Nietzsche: A Very Short Introduction

Very Short Introductions #034

by Michael Tanner

With his well-known idiosyncrasies and aphoristic style, Friedrich Nietzsche is always bracing and provocative, and temptingly easy to dip into. Michael Tanner's introduction to the philosopher's life and work examines the numerous ambiguities inherent in his writings and explodes many of the misconceptions that have grown in the hundred years since Nietzsche wrote "do not, above all, confound me with what I am not!"

About the Combining authority with wit, accessibility, and style, Very Short Introductions offer an introduction to some of life's most interesting topics. Written by experts for the newcomer, they demonstrate the finest contemporary thinking about the central problems and issues in hundreds of key topics, from philosophy to Freud, quantum theory to Islam.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Biography, History, Germany, German Literature, Audiobook

113 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1995

Reviews

[Amira Mahmoud · Rating 3 out of 5]

ربما تكمن آفة هذه السلسلة في اسمها؛ (مقدمة) قصيرة جدًا!
حسنًا كُتب هذه السلسة لا تتعدى المئة صفحة إلا قليلاً
هي إذن بالفعل قصيرة جدًا
لكنها ليست مقدمة بالمرة، لفظ مقدمة يوحي أن الكتاب أو الكتيب سيبدأ معك من الصفر أو أعلى قليلاً
من البداية كمدخل تعريفي بسيط..
وعليه حين تقرر قراءة المقدمة الخاصة بنيتشه، ستبدأ القراءة فارغ الأيدي لا تعلم شيئًا عن نيتشه اللهم أنه فيلسوف ما!
باعتبار أن السلسلة "ستُقدم" نيتشه لك منذ البداية والميلاد بطريقة منظمة ومتتبعة لخطواته، في تبسيط شديد لفلسفته.
لكن ذلك لن يحدث
الكتاب رغم أنه مُنظم ظاهريًا في تناوله لكُتب نيتشه منذ كتابه مولد المأساة (أو مولد التراجيديا) ومرورًا بباقي كُتبه حتى كتاب إرادة القوة الذي نُشر بعد وفاته والذي لا نعلم أهو من كتبه حقًا أم الصقته أخته بكتاباته عنوة!
الكتاب يتناول فلسفة نيتشه في شكل أشبه بالخواطر، عشوائية وفوضوية ويغلُب عليها التخمين
بالنسبة ليّ كان جيد كمراجعة للمعلومات البسيطة التي عرفتها عن نيتشه من كتاب أقدم لك..نيتشة
لكن كبداية تصافح مع نيتشه، فلن يفعل شيئًا سوى زيادة الفجوة
السلسلة هذه أو هذا العدد منها تحديدًا- كما قال الصديق محمد النملة في مراجعته عن عدد الرياضيات –تصلح للقراءة عن الموضوع بعد الإطلاع من الكُتب الأساسية وليس للقراءة عن الموضوع للمرة الأولى

رغم غموضه، وعدم فهمي له بشكل كامل بعد
لا زلت أرى نيتشه، ذلك المجنون
وأنا أعشق المجانين، وغريبي الأطوار

تمّت

[Kirstine · Rating 4 out of 5]

I wasn't planning on reviewing this book. Actually I intended to read it and keep it from you all, because, come on, who reads introductions? 20-something students who have a presentation in history of philosophy in 3 days, that's who.

Anyway, I wasn't gonna review it, but then suddenly it was funny.

Yes, it's a very good introduction to Nietzsche, and an excellent guide on how to read his various books. It's not for the masses though, well, maybe the educated masses (do they exist?), it will expand both your mind and your vocabulary - at least it did mine (I'm probably not educated enough).

That's not why I'm reviewing it or encouraging you to read it, even if you are a Nietzsche master. I'm doing this because the guy who wrote it? He's awesome.

I imagine him sitting in a room with other Nietzsche scholars/fans/commentators/haters. Everyone's in the middle of a heady, passionate discussion - except Mr. Michael Tanner. Tanner is in the corner side-eyeing everyone with a look of bafflement and faint amusement, muttering "the fuck are you on about, you bastards?".

