon on Beyond Good and Evil that will certainly demonstrate that Nietzsche's ideas are worth thinking about.
Also, I'm planning to write a response to your claim since there are so many who have Nietzsche Derangement Syndrome; that is, for people who have read very little of Nietzsche but who, nevertheless, have strong opinions about what they perceive as his "isms". an introduction to one of his seminal works might be helpful.
Please do!