Why?
Because in this book he doesn't just offer up insight into and understanding of Nietzsche's philosophy and works, but also of the commentators and critics that have worked with his philosophy over the years. And he doesn't mind stating his, sometimes less than favourable but witty, opinion of them. He also doesn't mind taking a bit of a swap at the human race.

It's GOLD.

Here, let me give you my favourites:

About his unpublished writing having survived and been published;
"It would not be unfortunate if there were a universally accepted methodological principle that what he did not publish should under all circumstances be clearly demarcated from what he did, but almost no one observes that elementary rule."

- In other words; GREAT JOB COMMENTATING, ASSHOLES.

"but no larger than the ones awarded may times over to such worthless work as Kant's Critique of Practical Reason, surely the most shattering disappointment in the history of philosophy, coming after the Critique of Pure Reason, one of its greatest glories."

- Well, you can't succeed EVERY time.

This is a comment on the hypothesis of "Eternal Recurrence",
"My initial reaction was to say that I would not give a damn, thus surprisingly qualifying me for übermensch status"

- It is taken for granted you know what is meant by "Eternal Recurrence" in the book, but I didn't so I looked it up and had the exact same reaction - übermensch here I come.

And a strikingly accurate portrayal of the human race,
"He wants us to be the kind of people who only need hints because we are so fine-tuned, but he knows that we will be deaf to anything less than apocalyptic thunder - and then accuse him of making too much noise."

I like you, Michael Tanner. This book was great, and I will read it again. Both because it is insightful, but also because it is amusing as hell.

[Araz Goran · Rating 3 out of 5]

للمهتمين بالفلسفة ومعرفة نيتشه وفلسفته ولمن يود أن يقرأ ل نيتشه فأنصحه بهذا الكتاب كمقدمة تعريفية جيدة وكأساس لقرأءة ماكتب ..

[Jakub · Rating 1 out of 5]

I can't remember the last time I saw a blurb on the back of a book that I disagreed with so much: "highly readable, an excellent introduction." This is attributed to The Guardian, and seems almost totally wrong.

To start with, I'm not sure this book ever felt the touch of an editor's pen, because the grammar is awful. I'm not a pedant, so when I say it's bad, I mean it's so bad it gets in the way of the book being understandable. Sentences ramble and run on, commas splice or go missing. There are also other major stylistic issues, such as words like "former" and "latter" being used many sentences after the two items in question were actually named, forcing you to backtrack a paragraph in order to remind yourself what he's referring to.

More broadly, the author pumps in far too much of his own opinion into what is supposed to be above all a short introductory text. He also breaks the "introduction" rules by using, and then discussing, words without defining them, pretentiously throwing in foreign words, and making allusions and references without explaining them or their relevance.

I found it confusing, jumbled, and unsystematic. Everything an Intro to _____ book shouldn't be.

[Johannes Bertus · Rating 1 out of 5]

The tone of this book is quite annoying. The author engages in esoteric squabbles with fellow Nietzsche scholars and forgets that it is meant to be an "introduction". Won't make much sense unless you have read a number of Nietzsche's primary texts first.

[O · Rating 2 out of 5]

Not much of an introduction - it seemed more like a summary of Nietzsche that you'd read after finishing all of his books.

[Daniel Wright · Rating 3 out of 5]

Many of these VSIs to people begin with a short biography, then proceed to outline the main contours of their thought. But this one takes a much better line, moving through each of Nietzsche's major works in turn, providing a concise history of his thought. The author's deep admiration for his subject is on very clear display. Moreover, he takes very seriously the prospect that his reader will go on to read Nietzsche himself, giving helpful advice as he goes. These things easily make up for the book's flaws.

Sadly, those flaws are numerous. The writing style is inconsistent, lurching between an academic register and a very personal one. At times his prose is almost unreadable. The biographical detail is sparse, jumping straight in with the publication of The Birth of Tragedy in Nietzsche's late twenties, and real-life stories are only brought in to inform the discussion of his works.

All in all, though, it was well worth the time as a preface to reading the man himself.

Chapter 1: The Image of Nietzsche
Chapter 2: Tragedy: Birth, Death, Rebirth
Chapter 3: Disillusionment and Withdrawal
Chapter 4: Morality and its Discontents
Chapter 5: The One Thing Needful
Chapter 6: Prophecy
Chapter 7: Occupying the High Ground
Chapter 8: Masters and Slaves
Chapter 9: Philosophizing with a Hammer
Postlude: Nietzsche and Life Insurance

[Lucy · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is the first AVSI I've ever read. I made the mistake of thinking AVSI meant a very simple introduction - it doesnt.

I found this book difficult to follow as the language used was complex and unfamiliar. I didnt find this language barrier particularly useful, in fact, I found it pretentious.

It took me 4 days to read 100 pages and I didnt even pay much attention to the latter chapters. I think I got the jist of Nietzsche, but it wasnt easy and I actually think I would have gotten more out of a longer but more simply written analysis (or perhaps even just by reading the man himself).

[Youssef Al Brawy · Rating 3 out of 5]

لمَن لديه خلفية مسبقة عن نيتشه، أو على الأقل قرأ "هذا هو الإنسان"، سيكون هذا الكتاب مساعدًا له في تفسير بعض المعالم الأساسية لفلسفة نيتشه وبعض المفاهيم الصعبة. لكن إن وثق القارئ بالعنوان وقرأه على أنه "مقدمة" فهيهات أن يستفيد بالقدر المتوقَّع. هذا الكتاب لا يصلح أبدًا أن يكون مقدمة على الرغم مما فيه من مواضع جيدة وتفسيرات، لكنه في المجمل لن يخرج عن كونه عرضٌ لآراء مايكل كانر في كتب نيتشه، الذي يذهب به في بعض الأحيان إلى نحوٍ ذاتي شديد يخرج عن الإطار الأساسي للكتاب، وقد يميل إلى تشتت العرض كما حدث في بعض الفصول.
الكتاب فيه ما هو جيد، لكنه ليس كما توقعت.

[Cameron Smith · Rating 2 out of 5]

How to put one off of ever starting with Nietzsche. Once you get past the pretentiousness, bookish language and cold robotic style, you realise that half the book is Tanner's own unreliable interpretations presented as factual representation.

He seems to comprehend the outline of many concepts without really dipping his toe in. Tanner gets the point across well that one ought not hold any of Nietzsche's concepts too tightly, if only because Nietzsche himself was unsure of them. But surely one should play around with the ideas, dip a toe in or dive right in and indulge some of the more fanciful inferences made in Nietzche's work. But Tanner seems wholly unwilling to do this.

It seems to me that Tanner's problem lies with his conception of Oneness. He sees some of Nietzsche's highly nuanced arguments as contradictions of his logic and he doesn't really take in the relative link between wholeness and multiplicity. I'm no expert but it seems that to understand what Nietzche is saying, you have to soak yourself in these seemingly contradictory concepts of duality and Oneness, even if you wish to dry yourself upon finishing. In fact, the only time that Tanner seems to be almost apologetic about his opinion is when he mouths the words of interpreting the Oneness represented in 'Zarathustra: "since the causal network is such that any state depends on the rest of nature being in the condition that it is" he then follows with "that, at least, is how I understand it". Why so timid regarding this? It's crucial to understanding other concepts which Nietzsche wrestled with, like affirmation.

This is essentially a short review of Nietzsche's life's work by a western academic who (though he's clearly learned and good at what he does) cannot escape the Western, Judeo-Christian concept of separateness. Separateness of God from self, heaven from earth; Nietzsche transcended this separateness - this can be seen in the symbolism of 'Zarathustra if one is paying attention. The kind of attention which I believe Tanner was not, ironically entrapped in western conceptual habit - not something you would expect from an authority on Nietzsche. One can forgive Nietzsche for not presenting this clearly, because he was before Jung; before Campbell and Huxley and all that they had to say regarding symbolism and Oneness, and of Heaven and Hell. But Tanner did not live before these figures, and should have the conceptual toolkit available to more actively play with Nietzsche's ideas.

Tempted to give one star for the sense that Tanner is basically a rote learner. But he's a very good rote learner at that.

[Gamal elneel · Rating 3 out of 5]

نيتشه
استاذ فقة اللغة الكلاسيكى فى جامعة بازل
المتعصب للعالم اليونانى القديم على حساب العالم المسيحى
اعلن موت الاله
الرافض لاخلاق القطيع
وتنبا ان الراسمالية والتقدم التكنولوجى ستنتج عالم بورجوازى من متوسطى القدرات
ينظر دوما الى ما وراء الافكار التقليدية الى شئ خلاق من الناحية الفردية واكثر راديكالية

[muthuvel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nietzsche was best known as a philosopher with innumerable ambiguities in his works which were often used, abused by ideologists from all walks of the political, moral spectra since his demise.

"Do not, above all, confound me with what I am not."

This work by Tanner showers light on some of his main notions like Ubermensch, Eternal Recurrence, Master and Slave Morality and others. I think Nietzsche was too much bothered with radical changes in his times due to the assimilation of enlightenment ideals and the rise of metropolis culture for most of his major works deal with morality or the philosophy of desire and values as he likes to call to call it in some of his works. There is widely agreed interpretation that he was deeply disturbed by moral relativism and the loss of certain moral values due to the rise of modernity. It strikes me as a capital irony where postmodern theorists in Anthropology cite Nietzsche as one of the pioneers.

Most of his works have to be read in certain order for they stress out the works have more influences from the philosopher's life itself. Gay Science has been emphasized as one of the most important works. There's this view that Nietzsche was very careful in publishing his works and what ideas he wanted the people to consume. Even after publishing them, he was known for writing relevant introductions repeatedly after he published a new work. So it's assertive to concentrate more on the works published with his consent in his lifetime. There are handful of works he didn't want to publish for he was battling with many of the ideas and morals showered in the works. Its worthy to note Will to Power was one of them among others.

"Is living according to nature is different from living according to life."

What intrigued me the most about Nietzsche is the part where his works act as criticism works. He had much aversion with the herd mentality. 'Finding one's own way' taken from the Gay Science could be considered fit for that context, the writer thinks.

In Gay Science, he says we all desire to be poets of our life where as in the form of Zarathustra, he says poets lie too much, pity them. It might seem contradictory but maybe that's what he wanted it to be. In the third essay about ascetics on the Twilight of the Idols, he says man prefers to desire nothingness over nor desiring anything at all.

Of course this is no attempt to romanticize the personality or his philosophy. There were funny parts where he writes how beautiful his nose is in his autobiography Ecce Homo. After all what one would expect from a man who had spent his last decade as a lunatic?

I think philosophy has got a lot to do than mere romanticizing of values and virtues.

In my opinion, his reflections and untimely meditations on morality, culture, human ideals like mercy, emphathy provide a whole new realm and ponder beyond our contemporary value system and labels, and worth exploring before the judgement acts.


Reading a philosopher for finding comfort is no better than reading a self-help writer. Maybe we don't have to read philosophers just so we could agree with them.


PS: This introductory work of philosopher's life and work is no way an introductory for a beginner in philosophy. Its funny that When I bought this book 5 years ago, I didn't know who postmodernists, deconstructionists, situationists or even about the existence of fields like Anthropology in which I'm doing my masters. So it goes.

[Julian Worker · Rating 2 out of 5]

These books are normally excellent, but although informative, this book is spoiled by the author being pleased about how clever he is to understand Nietzsche when most people can't.

An example would be this sentence:

All Nietzsche's books demand close attention, but to profit from Thus Spoke Zarathustra one needs to be flexible and vigilant in a way that few readers, confronted with the orotundities of the opening pages, are likely to be.

The author also declines to translate the German word "Ubermensch" as "Superman" as he finds it absurd to do so. Books on introductions to subjects should have very little, if any, of the author's opinions and should stick to explanations of the subject matter, so that the reader learns.

[Pablo Estevez · Rating 2 out of 5]

Perhaps necessarily on the topic of the man and his works, this was very complicated. I think this is partly as it was written by a philosopher who is clearly deeply knowledgeable of Nietzsche.
However, the VSIs usually explain complex topics fairly well - I thought the purpose of these books is to bridge the gap between the popular and the academic. I finished this book wandering off into the distance, more confused than when I started.

Happy to accept that I'm just not smart enough for the topic, or it's just not for me. But this VSI does seem a bit oddly different from the rest.

[Marc Lamot · Rating 2 out of 5]

Brief overview of life and work of Nietzsche; valuable as an introduction.

[Ian Stewart · Rating 4 out of 5]

I feel more prepared to tackle Nietzsche after reading this. Mission accomplished! Reading him seems way less daunting. (Will likely check out other introductions from this series too.)

[Illiterate · Rating 2 out of 5]

Chronological introduction. A bit too opinionated/breezy rather than contextual/argued.

[Cav · Rating 1 out of 5]

"‘Nietzsche’ is the figure in whose name people of the most astonishingly discrepant and various views have sought to find justification for them. An excellent study (Aschheim, 1992) devoted to his impact within Germany between 1890 and 1990 lists, among those who have found inspiration in his work, ‘anarchists, feminists, Nazis, religious cultists, Socialists, Marxists, vegetarians, avant-garde artists, devotees of physical culture, andarchconservatives,’ and it certainly does not need to stop there. The front cover sports a bookplate from 1900 of Nietzsche wearing a crown of thorns, the back cover one of him naked, with remarkable musculature, posing on an Alp. Almost no German cultural or artistic figure of the last ninety years has not acknowledged his influence, from Thomas Mann to Jung to Heidegger."

I have read a few books in the "Very Short Introduction" series, and I have generally enjoyed them. IMHO, Nietzsche was a rare miss. I found the writing here to be incredibly thick and arduous. More below.

Author Michael Keith Tanner (15 April 1935 – 3 April 2024) was a British philosopher and opera critic. A life fellow of Corpus Christi, Cambridge, he was a lecturer at Cambridge for 36 years,[1] until his retirement in 1997.

Michael Tanner:


I have had a somewhat hit-or-miss relationship with reading philosophy; in general. Some books on the topic are super interesting, and I received great value from their writing. Others, unfortunately, have just frustrated me with their long-winded tedium and esoteric naval gazing.

This book was tragically an example of the latter, and not the former. I found my finicky attention wandering many times. Although the book is a deep philosophical examination of Nietzsche's writings, the author loses the forest for the trees here...

******************

Despite its short length (the audio version I have clocks in at ~3.5 hours), this presentation was a jumbled mess. The author takes a dive into the weeds early on, and remains there for the duration.
If it were any longer, I would have put it down...
1 star.

[Boris · Rating 3 out of 5]

Dit boek behoort tot de Trouw-serie over de grote filosofen, een prachtig initiatief om Nederland op te voeden. Belangrijk om te vermelden is dat dit boek niet geschreven is voor dit doeleinde. Het is een ouder boek, uit 1994, geschreven door Nietzsche-kenner Micheal Tanner. Dit is belangrijk, omdat de toon erg academisch is en Tanner ook zekere filosofische voorkennis lijkt te veronderstellen. Dit is geen probleem, en ik denk dat iedereen met wat googlen het gehele boek moet kunnen begrijpen, maar het is wel een kwestie van de verwachtingen aanpassen, voor de mensen die dit boekje nog niet gelezen hebben. Ik zal hier onder een korte bespreking geven van dit boek, zodat Trouw-lezers kunnen bepalen of ze het de moeite waard vinden hun kostbare tijd te besteden aan het lezen van dit non-fictie boek.

Persoonlijk ben ik erg blij dat ik dit boek gelezen heb. Enkele jaren geleden las ik 'Aldus sprak Zarathustra', en dit boek heeft diepe indruk op mij gemaakt. Ik heb echter nooit andere interpretaties bekeken en moest het hebben van mijn eigen conclusies die ik op basis van de soms raadselachtige profetieën trok. Tanner laat in dit boek vooral zien wat voor een persoon Nietzsche was. Een persoon, die door twijfel verscheurd werd - en dit toont zich ook in zijn werk. Tanner merkt terecht op dat er veel (schijnbare) tegenstrijdigheden in het werk van Nietzsche zitten, die onder andere de moeite tonen die Nietzsche met zijn eigen gedachten had. Een voorbeeld hiervan is het verzet van Zarathustra tegen systematische benaderingen van 'de Waarheid', maar het blijft onduidelijk hoe hij zijn eigen 'waarheden' wil laten gelden zonder systeem dat men kan hanteren. Tanner schroomt niet om deze 'zwakheden' in het werk van Nietzsche aan het licht te brengen, en te verklaren en ook te plaatsen. Dit maakt dat we hem als gids door het gedachtegoed van Nietzsche durven te vertrouwen.

Dit is een postief aspect aan het boek. Micheal Tanner kent zijn feiten duidelijk en heeft ook diep inzicht in wat Nietzsche dreef. Dat is tegelijkertijd ook het probleem van het boek. Iemand die tot over zijn schouders in de materie gedoken zit, vergeet soms dat wij als lezer mogelijk nog niets van Nietzsche gelezen hebben. Hiermee wordt het doel van het boek onduidelijk. Het is te algemeen voor mede-Nietzsche kenners, maar meteen al te diep voor niet-Nietzsche-kenners. Er is geen inleiding die kort aangeeft wat de belangrijkste gedachtes van Nietzsche waren, het boek begint meteen met een grondige behandeling van zijn werk over tragedies. Hiermee voelt het boek soms als een 'Nietzsche-catalogus' die al zijn werken afgaat en rap vertelt welk idee we ongeveer waar kunnen vinden, zonder dit idee op zichzelf goed uit te leggen. Alleen bij Zarathustra doet Tanner dit wel. Echter heb ik ook ambigue gevoelens over dit gedeelte. Hoewel hij grondig stil staat bij het belang van het werk, ontkent hij dit belang tegelijkertijd. Het is alsof hij wil aangeven dat hij Nietzsche beter kent en waardeert dan de filosofische amateurs die alleen zijn bekendste werk hebben gelezen, en zich daarom hiertegen afzet - zonder erg duidelijk argumenten, naar mijn smaak. Het doet me denken aan de venijnige opmerkingen die soms tijdens college's Psychologie gemaakt worden jegens Freud. Juist omdat hij zo verbonden lijkt met psychologie, wil men aangeven dat de psychologie 'heus wel meer is dan alleen een sofa' en zich daarom extra hard tegen dat beeld afzet. Dit vind ik kinderachtig en niet passend in een boek zoals dit.

Een laatst negatief punt aan de schrijfstijl van Tanner vind ik zijn vaak compleet willekeurige, onnodige en persoonlijke uitspraken over andere filosofen. Het boek is niet geheel objectief, in die zin dat Tanner aangeeft wanneer hij zijn eigen mening verkondigt over sommige ideeën van Nietzsche. Echter, ik neem het hem met name kwalijk dat hij tussen neus lippen door 'Kritiek der Praktische Rede' van Immanuel Kant 'de grootste teleurstelling in de geschiedenis van de filosofie' noemt. En vervolgens gewoon weer doorgaat met zijn betoog over iets heel anders. Waarom vindt hij dit? Waarom vermeldt hij dit? Wat doet dit er toe? Het is een compleet overbodige en onwichtige uitspraak. Een dermate belangrijk werk voor de filosofie verwerpen zonder argumenten en in één zin, dat is nogal een provocatie.

Samenvattend, het boek heeft mij weer erg aan het denken gezet over Nietzsche's filosofie. Het geeft hier en daar wat diepe inzichten in de persoon die Nietzsche was en hoe dit zijn schrijven beïnvloedde. Voor de rest gaat het boek te snel om wezenlijk begrip te generen in de ideeën die Nietzsche had. Het slaat sommige basiskennis over Nietzsche over, en blijft soms juist te veel op de oppervlakte drijven. Het is een boek dat aanzet om verder te lezen, maar niet een boek dat op zichzelf genoeg informatie biedt om de honger van de geest te stillen.

[Basma Ismael · Rating 4 out of 5]

كتاب جيد فى مجمله على الرغم من أنه يحمل إسماً مخادعاً "مقدمة قصيرة عن نيتشه" فالكتاب يحمل بين طياته قراءة فى أهم أعمال نيتشه ونقد لبعض آراؤه الفلسفية وهذا لا يصلح بالطبع لمن يقرأ عن نيتشه لأول مرة.... لذا ينبغى على المنتوى قراءة هذا الكتاب مراجعة السيرة الذاتية لنيتشه ومطالعة بعض ما كتب عنه وأهم آراؤه الفلسفية بالإضافة إلى قراءة بعض أعماله الهامة ثم قراءة هذه "المقدمة القصيرة" عنه. فيما عدا تلك الملاحظة فالكتاب جيد فعلاً.

ملحوظة:
لمن يرغب فى التعرف على الفيلسوف نيتشه ومعرفة أهم آراؤه وفلسفاته، بل والمعارك الفكرية التى خاضها حياً وميتاً ... وكذلك علاقة فلسفته بحياته الخاصة ومدى تأثره بالظروف التاريخية والسياسية المحيطة به ... أنصح بقراءة الكتاب المبسط والمصور "أقدم لك نيتشه" تأليف لورانس جان وترجمة د. إمام عبدالفتاح إمام، الصادرة ترجمته عن المجلس الأعلى للثقافة فى 2002..... رابط الكتاب https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...#

كذلك الفصل الخاص بالفيلسوف نيتشه فى كتاب جنون الفلاسفة لـ نايجل رودريجز و نيل ثومبسون ترجمة متيم الضايع (الصفحات من 87 إلى 126) ... رابط الكتاب https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2...

بالإضافة للمقال الوارد بالويكيبيديا (الإنجليزية) فقد كتب بشكل إحترافى ويحتوى على العديد من الروابط الهامة فى هذا الموضوع https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedri...

[Lucas · Rating 1 out of 5]

Nietzsche: A Very Short Introduction fails not only in introducing Nietzsche but also in making his thought look minimally attractive or interesting, it actually reduced my desire of reading Nietzsche, which is not a good sign.
The author is unable of either present Nietzsche's idea or life, and we're left with what Tanner thinks Nietzsche was thinking while writing certain book. The final result is a books that looks more like a Nietzsche commentators gossip magazine.
It is really sad to discover that not all Introductions series share the same rigorous requirement for quality.

[kate]

yup 👍

[Paulhofma · Rating 3 out of 5]

Read the Dutch translation.

I thought this was an OK (re)introduction to Nietzsches work, though Tanner certainly isn't afraid to beat around the bush. About 120 pages of actual reading, but I found myself having to constantly go back and re-read sentences and sections, or even go back a page or so to check things, so really felt more like 300 pages.

Tanner guides us chronologically through Nietzsche's body of work in this very compact work - however, despite the book's short length I didn't exactly feel as if the book uses the room it has to the fullest. Tanner tends to first expand at length talking 'around' the point of a given book, to summarize its key points in 2 lines, and then proceed to the next book shortly after. However, because the reader in question (me) has in fact not read the source material, this tended to be mostly confusing, mostly because it to me usually felt that while the conclusions of the chapters were logical, they certainly weren't intuitive. This resulted, as mentioned, to me having to constantly flip back to previous sections because I felt in danger of losing 'the plot' all the time. I think the book would've perhaps benefited from reversing the structure, introducing the final point first, or otherwise a bit more restructuring. In the end, however, I do feel like a got a bit of a feeling for Nietzsche's philosophy, but it didn't feel like I got much more out of it than a refresher of my high school classes on the same.

[Tony · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a leftover from my post-Demian Jung/Nietzsche rabbit hole. I have been picking my way through this slowly but surely. Nietzsche, it turns out, is difficult. He is paradoxical and contradictory. He writes like an angel, but often fails to tidy up his thinking. He is also misunderstood and misused. Thanks in part to his sister who basically helped turn his thought into something the Nazis would be comfortable appropriating - if they understood it at all.

Tanner's introduction takes an interesting journey. Instead of talking about topics that Nietzsche is best associated with he takes us through each of Nietzsche key works in turn. Thus exposing us to the full complexity of his writing and thinking. I'm still not convinced, if I am honest, that I got my head around all of it. I'm not even sure I'm meant to. What I do think is that Tanner presents a good scaffold for you to approach Nietzsche's writings directly, which is the best perhaps one can hope for. I don't think one can say, 'I've read this, now I understand Nietzsche so what's the point in actually reading what he wrote', which is btw one of the things that series like A Very Short Introduction are used for. The best ones make you want to read the writer's work directly, which Tanner does.

Tanner gives you some tools to guide you on your way, but the final journey is yours and only yours to take. It also helped shake off my doubts about Nietzsche as a proto-Nazi, which is easily done if you've not read him and the fact that he's a favourite of the bro literati also goes against him. Again, I suspect most of those YouTubers who claim to love his work have either never read it or have read books like this.

Will I read Nietzsche? Yes. Will it be difficult? Yes. Will this book help? Yes.

What more can A Very Short Introduction do?

[Tomislav · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is probably not a suitable introduction to Nietzsche’s philosophy for beginners. It is unsystematic, uneven, filled with personal interpretations, and often jumps directly to discussions and criticisms without proper initial explanations. However, it is a decent, interesting essay for readers already familiar with Nietzsche’s work. Structured as an intellectual biography, the book presents Nietzsche primarily as a philosopher concerned with the pervasiveness of suffering in human life. Tanner spends a lot of time discussing specific topics such as aesthetics, ethics, and epistemology, providing some interesting insights, while almost completely ignoring others, such as politics or naturalism. Although he avoids some controversial topics, he does not attempt to distort Nietzsche’s views to make them more palatable, but mostly seems to focus on his own areas of interest. The book is very short, only a hundred pages, so many parts had to be omitted, but the rest is presented fairly. Tanner is occasionally a bit nitpicky with his criticisms, but he also makes some really good points. Overall, it is a quick, easy read, worth checking out if you are already acquainted with Nietzsche.

[Bojan Tunguz · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ever since I came across his work in college, Nietzsche has been one of my favorite philosophers. His raw and highly literally style can be very inspiring, and his writing has a potential to entice deep thoughts and provoke strong emotional reactions, a very unusual combination.

This very short introduction brings the reader close to Nietzsche - the man and his work. The book is structured around Nietzche's major works, which the author analyzes with a distinct sense of familiarity. In fact, if there is one thing that I find mildly annoying about this book, it's that the author at times may seem a tad too familiaristic in his approach - referring to Nietzsche's works by their titles' abbreviations, taking liberties in criticizing them, etc. Nonetheless, this is a very interesting book, and would be a great starting point in exploration of Nietzsche's ideas. It is also a good refresher for those of us who have not read Nietzsche's works in years. If you are in either of those two camps, would still urge you to (re-)read one of Nietzsche's books, preferable one of the ones from his more "mature" phase - 'Genealogy of Morals', 'Beyond Good and Evil', etc.

[Ashley]

Oxford Very Short Introductions are very good, and Nietzsche: A Very Short Introduction is the best of the few I've read (so far).

Michael Tanner, a lecturer on philosophy at Cambridge, a fellow of Corpus Christi, a Wagnerian obsessive, &c. &c. has struck the optimum balance of biographical detail/textual analysis, while peppering the scale with, of all things, funny stuff. In contrast to, say, the authors of Neoliberalism: A Very Short Introduction, who are every bit as humorless as one would expect experts on Neoliberalism to be, Michael Tanner explicates Nietzsche's manifold prescriptions and diagnoses with wit, charm, and a refreshing elan.

And so, to shortly introduce this Short Introduction, this book is a credit to its publisher and does justice by its subject.

[Julian · Rating 1 out of 5]

Nietzsche: A Very Short Waste of your Time. Indeed, these 104 pages don't waste too much of your time, and money, but in any case, a very short waste of time is still a waste of time, that could be used productively. The Book shouldn't really be called an Introduction, it feels more like a comment, which summarises certain parts of the Philosophers main works, but doesn't really leave you with much insight into the authors life or his beliefs.
Thus, it ironically feels like the book requires you to already know the author, because it discusses some random quotes and topics of Nietzsches works.
It would be cheaper, and more insightful, to just go on Youtube or Wikipedia to learn something about Nietzsche, before tackling his main works.

[Afifa Afreen · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5*

If the aim of this book was not to present an overall, lucid gist of Nietzsche's works, but rather write such a clunky summary which compels you to read the actual works of Nietzsche in first place, then viola! Thou hast achieved thine goal.

[Alana · Rating 3 out of 5]

this michael tanner guy big talking like all the many many multifarious readings of nietzsche (except his??) are wrong because if nietzsche were somehow alive today he would hate them. my brosephilus, nietzsche was the most affirming hater! of course he would hate on it all, that’s why we love him and say shit about him anyway. like, ever heard of death of the author??? this one literally died of syphilis ages ago.